Who was the real winner of Flanders?

[Escarabajo]

Since the investigation ...

Do the Italians want to decimate their ranks by prosecuting riders for doping five years ago even as other countries are looking the other way as their riders dope today?

I was getting ready to say the same thing. With the Germans, French and Italian police getting tough on doping, Spain will win everything out there. Maybe the races one day will start discriminating against Spanish if they don't get serious with the fight on doping.

 

[buckwheat]

. In the era before the internet you guys would have been done for libel. Unfortunately, these days you can post what stupid arguments you like, make what claims you like and get away with it.

In order to prevail in a libel suit the plaintiff has to prove the accused knowingly made false statements. (In the U.S. anyway.) That's a very difficult hurdle to overcome.

. I assert that today very few riders dope compared to even five years ago. On that basis I will say that Armstrong joins a long list of riders whose performances are suspicious. I happen to think the man is a horrible creature, but nevertheless I am not prepared to sit here and accuse him, or others, without evidence..

Don't be such a fraidy cat. The doping cats been out of the bag for decades and despite the Omerta and the threats of litigation by "horrible creatures" such as Armstrong, the revelations continue.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I have never read such ridiculous twaddle. [Marco Pantani, Lance Armstrong, Erik Zabel, Byarne Riis, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich] <please insert own favorite doper> was never convicted of doping and there is sorry couldn't keep a straight face while typing anylonger. The "British Program" delivers the message everyday, and what is the message? Well I'm glad you asked. The message is "get results and make money, if you get caught doing the things we taught you then you are on your own". Oh wait I'm pretty sure that is everyone's message.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have never read such ridiculous twaddle. ......

I apologies 'Ianfra' but to address your post correctly I am going to have to prioritize your different points which means answering with more than one post.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I have never read such ridiculous twaddle. Robert Hayles was never convicted of doping and there was no evidence at all that he had doped. Miller confessed and is now a sincere anti-doper. I challenge you, all of you, to confront Brailsford. I challenge you to truly look at the British Cycling programme and what messages it is delivering on a daily basis to its riders. From my French base I have ridden with some French riders who are vehemently anti-dopage, so it is not just the brits. In the era before the internet you guys would have been done for libel. Unfortunately, these days you can post what stupid arguments you like, make what claims you like and get away with it.
I assert that today very few riders dope compared to even five years ago. On that basis I will say that Armstrong joins a long list of riders whose performances are suspicious. I happen to think the man is a horrible creature, but nevertheless I am not prepared to sit here and accuse him, or others, without evidence. Pantani admitted to his girlfriend of seven years that he doped - and she is an honest lady with no axe to grind who has kept away from the media spotlight.
60 riders caught in the past period? More fools they - but that figure includes riders like Zirbel about who I have previously commented.

ON this forum you have to be prepared to read some crazy conspiracy theories to link riders to doping.

On the evidential part on armstrong, well maybe you need to do some more reading!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.. I challenge you, all of you, to confront Brailsford. I challenge you to truly look at the British Cycling programme and what messages it is delivering on a daily basis to its riders.

Ok, I accept your challenge.

Get in touch with DB (or Fran )and tell him I will meet him anywhere in Europe and will do so at my own expense.

I do understand DB is a busy person. However I will expect at least 30 minutes on the record and that what is recorded is available for public disclosure (ie this forum)

If you think I am joking, I am not.

I am busy until the weekend after next, but if you PM me before this weekend I can (pretty much) make myself available from the 18th on.
(If I had a preference it would be Italy during the Giro but.......)

 

[auscyclefan94]

Ok, I accept your challenge.

Get in touch with DB (or Fran )and tell him I will meet him anywhere in Europe and will do so at my own expense.

I do understand DB is a busy person. However I will expect at least 30 minutes on the record and that what is recorded is available for public disclosure (ie this forum)

If you think I am joking, I am not.

I am busy until the weekend after next, but if you PM me before this weekend I can (pretty much) make myself available from the 18th on.
(If I had a preference it would be Italy during the Giro but.......)

If you don't mind me asking but what country do you live in?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have never read such ridiculous twaddle. Robert Hayles was never convicted of doping and there was no evidence at all that he had doped.

What 'evidence' is there against Pantani?

Rob Hayles 'case' is exactly like Pantani's, both had haematocrits above 50 per and were declared 'unfit to race' and had to sit out for 2 weeks. Of course it wasn't a doping violation, just a 'Health Measure".

Pantanis girlfriend of 7 years? Do you know Christina or did you read it in a book? Because if its the latter then I can get some interesting excerpts from a book about RH when he was with Cofidis.

Again - to remind you.....this is your standard.....

Agreed. But rephrase: few bigots would say so. But perhaps a court of law, with a proper jury, would disagree. I am not willing to condemn without evidence. No jury would convict without evidence. Case closed.
Actually, I wish a few of the 'accused' would come around here and sling a few lawsuits around.

.........Are Marco & Rob innocent, or are they guilty?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...In the era before the internet you guys would have been done for libel. Unfortunately, these days you can post what stupid arguments you like, make what claims you like and get away with it.
....

Actually, no you can not.

Here is a link to a case from last year.

A lady made disparaging remarks against a model on a forum and the model succeeded in forcing Google to reveal the identity of the poster so the model could sue her for 'defamation'.

But don't worry, Marco won't sue you for calling him a doper - he is dead.

 

[buckwheat]

Cool defense to libel re Pro cycling

Actually, no you can not.

Here is a link to a case from last year.

A lady made disparaging remarks against a model on a forum and the model succeeded in forcing Google to reveal the identity of the poster so the model could sue her for 'defamation'.

But don't worry, Marco won't sue you for calling him a doper - he is dead.

Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof", since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement.

Professional cycling is widely considered a "dirty" sport, no?

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense.

 

[buckwheat]

Actually, no you can not.

Here is a link to a case from last year.

A lady made disparaging remarks against a model on a forum and the model succeeded in forcing Google to reveal the identity of the poster so the model could sue her for 'defamation'.

Defamation per se
The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required.

But don't worry, Marco won't sue you for calling him a doper - he is dead.

Not so fast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

In some systems, however, notably the Philippines, truth alone is not a defense.[13] Some U.S. statutes preserve historical common law exceptions to the defense of truth to libel actions. These exceptions were for statements "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or "expose the natural defects of one who is alive".[14]

 

[Cerberus]

In order to prevail in a libel suit the plaintiff has to prove the accused knowingly made false statements. (In the U.S. anyway.) That's a very difficult hurdle to overcome.

I was pretty sure that you're overstating how difficult it is to win a libel suit in the US, so I looked it up on wikipedia. It looks like you're partially correct, but only partially.

"One defense is reporting or passing through information as a general information or warning of dangerous or emergent conditions, and intent to defame must be proven. Also, the truth of the allegedly defamatory statement will always negate the claim (whether because the plaintiff fails to meet his/her burden of proving falsity or because the defendant proves the statement to be true).
[edit] Defamation per se

All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was untrue. In the common law tradition, damages for such statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. Traditionally, these per se defamatory statements include:

* Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
* Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
* Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
* Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude) [5][6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Defamation_per_se

In either case you're certainly correct that libel law is less restrictive in US and in Europe, with the UK being particularly strict. We actually had a case in Denmark where a mass murderer sued a politician for calling him "ruthless" (the actual word was Danish and probably somewhat more offensive than that, but it's as close as I can translate). Thankfully the courts decided that the statement was not libellous due to being true.

 

[BroDeal]

In the U.S. public figures are treated differently when it comes to proving defamation. A public figure has to prove that the defamatory statement was made with actual malice, which legally means the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard to whether it was false or not.

 

[Martin318is]

The last discussion I heard on the topic of Liabel in the UK was that pretty much anyone can launch a Liabel suit if they have sufficient grounds for complaint and that it is the accused who has the burden of proving that their statements were true rather than the plaintif having to prove that the statements were false.

Interestingly this (if remotely correct) would mean that Bradley Wig_ns could come after any UK based forum posters and CyclingNews itself at any time for hosting the drug accusations that are made about him.

What that would mean for Cancellara, I am not so sure although someone in the UK press said that a foreign national also has a right in the UK court if any publication carrying liabel is available in the UK.

So any rider could legally challenge a site like CN at any time, even if it is hosted in Guatemala, as long as a UK resident is able to view the forum....

(this is all a bit tongue in cheek as I dont have time to cite legal references but it is an interesting topic if at all true...)

 

[Cerberus]

The last discussion I heard on the topic of Liabel in the UK was that pretty much anyone can launch a Liabel suit if they have sufficient grounds for complaint and that it is the accused who has the burden of proving that their statements were true rather than the plaintif having to prove that the statements were false.

Interestingly this (if remotely correct) would mean that Bradley Wig_ns could come after any UK based forum posters and CyclingNews itself at any time for hosting the drug accusations that are made about him.

What that would mean for Cancellara, I am not so sure although someone in the UK press said that a foreign national also has a right in the UK court if any publication carrying liabel is available in the UK.

So any rider could legally challenge a site like CN at any time, even if it is hosted in Guatemala, as long as a UK resident is able to view the forum....

(this is all a bit tongue in cheek as I dont have time to cite legal references but it is an interesting topic if at all true...)

Tongue in cheek or not you've read correctly. The UK invites libel tourism, Cancellara could in fact, despite not being a Uk citizen, lunch a libel suit made by a non-UK person on a non-UK website, simply because the information could be read in the UK. I'm not sure whether the UK courts would accept a challenge to random statements made on an internet forum, their idiocy might have some limits.

 

[ianfra]

Dr Masher Ratty: If you want to communicate with D Brailsford, I say good luck to you! I have no direct line to him. In fact as you can see I live in Thailand - a fair bit away from the UK. As a journalist I would be fascinated to say the least with the results of any interview/confrontation (call it what you will) and it is of course entirely up to you to organise that. Anyway, keep me posted as to what happens....................................................
I am not aware of anything that has been published about Hayles when he was a Cofidis rider. If anyone can send me the link to the book, I'd appreciate that. As far as I can see there is a lot of unsubstantiated cr#p on this forum where opinion is pedalled as fact. If I tried to do the same in my writing, I think I'd be sued quicker than you can say 'Bigots'. So I don't go in for unsubstantiated allegations many of which in this thread, I reiterate, are total and utter nonsense.

 

[bobbins]

Damn 'Bobbins' - you used a pretty broad brush when you wote the above - and as a member of this forum it also paints you.

Why do you follow the sport when you believe "it is not possible that anyone ever has been clean and won a bike race"?

I was being sarcastic. I've been involved n bike racing for long enough to know the score and it ives me the real ****s to see idiots on here doing down every rider who wins and accusing them of doping with no evidence whatsoever. Some riders dope, some don't. These days, most don't. The UK set up has shown that with meticulous preparation, medals can be won. IF they can transfer this successfully to the road then maybe the mindset that you need to take it to make it can be changed.

Some people here just won't accept that some top riders are clean and there is nothing that will change their minds.

 

[bobbins]

Dr Masher Ratty: If you want to communicate with D Brailsford, I say good luck to you! I have no direct line to him. In fact as you can see I live in Thailand - a fair bit away from the UK. As a journalist I would be fascinated to say the least with the results of any interview/confrontation (call it what you will) and it is of course entirely up to you to organise that. Anyway, keep me posted as to what happens....................................................
I am not aware of anything that has been published about Hayles when he was a Cofidis rider. If anyone can send me the link to the book, I'd appreciate that. As far as I can see there is a lot of unsubstantiated cr#p on this forum where opinion is pedalled as fact. If I tried to do the same in my writing, I think I'd be sued quicker than you can say 'Bigots'. So I don't go in for unsubstantiated allegations many of which in this thread, I reiterate, are total and utter nonsense.

Dave B has his DB9 and million pound a year deal so won't really give a **** what anyone on here says about his team(s).

 

[Digger]

I was being sarcastic. I've been involved n bike racing for long enough to know the score and it ives me the real ****s to see idiots on here doing down every rider who wins and accusing them of doping with no evidence whatsoever. Some riders dope, some don't. These days, most don't. The UK set up has shown that with meticulous preparation, medals can be won. IF they can transfer this successfully to the road then maybe the mindset that you need to take it to make it can be changed.

Some people here just won't accept that some top riders are clean and there is nothing that will change their minds.

First point in bold....are you serious?

Secondly, well there you go, 'meticulous prep' is all that is needed. Is that inclusive of weight loss?

 

[bobbins]

Meticulous prep involves everything but they do it clean. UK sport test the riders more times than you an shake a stick at and they are independent of BC so aren't likely to turn a blind eye. The weight loss on wiggins is a blindingly simple thing that has targeted dead weight that can be removed with no loss of power. Can't go into the details as it wouldn't be fair.

By getting in experts from other sports to look at cycling in a different way it has been possible to identify areas of gain that are legal but have't been tried before.

As far as the whole leap in finish position of wiggins, his result last year just shows that if you are allowed to target a tour and don't have to burn matches fetching bottles etc, it is possible to join the pointy end of the action.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Re. Rob Hayles:

Unless my dates are way off the mark he rode for Cofidis during the era of liberal consumption of drugs (both performance enhacing and recreational) detailed by Phillipe Gaumont in his confessional book.

 

[fatandfast]

ON this forum you have to be prepared to read some crazy conspiracy theories to link riders to doping.

On the evidential part on armstrong, well maybe you need to do some more reading!

+1 I got my panties all in a bunch over Cancellara being accused of doping after a classic win. These last pages are all about Dr.So and so and British cycling cleanliness.Did any Brit even place in Flanders? If you start something in the clinic make sure there is name or fact that has to do with the rider or the race. Wiggins,Gaumont,Ratty,Brailsford even sexually transmitted disease has worked it's way into a Flanders thread all it would seem to be unrelated

 

[Escarabajo]

Meticulous prep involves everything but they do it clean. UK sport test the riders more times than you an shake a stick at and they are independent of BC so aren't likely to turn a blind eye. The weight loss on wiggins is a blindingly simple thing that has targeted dead weight that can be removed with no loss of power. Can't go into the details as it wouldn't be fair.

By getting in experts from other sports to look at cycling in a different way it has been possible to identify areas of gain that are legal but have't been tried before.

As far as the whole leap in finish position of wiggins, his result last year just shows that if you are allowed to target a tour and don't have to burn matches fetching bottles etc, it is possible to join the pointy end of the action.

Your scientific basis is so convincing that now I believe in clean racing. Specially in the UK since they have perfected the art of testing for their own.

 

[ianfra]

It is nice to see Bobbins supporting my stance on this issue. I am mighty fed up with these know-it-alls accusing all and sundry of doping. I too have been involved in this sport for a long time - 49 years to be precise. I have been a cycling journalist back in the dark old days and have been a rider and observer for many years. At home here in Thailand I have a library of cycling books comprising of 500+ titles plus many magazines (every copy of cycling weekly since 1932) and so on. I can also count some ex pro riders as close friends as well as one current pro. It would be unfair to name names. These riders are as ****ed as I am at the ridiculous attitudes expressed here. Let me repeat. I personally believed that doping is becoming a scourge of the past - yes, some stupid people will still try to buck the system, but that number is falling and if you consider the HUGE number of tests undertaken, then 60 (a figure someone mentioned) shows that those who are still trying to cheat are getting caught. Certainly I get somewhat distressed to see that people of the integrity of Wiggins and Cavendish are tarred with the doping brush by people who do not know the first thing about it.

 

[BikeCentric]

It is nice to see Bobbins supporting my stance on this issue. I am mighty fed up with these know-it-alls accusing all and sundry of doping. I too have been involved in this sport for a long time - 49 years to be precise. I have been a cycling journalist back in the dark old days and have been a rider and observer for many years. At home here in Thailand I have a library of cycling books comprising of 500+ titles plus many magazines (every copy of cycling weekly since 1932) and so on. I can also count some ex pro riders as close friends as well as one current pro. It would be unfair to name names. These riders are as ****ed as I am at the ridiculous attitudes expressed here. Let me repeat. I personally believed that doping is becoming a scourge of the past - yes, some stupid people will still try to buck the system, but that number is falling and if you consider the HUGE number of tests undertaken, then 60 (a figure someone mentioned) shows that those who are still trying to cheat are getting caught. Certainly I get somewhat distressed to see that people of the integrity of Wiggins and Cavendish are tarred with the doping brush by people who do not know the first thing about it.

Where were you on your intrepid investigative journalism before Festina and then Puerto and then Freiburg? Sticking your head in the sand and railing against those who don't believe in clean cycling?

Guess what I believe in clean cycling too, just not at the pro level.