You are clean. What SHOULD you say in interviews?

[More Strides than Rides]

Pretty much every post assumes that our clean rider is a real expert on doping, with the inside knowledge on who is doping and some even demand knowledge on riders who retired before most current riders were born?

Is this entirely reasonable? For example the young French guys that many think appear to be the most credible could have been completly sheltered?

More realistic that riders only real care about dopers who beat them (not a problem for our clean GT winner).

And why on earth would someone who didn't grow up in the EPO era now look back at the names of riders or the results? It's just depressing... so, therefore, how would you know who had been busted for doping outside of the really big names?

Really asking our clean rider to put in a lot of work to try to convince the most sceptical people... who I don't think actually want cycling to be clean.

It's not likely that a current professional would have had no interest in the sporting heroes of the past while they were young. Further, being part of a team with a real anti-doping culture would have to be active and hugely involved. Ignorance would not be a valid excuse.

 

[ebandit]

We have the Secret Pro.

He's semi-identifiable by the information he gives out........and he may also be a hoax

.......but how difficult would it be for a genuinely clean rider to voice his disgruntlement without needing to identify himself?

People give the Secret Pro page space so why not this hypothetical p1ssed off clean rider?

Mark L

 

[The Hitch]

Pretty much every post assumes that our clean rider is a real expert on doping, with the inside knowledge on who is doping and some even demand knowledge on riders who retired before most current riders were born?

If they dont know anything about doping, then how do they know the sport is now clean?

If the riders in question are totally in the dark about doping as you claim, then they are still guilty of lying since they are saying stuff they actually have no idea about, and passing it off as facts.

Didn't think that one through, did you?

 

[ebandit]

If they dont know anything about doping, then how do they know the sport is now clean?


Didn't think that one through, dis you?

I don't think the premise of Davey's post is that the clean rider is trying to convince that cycling is clean......rather that he/she is clean

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

We have the Secret Pro.

He's semi-identifiable by the information he gives out........and he may also be a hoax

.......but how difficult would it be for a genuinely clean rider to voice his disgruntlement without needing to identify himself?

People give the Secret Pro page space so why not this hypothetical p1ssed off clean rider?

Mark L

Perhaps hypothetical ****ed clean rider doesn't exist?

or perhaps he would be too controversial and thus no one will give him any publicity.

or he is afraid of getting identified.

 

[ebandit]

Perhaps hypothetical ****ed clean rider doesn't exist?

or perhaps he would be too controversial and thus no one will give him any publicity.

or he is afraid of getting identified.

According to Digger such clean ****ed off people do exist......are you saying Digger is lying?

I'm sure Saint Kimmage could guarantee anonymity, yes?

Too controversial??? The media adores scandal

I'm sure Saint Kimmage would give him page space....if even on his Twitter feed, yes?

Mark L

 

[The Hitch]

I don't think the premise of Davey's post is that the clean rider is trying to convince that cycling is clean......rather that he/she is clean

Mark L

He said that it's wrong to assume clean riders know anything about doping.

I pointed out that if they don't know anything about doping then they have no business saying they know the sport is now clean.

It's really simple.

 

[The Hitch]

According to Digger such clean ****ed off people do exist......are you saying Digger is lying?

I'm sure Saint Kimmage could guarantee anonymity, yes?

Too controversial??? The media adores scandal

I'm sure Saint Kimmage would give him page space....if even on his Twitter feed, yes?

Mark L

They adore scandal so much that for over a decade they gave all the evidence and witnesses against lance almost 0 coverage?

 

[mrhender]

We have the Secret Pro.

He's semi-identifiable by the information he gives out........and he may also be a hoax

.......but how difficult would it be for a genuinely clean rider to voice his disgruntlement without needing to identify himself?

People give the Secret Pro page space so why not this hypothetical p1ssed off clean rider?

Mark L

The Secret Pro has not really revealed anything of significance towards current doping issues has he?
(maybe the Menchov reference, but what does that matter in the grand scheme of things)

And yet, as you say his identity may already be revealed..?

There is a big difference between vague statements blurred by the wish of anonymity,
and the calling out of close colleagues that you might only know details to if you know them well..
Even so, the implications could be beyond this as you may have to prove your statements in court...

 

[ebandit]

He said that it's wrong to assume clean riders know anything about doping.

I pointed out that if they don't know anything about doping then they have no business saying they know the sport is now clean.

It's really simple.

You are absolutely correct....but as I said I don't think that was the premise of Davey's post......unless I missed something....I can't see anything to suggest otherwise....can you?

Mark L

 

[ebandit]

They adore scandal so much that for over a decade they gave all the evidence and witnesses against lance almost 0 coverage?

You do know Walsh wrote a book in 2003 don't you? Yes?.....And you do know that L'Equipe printed much accusation against Armstrong? Yes?

But besides there were fewer witnesses willing to speak in that era.......Digger tells us that disgruntled pros have spoken to him about Froome.....Bobbins tells us that people who work for Sky have told him about Sky's doping......

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Kimmage wouldn't eat his own eyeballs to hear this??????

Bizarre

Mark L

 

[D-Queued]

...

Is this entirely reasonable? For example the young French guys that many think appear to be the most credible could have been completly sheltered?

...

You don't need to be an expert on doping to call out the most blatant dopers in the peloton.

If you're a french guy, riding up a mountain in the tour and you see Dawg put in a mutant attack to finish 3 minutes ahead of you, wouldn't you be a bit ****ed? I know I would. I worked my *** off every day, and here is this guy who could barely keep up with the gruppetto destroying everyone.

If there really is a new generation that is cleans, why are they not talking?

Just a hunch, but I think the reference to sheltered, naive and isolated French guys may have had a bit of tongue-in-cheek to it.

If not, I was laughing pretty hard at an unintended joke.

Dave.

 

[the sceptic]

According to Digger such clean ****ed off people do exist......are you saying Digger is lying?

I'm sure Saint Kimmage could guarantee anonymity, yes?

Too controversial??? The media adores scandal

I'm sure Saint Kimmage would give him page space....if even on his Twitter feed, yes?

Mark L

Watch the blood pressure Mark. I was just speculating as to why there is no secret ****ed off clean pro.

No need to get all worked up.

 

[ebandit]

If you are going to reply to my post.......then reply to my post rather than making personal remarks. Thanks.

Mark L

 

[The Hitch]

You do know Walsh wrote a book in 2003 don't you? Yes?.....And you do know that L'Equipe printed much accusation against Armstrong? Yes?

But besides there were fewer witnesses willing to speak in that era.......Digger tells us that disgruntled pros have spoken to him about Froome.....Bobbins tells us that people who work for Sky have told him about Sky's doping......

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Kimmage wouldn't eat his own eyeballs to hear this??????

Bizarre

Mark L

hats all you got? 1 small time guy wrote a book and 1 non English language paper had an article?

To prove that the media will give a voice to those who have evidence?

 

[ebandit]

Maybe you missed Oprah.

But enough about the past....give Kimmage a chance....would Bobbins and Digger be willing to act as go-betweens for their 'contacts'??......

I'm sure Kimmage would be delighted....don't you?.....and we all want cheats caught.

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

If you are going to reply to my post.......then reply to my post rather than making personal remarks. Thanks.

Mark L

Just some friendly advice Mark. You seem angry.

 

[Granville57]

Pretty much every post assumes that our clean rider is a real expert on doping, with the inside knowledge on who is doping and some even demand knowledge on riders who retired before most current riders were born?

Not exactly.

The only knowledge that person would have to have about retired riders from a bygone era is that they doped. And they did. So there, now everyone knows, including our hypothetical clean rider.

If our Mr. Clean is being wrongly accused of doping, or is merely suspected of being a doper, then why would he not call out all those who preceded him for creating such a mess?

ALL OF THEM!

 

[The Hitch]

Maybe you missed Oprah.

Good lord. You absolutely are being intellectually dishonest and absolutely are trolling.

The discussion is quite clearly about the treatment the witnesses got before the reasoned decision

They adore scandal so much that for over a decade they gave all the evidence and witnesses against lance almost 0 coverage?

Of course Opera who came after the reasoned decision is not relevant to the timeline which I outlined and you challenged.

Its extremely clear what you are doing. You will extend the conversation forever, even when what you are posting starts to make no sense, or have no relevance to the discussion, even backtracking against the things you posted before, so long as the other poster doesn't get the satisfaction of you, even tacitly aknowledging you were wrong.

You have exhausted your ability to argue against my claim that the global media for years ignored the evidence against Lance, but since you can't stand to aknowledge you were wrong, you sink to offering up an example that is essentially contradictory to your original point, purely to extend the conversation.

Pathetic.

 

[ebandit]

You really are amazing.......you try and set terms of the discussion and get all p1ssy when people refuse to stick to your terms.....you are trying to restrict to talking about pre-RD....I am not......why?.....because its irrelevant.

You are keen to stick to the past because you don't want to discuss the present.....I notice you completely avoided the main point which was whether Kimmage would welcome inside information......so I guess you are saying he would reject it, yes?

Mark L

 

[thehook]

What should a rider say?

Well put yourself in there shoes. I will.

"I do not dope. I do not care who dopes. Test me 24/7! Bring it! or STFU!

 

[Archibald]

... but to be honest do not think they are in a position to effect any change, other than their standing in the peloton...

really? is this (below) not an option? Would seem like they're in a great position to effect change if they see anything

I'd not really expect the young riders making their way up through the ranks to be spouting off in public, but they'd better be calling up the ADA hot lines to report doping.

if PeTA can get constant video/photo footage of all these experimental labs that don't want the world knowing what they're doing, then how hard could it be for a guy to rat out a cheating team member or opponent??
With salaries and issue, how's some cash incentives for clean riders? You know, along the lines of; "if your info leads to a popping, you'll get $5k" or something...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

really? is this (below) not an option? Would seem like they're in a great position to effect change if they see anything

Yeah. I am specifically answering the question within the context of the OP's question, "What should you say in interviews?"

I'm also answering from a clean rider's POV, where they are meant to say something as evidence of their cleanliness, or to rant against the dopers / doping.

My assumption here, based on his explanatory post, is this is a media interview, not an ADA, WADA or CIRC / UCI interview. I could be wrong.

There are avenues for people, definitely, to do something. Although I do wonder why the rider who allegedly got in touch with Ashenden a couple of years ago was not encouraged to approach their national ADA...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think Phinney's "finishing bottle" rant was a good example of what a clean rider would / should / could say. And he does have standing, from his old man and his natural ability. But I do not think any more than a generalised complaint is going to work.


I think a rider could drop a hint - as Phinney did - and hope the media take time out from hounding continental teams about whether they are hiring some pariah rider or not to actually go and do some real journalism, and follow up on his hint.

 

[daveyt]

He said that it's wrong to assume clean riders know anything about doping.

Nope, didn't say that.