You are clean. What SHOULD you say in interviews?

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 17, 2013
135
1
0
B_Ugli said:
I think that this all depends on what your definition of clean is.

The way I see it (and probably the way Pro Cycling categorize it) there are different levels of clean:

Clean 1 (Armstrong): I have never tested positive and passed all my tests. Therefore I am clean........sort of.

Clean 2 (Frank Schleck/Contador): What I tested positive for was a negligible amount/not of any performance enhancing benefit. Therefore I am clean..........sort of.

Clean 3 (Team Sky): We are doing everything according to the rules but if the public knew what "legal" methods we were using they would question the ethics. Therefore I am clean..........sort of.

Clean 4 (Public's View): No performance enhancement legal or otherwise to the human body. Diet largely normal with the exception of totally natural recovery products available at your local grocery store to the general public. Therefore I am genuinely CLEAN.

I very much doubt that most Pro-Cyclists fall into Category 4 above, certainly at the highest levels of the sport.

What they should be saying is exactly what I have described in Category 4 and to my mind the only rider who comes even close to saying this is David Moncoutie.
I guess my definition comes pretty close to cat 4. plus making all their training- and racedata available to the public via independent people as soon as they get off the bike every day.
Personally I think every rider ought to do that... if they were clean :)
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Arrowfarm said:
I guess my definition comes pretty close to cat 4. plus making all their training- and racedata available to the public via independent people as soon as they get off the bike every day.
Personally I think every rider ought to do that... if they were clean :)
But what about the riders who have been dosing since teenagers. It happens.
Their data will look suspicious if they stop doping.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
B_Ugli said:
I think that this all depends on what your definition of clean is.

The way I see it (and probably the way Pro Cycling categorize it) there are different levels of clean:

Clean 1 (Armstrong): I have never tested positive and passed all my tests. Therefore I am clean........sort of.

Clean 2 (Frank Schleck/Contador): What I tested positive for was a negligible amount/not of any performance enhancing benefit. Therefore I am clean..........sort of.

Clean 3 (Team Sky): We are doing everything according to the rules but if the public knew what "legal" methods we were using they would question the ethics. Therefore I am clean..........sort of.

Clean 4 (Public's View): No performance enhancement legal or otherwise to the human body. Diet largely normal with the exception of totally natural recovery products available at your local grocery store to the general public. Therefore I am genuinely CLEAN.

I very much doubt that most Pro-Cyclists fall into Category 4 above, certainly at the highest levels of the sport.

What they should be saying is exactly what I have described in Category 4 and to my mind the only rider who comes even close to saying this is David Moncoutie.
nonot Moncoutie.

how many grimpeur titles can you win in the Tour and at Vuelta and still pass smelling like roses. my @rse he was clean. Just has a great reputation.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
lllludo said:
ah ok if Raceradio say so then it must be true ....

on the other hand Gaumont said (and wrote) that in his entire Cofidis career there are only 2 guys who never took, spoke, had suspicious behaviours regarding drugs: Tombak and Moncoutie. He said he was not 100% sure about Tombak but he was with Moncoutie.
Gaumont is just one guys among many who said the same thing about Moncoutie but Gaumont was exteremely aware of doping and honest in his confession because he left cycling after 2004.
But may be Moncoutie started doping after 2004... may be we will find his name in the Ferrari files... may be he had a special doping protocol he activated every year for Mont Faron and the Vuelta :)
Tombak =/= clean

definitely not clean. But i do say, in his favour, he was a better sprinter than OGrady and any year Sam I Am Dumoulin was on Cofidis, and they should have handed Tombak the reigns as the lead sprinter. But, I think like alot of riders that dont come from the traditional Euro cycling powers in Western Europe, he was marginalised. The only way you dont get marginalised is if you get the positive discrimination if you are from UK, Australia or America. Even backwaters like New Zealand and Canada struggle and get the discrimination, but not as bad as the central Europe and Eastern Europe riders.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
ray j willings said:
But what about the riders who have been dosing since teenagers. It happens.
Their data will look suspicious if they stop doping.
yeah, good point
 
Sep 17, 2013
135
1
0
ray j willings said:
But what about the riders who have been dosing since teenagers. It happens.
Their data will look suspicious if they stop doping.
I didn't say it would stop people from doping. I'ts what a clean rider ought to do, imo.
my guess is that a doped rider wouldn't go to this level of transparency and maybe that's why we haven't seen a rider/team do it. :)
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Arrowfarm said:
I didn't say it would stop people from doping. I'ts what a clean rider ought to do, imo.
my guess is that a doped rider wouldn't go to this level of transparency and maybe that's why we haven't seen a rider/team do it. :)
logical fallacy. clean riders got out of dodge before the pros
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Arrowfarm said:
I didn't say it would stop people from doping. I'ts what a clean rider ought to do, imo.
my guess is that a doped rider wouldn't go to this level of transparency and maybe that's why we haven't seen a rider/team do it. :)
Its a compelling argument putting your data out for all to see and I agree - if you are a clean rider there is nothing to hide in doing so. A big part of this should be journo's and public saying "this is our definition of a clean rider, are you clean or not". Forget MPCC/UCI/WADA, what do the fans expect a clean rider to be? Perhaps this is the real question David Walsh should be posing to Dave Brailsford?

The thing that troubles me, like the other poster is establishing a Pro Cyclists "normal" or as they call it "baseline" values. We are told that their are "markers" which indicate manipulation but these are open to interpretation amongst the medical community (although pretty clear to guys like Ashenden).

You then get to the subject of normal. How do you establish what is normal for an Elite athlete when surely much of available historical data you have for elite cyclists is tarnished by decades of PEDs?

If you take Ricardo Ricco as an example, he wouldn't have been doping all of a sudden when netted a Pro-Tour contract. The chances are he would have been doping himself up through the ranks. So how do you establish his "normal" values?
 
Mar 8, 2010
244
0
0
blackcat said:
nonot Moncoutie.
how many grimpeur titles can you win in the Tour and at Vuelta and still pass smelling like roses. my @rse he was clean. Just has a great reputation.
About the title of this thread "You are clean. What SHOULD you say in interviews?" you gave the answer: speak like Moncoutie. Even those who suspect him of doping acknowledge he has a good reputation.

May be RaceRadio is right and Moncoutie doped throughout his career (but I'd trust the late Gaumont over RR because Gaumont is not involved in the cycling business) but he might also circulate rumors or gossips. Moncoutie prepared by Mabuse ? or by Ferrari ?
One way to circumvent gossips would be to publish every numbers on the web. Power outputs of all races, and every training rides, even blood data...
But some riders are interested + they don't have time for that so it must the team's duty to publish all these data. In fact it should be mandatory for WT teams to offer this service.
IMO I am not sure it will terminate rumors or gossips but it can not harm
 
Sep 17, 2013
135
1
0
B_Ugli said:
Its a compelling argument putting your data out for all to see and I agree - if you are a clean rider there is nothing to hide in doing so. A big part of this should be journo's and public saying "this is our definition of a clean rider, are you clean or not". Forget MPCC/UCI/WADA, what do the fans expect a clean rider to be? Perhaps this is the real question David Walsh should be posing to Dave Brailsford?

The thing that troubles me, like the other poster is establishing a Pro Cyclists "normal" or as they call it "baseline" values. We are told that their are "markers" which indicate manipulation but these are open to interpretation amongst the medical community (although pretty clear to guys like Ashenden).

You then get to the subject of normal. How do you establish what is normal for an Elite athlete when surely much of available historical data you have for elite cyclists is tarnished by decades of PEDs?

If you take Ricardo Ricco as an example, he wouldn't have been doping all of a sudden when netted a Pro-Tour contract. The chances are he would have been doping himself up through the ranks. So how do you establish his "normal" values?
I totally agree that it isn't easy to rid cycling of doping and that my 2 cents about what a (hypothetical) clean rider ought to do and say in terms of transparency, is not the holy grail of antidoping.
It would, however be a good place to start. It can hardly get any worse than it is today, where we get next to no info from anyone.
 
Mar 11, 2009
1,005
0
0
blackcat said:
nonot Moncoutie.

how many grimpeur titles can you win in the Tour and at Vuelta and still pass smelling like roses. my @rse he was clean. Just has a great reputation.
Superficially I would agree. But at least one if not all three were won via drop out of contention and go on a two long breakaway stages in the mountains. When he did hang with the GC group from what I saw (which it being winter since like October in the Northeast US was recently on old DVD) he was usually in the first or second cluster of guys finishing after the first three to five came in. Maybe I have solidified your point maybe not, but the "he had success = he doped" just seems too simplistic, even though it is probably true.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Nick C. said:
Superficially I would agree. But at least one if not all three were won via drop out of contention and go on a two long breakaway stages in the mountains. When he did hang with the GC group from what I saw (which it being winter since like October in the Northeast US was recently on old DVD) he was usually in the first or second cluster of guys finishing after the first three to five came in. Maybe I have solidified your point maybe not, but the "he had success = he doped" just seems too simplistic, even though it is probably true.
How close to the "grocery store man" standard for clean cycling would Moncoutie be?

I don't know what to call this standard - I cant say I have invented it - but it is a pretty good standard for clean cycling.:cool:
 
Jun 5, 2014
883
0
0
Peter kennaugh @Petekennaugh · 3 Std. Vor 3 Stunden

What a joke this sport can be! The clean riders of the peleton need to get together and push these cheats out enough is enough.
0 Antworten 627 Retweets 691 Favoriten
Peter kennaugh @Petekennaugh · 3 Std. Vor 3 Stunden

Riders who were only "trained" by Ferrari I mean come are you really that stupid ? And do you think everyone else is to?

Don't know if posted already. And I don't know where to put that...Sky thread or other threads...I think you can put it into 3-4 threads
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
hrotha said:
When asked to elaborate he didn't sound very convincing though.
You can PM him, but maybe he cannot elaborate as it will give away a source he is not willing to betray.

Moncoutie had a lot of top results in a very dark era. Was he supremely talented? So hard to know.
 
Arrowfarm said:
... plus making all their training- and racedata available to the public via independent people as soon as they get off the bike every day.
Personally I think every rider ought to do that... if they were clean :)
considering that those pro on Strava can't/won't do that, what chance do you think there is of them puting everything up online?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Nick C. said:
Superficially I would agree. But at least one if not all three were won via drop out of contention and go on a two long breakaway stages in the mountains. When he did hang with the GC group from what I saw (which it being winter since like October in the Northeast US was recently on old DVD) he was usually in the first or second cluster of guys finishing after the first three to five came in. Maybe I have solidified your point maybe not, but the "he had success = he doped" just seems too simplistic, even though it is probably true.
see a few mtn top tts in the years 2001/2002/2003/2004.

If he really was clean, he was a phenom of the like of Lemond and Merckx and Ricco.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Arrowfarm said:
Where?
We haven't seen any riders do it.
exactly. cos they got out of dodge and never entered the pros. bassons is the exception that proves the rule.
 
Sep 17, 2013
135
1
0
Archibald said:
considering that those pro on Strava can't/won't do that, what chance do you think there is of them puting everything up online?
Zero. Considering that the OP is kinda hypothetical, so is my suggestion :)
 
Jul 1, 2013
139
0
0
Dr. Juice said:
Peter kennaugh @Petekennaugh · 3 Std. Vor 3 Stunden

What a joke this sport can be! The clean riders of the peleton need to get together and push these cheats out enough is enough.
0 Antworten 627 Retweets 691 Favoriten
Peter kennaugh @Petekennaugh · 3 Std. Vor 3 Stunden

Riders who were only "trained" by Ferrari I mean come are you really that stupid ? And do you think everyone else is to?

Don't know if posted already. And I don't know where to put that...Sky thread or other threads...I think you can put it into 3-4 threads
That's precisely what I'd want them to say personally. Head above the parapet, no excuses made, calling out the dopers and pushing to put an end to this once and for all. The reputation of clean riders is besmirched, and they're being robbed of what potentially is rightfully there's. The deafening silence of so many is soul destroying
 
Mar 11, 2009
1,005
0
0
blackcat said:
see a few mtn top tts in the years 2001/2002/2003/2004.

If he really was clean, he was a phenom of the like of Lemond and Merckx and Ricco.
Hahaha I can't get the urge to watch those anymore. But didn't he finish like 13th at best before changing tack and going for breakaways? Anyway who knows it seems as if the more things change the more they stay the same.
 
Arrowfarm said:
I guess my definition comes pretty close to cat 4. plus making all their training- and racedata available to the public via independent people as soon as they get off the bike every day.
Personally I think every rider ought to do that... if they were clean :)
I compete at my own relatively lowly level and I don't want my rivals knowing what I'm doing in training. Even more so for professionals.

Expecting this sort of discolosure is just not realistic.

Even if it was it wouldn't be long before we ended up with "it isn't possible to train like that without doping".
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Since the peloton is clean and doping is no longer cool, I am looking forward to see everyone get mad at the UCI for this Astana buisness.
 
Sep 17, 2013
135
1
0
simoni said:
Expecting this sort of discolosure is just not realistic.
just as realistic as a clean GT winner...

anyway, I think it should be mandatory, at least at pro level.
There is no edge to be gained if everybody is at the peak of their performance and everybody has to be open about how they got there. none.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY