You are clean. What SHOULD you say in interviews?

[westerner]

Could say somethin' like this:

http://crankpunk.com/2014/11/21/will-routley-interview-we-are-all-part-of-this-sport-and-we-need-people-to-believe-in-it-again/

 

[ralphbert]

Ha! Trick question. Nobody interviews someone who places 50th

 

[frenchfry]

I would hire Bill Cosby as a denial coach. World class.

 

[jw1979]

I thought you were changing your screen name so as not to be confused with JV? And I couldn't help but notice that you removed your signature that clarified the fact that you are not JV.

Sorry for the off topic. It's not a personal attack, just an observation.

You don't see this at the bottom of my post? (I am NOT "JV1973".) I see it. If you don't see it that's because you are looking for it after you hit reply to my post, and signatures are not shown once you (or at least for me) hit reply to a post; only the text people wrote shows up.

I applied for a new screen name several months ago, at the time you are referring to and have not been given access to post on the forum with my new screen name. When I first joined, with this current name, it took several months before they said I could post in the forum as well. It's not an automatic thing right when you sign up, someone has to approve it and whoever is in charge of that is extremely slow.

 

[armchairclimber]

So, the long and the short of it is that there is nothing really that a clean rider could say that hasn't already been said by dopers. It's tough.

 

[Bluenote]

You don't see this at the bottom of my post? (I am NOT "JV1973".) I see it. If you don't see it that's because you are looking for it after you hit reply to my post, and signatures are not shown once you (or at least for me) hit reply to a post; only the text people wrote shows up.

I applied for a new screen name several months ago, at the time you are referring to and have not been given access to post on the forum with my new screen name. When I first joined, with this current name, it took several months before they said I could post in the forum as well. It's not an automatic thing right when you sign up, someone has to approve it and whoever is in charge of that is extremely slow.

Have you tried PMing Afrank? He's usually very helpful.

 

[Granville57]

You don't see this at the bottom of my post?

My sincere apologies. I'm an idiot at times, and this would be one of those times. I had completely forgotten the fact that I had recently turned off the "Show signatures" box in the user control panel. It was unfair of me to call you out on that.

Sorry to the OP, as well, for this diversion from the thread.


And yeah, what Bluenote said:

Have you tried PMing Afrank? He's usually very helpful.

 

[ralphbert]

The short answer is if there was something to say then dopers would say it too cause they are sneaky

 

[Granville57]

So, the long and the short of it is that there is nothing really that a clean rider could say that hasn't already been said by dopers. It's tough.

I'm not so sure, I agree with Hitch on this one.

An acknowledgment that doping is real and its possible to beat tests.

It seems that in order to be perceived as "clean" these guys feel the need to behave as if doping is some sort of imaginary evil that no longer afflicts their beloved sport. The Four Imbeciles (a phrase I love, btw ) are dismissed as being not much more than an inconvenient anomaly.

Doping is no longer a part of cycling. Except for when it is. But then those dirty cheaters are caught and are no longer a part of cycling. CLEANS.

So as Hitch says, start by fully acknowledging that doping still exists. Then call out the past dopers for the mess they've left you with. If I had won all three GTs, and had done so clean, I am sure that I would have plenty to say about those who had perverted the very sport that I so dearly loved (and I would mention more than just those four imbeciles).


Or, there's always the hugely effective Cadel Evan's approach when asked about doping.

I don't think I'm in a good position to comment on that. Sorry.

 

[Tonton]

So, the long and the short of it is that there is nothing really that a clean rider could say that hasn't already been said by dopers. It's tough.

Agree. So maybe there's something that the clean rider can DO before having something to SAY, i.e. releasing data, much like Pinot is doing now and asking that others do the same. And in the same line as cineteq's post, calling out the dopers and those who don't release data. Before. So when comes the time to say something, there's a history of openness.

Not to say that Pinot is clean for sure. I hope he is. But credit to him for making a step that I hope others will follow. As one Brit said, maybe not the end, not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps the end of the beginning.

We'll see what Pinot says if he wins the '15 TdF

I can feel the flak coming my way

 

[burning]

You call out riders you know who are NOT clean and relevant.

Fixed it for you. (Calling out Sayar means nothing to me.)

I'd like to see a geniune honest guy, I'm really tired of bullsh1t like "The sport has changed since 2006", just tell what you think not what you are required to say.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Not to say that Pinot is clean for sure. I hope he is. But credit to him for making a step that I hope others will follow. As one Brit said, maybe not the end, not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps the end of the beginning.

We'll see what Pinot says if he wins the '15 TdF

I can feel the flak coming my way

There would be no flak from reasonable participants because a Pinot grand tour podium would be much, much easier to discuss. You'd have historic data and some in-race estimates.

Per the OP, posting historical data is the best response to the "are you clean?" question.

A WT-wide release of athlete data would be a great way to bring some credibility back to the sport. But, that's just not going to happen. Nobody on the administration-side thinks like that.

 

[Cloxxki]

The short answer is if there was something to say then dopers would say it too cause they are sneaky

Correct. But dopers would not walk the walk. Clean athletes can be more open. Show high frequency testing even in the off-season.

And yes, acknowledging that you've seen doping and know it to be real and vast. But due to it getting harder to evade detection, the benefits are getting smaller, making it easier to overcome the difference for those not spending so much effort on the sneaky doping itself.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

This question shouldn't be construed as a judgement on my part on Nibali's innocence or otherwise. However, in the Nibali thread, he has been lampooned for coming out with the same guff that Armstrong came out with....it would be stupid to dope, why would I dope? etc.

So, imagine you are a GT winning rider who is clean (a stretch for some of you, I know, but go with it).... what exactly should you say when two of your team mates have been popped for EPO use, steroid abuse or whatever? What could be said that wouldn't be lampooned in the clinic?

So we're talking fiction...well, I'd go with something classic like "She isn't coming yet, Toto. Did she hurt you? She tried to, didn't she? Come on. We'll go tell Uncle Henry and Auntie Em."

 

[Archibald]

What, no mention of proudly showing off your Bike Pure bracelet and wearing your 'Dopers Suck' t-shirt at the interview??


Seriously, the only thing anyone said that seemed above the usual rhetoric was Cav's response to Riccio's return to the peloton, when he said he wanted to punch him for puting him and the rest of the grupetto through hell to reach ridiculous time limits thanks to his jef-fuelled MTF winning times...
Which I guess, comes back to the "honest opinion" option

 

[daveyt]

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.

 

[the sceptic]

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.

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?

 

[daveyt]

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?

So you'd go into an interview and say "he beat me, he must be doping"?

But anyway, this thread is specifically asking what a clean GT winner should say, so this guy hasn't experianced the above.

 

[simoni]

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?

You might be ****ed but the peleton don't much like talkers do they? Perfectly understandable that some prefer to keep their heads down. That's not omerta, its just the practicalities of trying to get on in the sport.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You might be ****ed but the peleton don't much like talkers do they? Perfectly understandable that some prefer to keep their heads down. That's not omerta, its just the practicalities of trying to get on in the sport.

Cookson would crack the sads if someone spoke up. Especially if they had not talked to the UCI / CIRC first.

More often than not, the non-doping rider is going to be miles away from being any sort of patron of the peloton. His words and actions are therefore going to be minimal in terms of impact on those around him.

I get what people are saying about the lack of speaking out, but to be honest do not think they are in a position to effect any change, other than their standing in the peloton.

As to what they could do - yeah full disclosure of BP data, and after the fact training data - even if it's 3 years later or something - would be far more valuable and believable than saying what the current doping question responders say.

And by data I mean all of it - not cherry picking Giro centered data for a Giro winner, or post-Vuelta miracle for a Vuelta podium finisher, etc.

 

[daveyt]

Cookson would crack the sads if someone spoke up. Especially if they had not talked to the UCI / CIRC first.

What is cracking the sads?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What is cracking the sads?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=crack+the+sads

 

[westerner]

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 completely 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.

What evidence is there that this is the end of the EPO era?

Each of us 'skeptical people' have our own opinions and backgrounds of how we got there and I can speak for myself only. I would truly love to see athletes in all sports have the opportunity to compete in a fully drug free sport environment no matter what the level. Fans, media and sponsors may not honestly care all that much, its not really affecting their day to day lives, but for the athletes and them alone, sport where everyone follows the rules is the best possible environment whether your competing for fun or big bucks.

For athletes speaking out about other suspect performances is very difficult - pretty much a lose lose situation. If you are not a big star you will get called out for sour grapes. Read the recent Matt Cooke interview, it still a hard environment for even the outspoken to speak. 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 they don't want doping in their sport they should avail themselves of some historical knowledge (not too hard in the internet era) and take care who and what they support. They are the stars and the names of the future and their actions and what they say does have an impact on the culture of their sport. In the case of the young US riders who supported Hincapie fondo recently their actions and words make doping and weak punishments just a bit more acceptable.

Its a crappy situation for all athletes in all sports since hmmmm the past 2 or 3 decades years at least? Great performances are more and more assumed to be the product of doping.

Just looking at cycle sport we have the Kohls, Chickens, Armstrongs who have shown and told us that drug testing has not been effective. Skepticism grows and the UCI/WADA/National ADA's have not been able counter sufficiently.

It's not fair, but for athletes who want the public, media, fans and skeptics to believe in them they need to back up their words with transparent actions. And there are plenty that they can take.

If top WT stars make between 1-4 million E/season why not invest the 25K (ie 2.5-.6% of your salary - which can be written off as a legit expense) needed to ensure they are subject to a robust testing protocol. Hardly a new idea, Armstrong was going to try this during his comeback, but abandoned it.http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=25847

So far everyone of cyclings stars want to take the cheap way. Lots of talk without much transparency or backup to help us skeptics who would love to believe in clean sport.

EG. If Froome would call UKAD up, plunk down the cash for extra personal testing, and publish a transparent testing history that would be a great move - and hopefully pressure others to follow. If I was a top star 25K and a web site with all the info, and there after referring all skeptics to view the data to answer all questions would be worth it just for the personal peace alone I'd expect... If one was truly racing clean

 

[GoodTimes]

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

Completely off topic, but I finally need to ask. Why do posters in the clinic use the word "cleans"? I see this repetitively, from multiple posters. Is there some sort of inside joke I'm missing, or is it a language thing (I know English is not the first language of a lot of people on this board)?. Is this an abbreviation for something?

As far as I can tell, cleans is a total misuse of the word. Cleans is a verb for 3rd person singular, IE "He cleans the bathroom every day", or "Look at that, Cookson cleans up cycling!".

In the case of this board, and the post I've quoted, the proper word is "clean", which is an adjective. "No way Froome is clean".

Even when pluarized, this adjective should remain as clean, not cleans. For example, "French riders are clean".

I'm not normally a grammar Nazi, but I just don't get it, and have to ask....

 

[Netserk]

Inside joke involving this guy: