Zabel gets a UCI job? What?

musette

What is going on?

How can self confessed doper Zabel be appointed to the UCI pro-Tour Council? How does that further the cause of anti-doping? How does that tally with "no place for cheats in our sport" Mr McQuaid?

http://muse-ette.blogspot.com

Nova_era

Ignoring McQuaid should be made the Golden Rule of cycling.

Chips Lovell

He used EPO for only about two weeks in 1996, came clean about it and seems genuinely remorseful for it. He's hardly the worst offender in a sport that's riddled with people who used it routinely throughout their careers and lied through their teeth about it.

BryanL

He never tested positive but came out against drugs admitting his own involvement, he gained nothing by doing that. I found that impressive.
Compared to the people who have been caught and come out with the most bizare lies.
I have a lot of time for Zabel
Bryan

Slideshowbob

McQuaid deserves some credit for cleaning up the Pro Tour / Grand Tour Organisers debacle.

Zabel might have taken EPO or other stuff in other years just never got found out or admitted to it - who knows - only him and a select few who are unlikely to be reading this and commenting

musette

Three important points about Zabel:

1) He tested positive in 1994, long before the 1996 episode he admits to. He got off with a slap on the wrist that time.
2) He only confessed when he was pushed into a corner. His former maseur was about to publish a book detailing the organised doping at Telekom. Zabel was still riding at the time. the cynical among us might think he was trying to avoid faced a ban.
3) He has not, to my knowledge, made any serious effort to align himself with an anti doping stance. He looks to me to be keeping to the good old omerta.

http://muse-ette.blogspot.com

Chips Lovell

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Zabel might have taken EPO or other stuff in other years just never got found out or admitted to it - who knows - only him and a select few who are unlikely to be reading this and commenting

In fairness to Zabel, I haven't heard many take issue with this. Remember the 2004 Vuelta when pretty much the entire team fell victim to "food poisoning" with the exception of Zabel.

musette wrote: »

1) He tested positive in 1994, long before the 1996 episode he admits to. He got off with a slap on the wrist that time.

Which he also owned up to.

musette wrote: »

2) He only confessed when he was pushed into a corner. His former maseur was about to publish a book detailing the organised doping at Telekom. Zabel was still riding at the time. the cynical among us might think he was trying to avoid faced a ban.

Unlike the legion of riders who when faced with even stronger evidence than this either maintained their denial or kept a stony silence.

musette wrote: »

3) He has not, to my knowledge, made any serious effort to align himself with an anti doping stance. He looks to me to be keeping to the good old omerta.

"My son rides, too, and I don't want him to go through what I went through."

"It doesn't make any difference whether it happened one time or over two years, the point is that it was forbidden to dope, and I doped. I doped, I lied and I apologize for that."

musette

Apologizing for doping and for lying about doping is not the same as actively working to eliminate doping.

Zabel hasn't lifted any lids on who was behind it all, who the doctors were, where the drugs came from, how the testing system was got around, etc, etc.

Saying sorry for getting caught out (even in advance) and then carrying on regardless is not enough.

http://muse-ette.blogspot.com

RobFowl

Have to say I'm a little uncomfortable seeing Zabel there.
I do think he could do more to push for a cleaner sport, though do we expect every ex-doper to be as vocal as David Millar?
I have some experience with anti-doping in cycling and from talking to the top levels of the UCI/WADA there was absolute astonishment with Zabels revealations. He was and probably is thought of as one of the cleanest of his generation.
I suppose that says more about the sport than Zabel though

Chips Lovell

musette wrote: »

Apologizing for doping and for lying about doping is not the same as actively working to eliminate doping.

Are you saying that the Pro Tour Council and the UCI (which Zabel will act as a representative of on the council) are not working to eliminate doping?

musette wrote: »

Zabel hasn't lifted any lids on who was behind it all, who the doctors were, where the drugs came from, how the testing system was got around, etc, etc.

D'Hondt already named the doctors and said that it was they who were providing the drugs. And getting around the testing system at the time was quite easy... given that there was no test for EPO.

I just find it odd that you're whaling on a guy who's well liked, regarded as one of the cleaner riders at a time when the sport was riddled with drugs and who's come clean about his past sins, unlike most of his peers.

I also note that you've expressed no outrage about Stephen Roche, who's also one of the UCI's nominees

musette

Are you saying that the Pro Tour Council and the UCI (which Zabel will act as a representative of on the council) are not working to eliminate doping?

Thats the key question. Appointing self-confessed dopers doesn't inspire confidence at a time when the peleton is starting to fill with high-profile returning suspendees. Surely it behoves the UCI to look like they're serious as well as being serious. If it can be shown that Zabels appointment would further the cause of ridding the sport of doping I'd be all for it but I don't hear it even being mentioned by the UCI. It's as if it never happened.

regarded as one of the cleaner riders

How he was regarded is not really relevant. What's relevant is the fact of his doping. There are plenty of well regarded, hard working people, not necessarily ex-riders, in the sport who are not getting appointed to these important jobs and who have had no involvement in doping.

I also note that you've expressed no outrage about Stephen Roche, who's also one of the UCI's nominees

Point taken, although he hasn't admitted anything and no charge has stuck, so it's more difficult to point the finger. Other ex-riders on the Council would also raise alarm bells. For example, Vasseur was implicated (but cleared) when Millar was caught and Cioni has had heamatocrit level issues but doesn't that strengthen the case for avoiding the likes of Zabel? More bad apples will only hasten the rot.

niceonetom

I think all former dopers, self-confessed or caught, contrite or evasive should be excluded from the sport at all levels, including governing bodies and, if possible, the media. The exclusion should also be retroactive.

True, it would require purges of stalinist proportions and an army photoshoppers and film editors would have be found to rewrite the history of the sport, but if only we could wipe the slate clean, then we could start again with a new generation who'd have no concept of doping at all. Year zero ftw.

Zipp101

el tonto wrote: »

He used EPO for only about two weeks in 1996, came clean about it and seems genuinely remorseful for it. .

That's bull. You can bet your life he used EPO and more throughout his career. Does it really sound plausable that a rider who was winning bucket loads of races during the 90's and 00's "only used EPO for two weeks in 1996 because they made his tummy ill " ? And what's more he never spoke out against doping when he was "clean" .

He was saving face.

Chips Lovell

Zipp101 wrote: »

That's bull. You can bet your life he used EPO and more throughout his career. Does it really sound plausable that a rider who was winning bucket loads of races during the 90's and 00's "only used EPO for two weeks in 1996 because they made his tummy ill " ? And what's more he never spoke out against doping when he was "clean" .

He was saving face.

Aside from the fact that Zabel was widely regarded among the peloton as one of the cleaner riders, the guy who made the original accustation, Jeff D'Hondt, said himself that he'd only dabbled with it.

Chips Lovell

musette wrote: »

Surely it behoves the UCI to look like they're serious as well as being serious.

I think what the UCI does is far more important than who's doing it. As Tom said, if you eliminate everyone who was connected with doping (and I include those who did it and never got caught) you'd have very few figures left in the sport.