Vino

leftism

petethedrummer wrote: »

Ok for absolute clarity. 25-75% of the peloton were doping at the time. Maybe 1% were caught. In the subset of riders who were dopers I would consider those who were caught to be unlucky.

While it is nice to hear people refer to the "dark days" of cycling in the past tense, i wonder what evidence there is that it is the correct tense to be using?

You have last years champion riding under the clouds of a confirmed positive test, much speculation surrounding the two Shleck brothers (why any clean athlete needs to pay an endochronologist is beyond my comprehension) and Kolobnev just testing positive today!

I see darker days ahead for cycling...

With regards to Vino, i'm sorry for anyone who suffers a crash like this, but all the stupid attacking in the world won't make me admire an unrepentent doper!

petethedrummer

leftism wrote: »

While it is nice to hear people refer to the "dark days" of cycling in the past tense, i wonder what evidence there is that it is the correct tense to be using?

Yeah I know. Every time the sport supposedly turns a corner (festina, 2008 tour, bio passport) it ends up back in the same place. Although, I do believe that the ridiculous climbing feats have been curtailed and it is cleaner than it has been in a long time. Micro dosing epo has to be less of an advantage than a 50+% hematocrit. Though my hematocrit is naturally high and I'm still useless.:mad:

ColSheehan

http://astanafans.com/tdf-2011.html
Update on Vino's injuries translated

"operation went well
can't step on my leg for six weeks
will have to be in bed for three month
wife's coming tomorrow
will get back to home by the weekend"

Source - @joepabike

ROK ON

petethedrummer wrote: »

Yeah I know. Every time the sport supposedly turns a corner (festina, 2008 tour, bio passport) it ends up back in the same place. Although, I do believe that the ridiculous climbing feats have been curtailed and it is cleaner than it has been in a long time. Micro dosing epo has to be less of an advantage than a 50+% hematocrit. Though my hematocrit is naturally high and I'm still useless.:mad:

Welcome to high hematocrit club.

I have to agree with you. (Usually I dont on doping). Cyclingfans have for a long time hung certain riders out to dry, whilst turning a blind eye to the governing body, team mgt and many other riders.
Kelly, Pantani et al are heros to many and doped, yet others are reviled. The fact that some took EPO or blood products and others took Pot Belge or uppers is irrelevant - the very same intent existed.

Vino served the ban - that is all that he can be expected to do. I mean does he have to be born again or become some evangalist? It is for that reason that I cannot abide David Millar - guy has a strange taste in who is clean and who is not.

Hope Vino has a good recovery, He has made cycling interesting. The reason that we have had a good classics season and a good TDF is that thankfully more and more riders are looking to drill it on the front rather than sit in and allow others to do the work.

doozerie

ROK ON wrote:

Move on, nothing to see here. Like an apology makes it ok. F*ck that sh1t.

As I tell my kids - dont apologise, just dont do it again.

That's a very strange morality you are peddling there. At best it is entirely selfish, arrogant even, by assuming that you have nothing to apologise for, at worst it suggests that you can do whatever you like (since conscious doesn't come into it) as long as you don't get caught. It's a mindset that has crippled professional cyclng for years, in the greater social context it could be described as sociopathic.

ROK ON

doozerie wrote: »

That's a very strange morality you are peddling there. At best it is entirely selfish, arrogant even, by assuming that you have nothing to apologise for, at worst it suggests that you can do whatever you like (since conscious doesn't come into it) as long as you don't get caught. It's a mindset that has crippled professional cyclng for years, in the greater social context it could be described as sociopathic.

Some people cheat in life.
If they get caught they pay the price . . . if they dont they are simply assumed in many cases not to cheat.
As Pete mentions it is illogical to expect those that have been caught and paid the prescribed price to apologise for all of the ills in society.

I live in the real world some some idealised nirvana. Cheaters are not bad people, they are no worse than the average man in my book. They be human is to err.

doozerie

ROK ON wrote:

As Pete mentions it is illogical to expect those that have been caught and paid the prescribed price to apologise for all of the ills in society.

Well for a start no-one expects any rider to apologise for all of the ills of society, just for their own actions. And depending on your point of view an apology has little to do with punishment, the penalty (ban, fine, etc.) is the punishment, the apology gives some idea as to whether you may commit the same crime/practice again - if you genuinely believe that what you did was wrong, then you are less likely to do the same in the future 'cos your conscience will nag you, if you make no acknowledgement that what you did was wrong then the impression you convey is that you don't believe you were in the wrong in which case why would you not repeat it in the future but this time taking more care not to be caught? You could lie of course, and feign repentence, but resolutely refusing to acknowledge that what you did was wrong is a slap in the face of those riders that ride clean, not to mention the fact that is suggests to younger/newer riders that doping is somehow okay but just don't get caught.

An apology is a very powerful thing, whether you believe that or not. Imagine the (greater) hysteria there would have been if the driver of the car that took out Flecha and Hoogerland had not apologised. Whether you believe the apology was genuine or not it was a necessary first step for (representatives of) that driver to take - it doesn't excuse what he did, how could it, but it is intended as some small consolation to the two riders that what the driver did was not deliberate (just stupid, reckless, and criminal, which can and should be dealt with separately).

ROK ON wrote:

I live in the real world some some idealised nirvana.

I live in the real world too. In an idealised nirvana no-one would ever do anything that required an apology, that's not the world I live in.

xz

emmmm, could we get back on topic please

Don't know about any of you lot, but there is no way on earth, that I would have let my team mates pick me up and help me out of those trees, the way Vino's did, given the injuries he had, he must have been in a world of pain. Just goes to show the mindset these guys have of trying to get back onto the bike after a crash, Hoogerland, Boonen and Horner have been prime examples of this.

eoghan84

I think I might have sparked this doping-cheating discussion when I said that I think for the sport to move on, dopers should come clean about when and where they doped so that whatever victories are tainted can be given to other riders etc.

That would be the ideal scenario as it would bring back credibility to the sport after bad publicity from a big doping incident. But its just not possible to look back on the history books and highlight what riders were potentially doping at what time as it would never end.

I wonder do dopers really pay the price when they get caught? Their doping actions have brought them so much fame and fortune at the potential expense of clean riders. They often get the opportunity to come back and continue in the profession while clean riders disillusioned with the sport have already began a new career or they had to finish because they couldn't get a contract based on their career victories. The dopers can be the tip of the ice berg of doping networks that go on uninterrupted because they do not provide any information.

One rider who I seem to continue to dislike is Thomas Dekker - he denied he ever doped and claimed he was set up. Then three months later when his B sample came back positive as well he finally admitted it, saying that if he admitted it at the time he would have been fired immediately and lost three months pay! I recently watched the documentary about the comeback that he is trying to launch and despite being unemployed he is driving around in a Porsche! He announced that he doped and it is the past but that his wins were always clean. He still has a very close relationship with Dr Cecchini, a notorious doping doctor. To believe Dekker again I would like him to come clean about what victories are tainted or who helped him dope, as its not a "personal thing" as he claims!

But at the end of the day I am entertained by Vino and even Dekker when he rode well, so maybe theres no point thinking too deeply about it. My favourite Vino moment was the Vuelta 2006 - totally clean! Hope Vino recovers. Thanks for the update Colsheehan!

Lumen

ROK ON wrote: »

Cheaters are not bad people, they are no worse than the average man in my book.

...says the man who works in finance. :pac:

petethedrummer

eoghan84 wrote: »

I wonder do dopers really pay the price when they get caught? Their doping actions have brought them so much fame and fortune at the potential expense of clean riders. They often get the opportunity to come back and continue in the profession while clean riders

The opportunity they get to come back is given by equally amoral (or more amoral) team directors and governing body. They know who they are hiring and don't give a toss. With the current system they can hire anyone they like, let him dope to the gills and if he gets caught just toss him out. If he's a money earner, just defend him to the hilt and the UCI will submit.

EDIT: How you get treated depends on who you are..

Landis fought the ban: outcast but was given a chance by a small team looking for publicity.
Ricco unapologetic and PR nightmare: outcast but was given a chance by a small team looking for publicity.
Kolobnev: Already fired by his team it seems, after only an A sample positive.
Armstrong, too big to fall: Allowed back dated TUE and suppressed Tour desuisse positive (according to Landis).
Vino is seemingly unapologetic, but took his ban quietly: Allowed back.
Bjarne Riis: Still managing big teams.
Contador: Given 3 months to explain a dodgy clen reading. Still in the sport.

And the biggest hipocrisy is the case of Fuyu Li: Sacked by Radioshack and chucked out by the UCI for the exact same thing as Contador. He's a small fry so he can be sacrificed in order to show their anti-doping stance.
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2010/09/30/contador-case-means-hard-choices-for-anti-doping/