Stuart O'Grady Retirement

morana

O'Grady has retired. I think he had a good career with a stage in the tour and a Paris-Roubaix and he did 17 tours.

(I will edit this post in a few days time as I respect the latest Sticky above)

you cheating fcuker!

RobFowl

morana wrote: »

O'Grady has retired. I think he had a good career with a stage in the tour and a Paris-Roubaix and he did 17 tours.

(I will edit this post in a few days time as I respect the latest Sticky above)

2 stages and a member of a winning TTT stage as well as 9 days in yellow. 2 Tours Down under, Olympic gold in 2004 and 17 tdf starts.

Hope he has a good retirement and second career.

Also hope he not mentioned on Wed.

happytramp

RobFowl wrote: »

Also hope he not mentioned on Wed.

What's happening on Wednesday?

morana

happytramp wrote: »

What's happening on Wednesday?

French Seanad are expected to release the riders names who doped in the 98 tour

RobFowl

happytramp wrote: »

What's happening on Wednesday?

The list of cyclists who tested positive while research was being done on the B samples from the 98 tdf is being published....

happytramp

Thanks guys. Could be a long list

I hope he isn't mentioned but I certainly won't despise him if he is.

gordongekko

happytramp wrote: »

Thanks guys. Could be a long list

I hope he isn't mentioned but I certainly won't despise him if he is.

over 40 apparently

RobFowl

gordongekko wrote: »

over 40 apparently

43positive samples and 10 negative, not entirely sure that they are all different or some multiple samples from riders.
Jalabert seems to be one.
O Grady and Jens Voigt are the only 2 riders from that tour to have ridden the 2013 one. Lots of nervous DS's and other team members about I suspect.

decisions

Please let O'Grady and Jens be clean.


Well feck that anyway!

el tel

RobFowl wrote: »

43positive samples and 10 negative, not entirely sure that they are all different or some multiple samples from riders.

Going by those numbers, it's a bit of shame that not every rider was tested at some point during the 98 tour. It would have been nice to know who was 'positively' clean. It would also make for a far better game of doper bingo.

Lumen

decisions wrote: »

Please let O'Grady and Jens be clean.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/hardlyserious/2012/10/30/turbulent-times/

"Then, in 1997, I turned pro with ZVVZ-Giant-AIS, an Australian-Czech team. As hopefully everybody knows, the Australians have very strict rules against doping, and they have for a long time. So with them, even the thought of doping was an absolute no go. Then I finally signed with a big team in 1998, with Team GAN, which later became Crédit Agricole...

And it was there that I had my first experience with doping because, as you know, 1998 was the year of the Festina Affair...And let me make it clear: On a personal level, I was not doping...And to avoid the impression that I don’t want talk about the past, or want hide my past, here I am saying very loudly: Keep my samples, test them, and re-test them, in 10 years or in 100 years from now. Go back in time and open my sample from five years ago or 10 years ago. Feel free to do so! There will never be any surprises because I have nothing to hide."

happytramp

I hope it's just a coincidence but after lequip announced it was gong to publish the list the four riders union representatives (including O'Grady) asked that they not be published until after the tour.

Beasty

happytramp wrote: »

I hope it's just a coincidence but after lequip announced it was gong to publish the list the four riders union representatives (including O'Grady) asked that they not be published until after the tour.

It thought the request was on the basis that they did not want another doping scandal (and certainly not one from 15 years ago) to overshadow the Tour

mistermano

morana wrote: »

French Seanad are expected to release the riders names who doped in the 98 tour

i don't think boardman is on the list

there'd be holy war if he was

i don't think he was dopping anyhow

cormpat

Jorg Jaksche mentions the Jensie in his Der Spiegal interview from a few years back. I suppose we'll find out for definite on Wednesday.

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

It thought the request was on the basis that they did not want another doping scandal (and certainly not one from 15 years ago) to overshadow the Tour

Thats was the reason they used and it seems a fair enough one.
IMO this story deserves to be looked at on it's own merits.
To have it overshadow and be partly overshadowed by the 2013 tdf would have been unfair.
Froome would have been repeatedly asked about results from a race which happened when he was 13....

gordongekko

STUART O'Grady, one of Australia's most decorated road and track cyclists, last night confirmed he had taken illicit drugs while competing at the Tour de France.

One day after announcing he had retired after having led the Orica-GreenEdge team into Paris, having watched team-mates Simon Gerrans and Daryl Impey wear the yellow jersey, and winning the team time trial in Nice, the 39-year-old O'Grady was named by a French senate inquiry as one of 83 athletes to have returned positive or, in his case, "suspicious" blood readings from the 1998 Tour after having samples re-tested by the anti-doping authorities.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/cycling/stuart-ogrady-admits-to-doping-at-1998-tour-de-france/story-fn8sc2wz-1226684674623

hardCopy

So he had just taken his first and last dose before they tested him? How unfortunate :rolleyes:

morana

and now he is just insulting us with that statement!

Chartsengrafs

hardCopy wrote: »

So he had just taken his first and last dose before they tested him? How unfortunate :rolleyes:

It's amazing how often that seems to happen. But at least he's telling the truth now, right?

hardCopy

Basster wrote: »

It's amazing how often that seems to happen. But at least he's telling the truth now, right?

Almost as unfortunate as Millar keeping his last vial of EPO as a souvenir.

letape

Basster wrote: »

It's amazing how often that seems to happen. But at least he's telling the truth now, right?

Are you being sarcastic?! What would the chances be if it have been his one and only use of EPO...

hardCopy

letape wrote: »

Are you being sarcastic?! What would the chances be if it have been his one and only use of EPO...

This humidity must be affecting the sarcasm-o-meters today.

CramCycle

letape wrote: »

Are you being sarcastic?! What would the chances be if it have been his one and only use of EPO...

I can say with some confidence, he is being totally serious, for sarcasm that powerful he/she/it would have to be an intellect so domineering that mere conversation with the poster would blow your mind :pac:

letape

CramCycle wrote: »

I can say with some confidence, he is being totally serious, for sarcasm that powerful he/she/it would have to be an intellect so domineering that mere conversation with the poster would blow your mind :pac:

I struggled to follow the sarcastic posts in the other thread - hopefully I can follow where this one goes!

ROK ON

I have always liked SOG. I do not blame him at all for doping.

What I cannot stand is the long list of hypocrites still in pro-cycling.

Donthey really think that the world buys this BS that the time they were caught that it was their first time.

All virgin dopers that have had their cherries popped.

I would really admire someone to come out and say with sincerity something akin to:
Yes I doped and I am unrepentant for that. I did what I had to do, what was expected of me as a professional. Everyone of note was doping and while I didn't start out wanting to dope, I simply accepted that it was what was expected and insisted of me.


If someone actually said something like that they would have my respect. I also believe that someone like that could entrusted gombe honest with future employers.

It is easy to dismiss dopers as awful people. I don't believe that they are. Many of them having busted their ass to make the selection so to speak thru underage and amateur were faced with no real choice. Pro Fflint was all they had. An education, a trade a profession were all sacrificed to make the initial cut.
A partner, drinking mates - all of this was sacrificed.

After all that, I think that if I was them back then that the sacrifice I would have made would have been so great that the cost of EPO or blood transfusions would be less significant.

I just wish that more people would come out and not say that they doped, but if given the same choice under the same historical circumstances that they would donthe same again.
Anything else is simple unbelievable to me.

Leroy42

That statement from SOG is BS, as usual. ROK ON is right, given what we know why don't more cyclists come out like Landis & Hamilton & Ulrich and just admit it. We all know it was being done. The only good that can come out of this mess is that we can learn from it, and we can't do that with statements like SOG's saying that he did it all himself, only the once and never again.

Give me a break.Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.

godtabh

ROK ON wrote: »

I have always liked SOG. I do not blame him at all for doping.

What I cannot stand is the long list of hypocrites still in pro-cycling.

Donthey really think that the world buys this BS that the time they were caught that it was their first time.

All virgin dopers that have had their cherries popped.

I would really admire someone to come out and say with sincerity something akin to:
Yes I doped and I am unrepentant for that. I did what I had to do, what was expected of me as a professional. Everyone of note was doping and while I didn't start out wanting to dope, I simply accepted that it was what was expected and insisted of me.


If someone actually said something like that they would have my respect. I also believe that someone like that could entrusted gombe honest with future employers.

It is easy to dismiss dopers as awful people. I don't believe that they are. Many of them having busted their ass to make the selection so to speak thru underage and amateur were faced with no real choice. Pro Fflint was all they had. An education, a trade a profession were all sacrificed to make the initial cut.
A partner, drinking mates - all of this was sacrificed.

After all that, I think that if I was them back then that the sacrifice I would have made would have been so great that the cost of EPO or blood transfusions would be less significant.

I just wish that more people would come out and not say that they doped, but if given the same choice under the same historical circumstances that they would donthe same again.
Anything else is simple unbelievable to me.

Did Millar come close to doing that in his book? I dont believe that what he admitted to is all he did but at least he explained some of it

shaungil

I only did it once. sure. If you want anyone to beleive anything you say you should have manned up on tuesday instead of waiting. what a sham.

the more things change the more it stays the same.

Hermy

ROK ON wrote: »

... I did what I had to do, what was expected of me as a professional...

I mostly agree with your post ROK ON but this bit bothers me.
Is it really 'professional' to dope/ cheat your way to the finish line?
I know that the pressure these lads were under to do what was expected of them was massive but isn't it a terrible indictment of cycling that it was considered professional to inject sh!t into your arm!

Darkglasses

shaungil wrote: »

I only did it once. sure. If you want anyone to beleive anything you say you should have manned up on tuesday instead of waiting. what a sham.

the more things change the more it stays the same.

You're dead right. I'm hugely disappointed with SOG. If he had said it first and maybe given his side of the story, I'd feel very differently.

ROK ON

Hermy

That's the point. To most people outside an industry it was entirely unethical and unprofessional. But to those inside an industry it is different.

Your reality is different.

We now know that the property boom was just another typical bubble. Yet imagine you have just left school or college and have gotten your first job in a commercial bank or property development firm. Are you going to tontell your superiors that they are wrong in their assessment of the Market and the economy and that they should sell sell sell.

If you do that you have to admit tonyourself that you face an impossible task. You can donehat is expected and join the party or you can leave the industry - that's it. It's over.

Hermy, it's not just in cycling that the bright young things fave these unenviable choices. Many many industries extra t that pound of flesh.

That's life. Not perfect. Not saying you can't try to change it. But sometimes you have to question as an individual whether it is a battle worth fighting.

I have successfully taken a legal action against a firm that I worked for. Still not sure was it worth it. It wasn't not worth it. That's my perspective.

NeedMoreGears

I think ROK ON has pretty much nailed it.

If pro-cycling was my only way to feed the family and in effect "everybody else was doing it", I would have. The other thing that's worth remembering - and at the risk of sounding as old as I am - we're talking generally about young lads in their twenties. They are relatively easily influenced by so called older wiser heads.

How could the UCI/WADA whoever get riders to make a statement along the lines described by ROK ON?

Amnesty of some kind ? (even for you know who unfortunately) ; this wouldn't be simple to say the least

Re-analysis of all B samples and publication of the results with names; is this even possible?

Is there even any benefit in a whole bunch of riders making such a statement?

The key for me is no more messing about with two year bans - future dopers need to have their careers ended even if they are relatively easily influenced as I mentioned earlier.

Lumen

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

If pro-cycling was my only way to feed the family

That bull**** excuse gets rolled out for all kinds of misdemeanours. We don't live in the middle ages. Europe has a very well established welfare state.

Besides which, it depends on the absurd idea that this hypothetical pro cyclist is unemployable at anything other than riding a bike. What will he do on retirement, starve to death?

12 sprocket

Lumen wrote: »

That bull**** excuse gets rolled out for all kinds of misdemeanours. We don't live in the middle ages. Europe has a very well established welfare state.

Besides which, it depends on the absurd idea that this hypothetical pro cyclist is unemployable at anything other than riding a bike. What will he do on retirement, starve to death?

Unfortunately Lumen a lot of these riders sacrifice their academic and employment prospects to pursue their dreams and the options facing them after cycling can be very limited especially if the cycling career is not successful.. so while not condoning the doping its easy to see how the future options would impact on the decision to go down the doping route or not..

Were you ever on a major pro race?

I was a number of times and its an absolute bubble, anyone who has ridden the ras will understand.. the world you live in is the world of the race you are in. Outside influences like national or international news is rarely discussed its all about the race.. So you can imagine what its like for the top pros, they just go from one race to the next.
When the option to go to work in a factory you can see where people could be tempted to make poor choices. The culture has to be that there is no need to have to make the choices and the sport seems to be gradually working towards that point.

dedocdude

agree with @Lumen, have u seen Stuey's house? Yowzah!!

Slo_Rida

Humans are fascinating.
I follow plenty of threads in this forum and this one is the first where dopers are being excused to any extent.

You cheated, you are a rat. There is no middle ground or forgiveness. It's FUKKING sport for Gods sake lads. That's like going to mass and praying to satan. It makes no sense.
Cheating in sport is NEVER forgivable.

I honestly think that if you defend a cheater in sport, you are either bonkers or not really a sportsman/fan.

Lumen

12 sprocket wrote: »

Unfortunately Lumen a lot of these riders sacrifice their academic and employment prospects to pursue their dreams and the options facing them after cycling can be very limited especially if the cycling career is not successful.. so while not condoning the doping its easy to see how the future options would impact on the decision to go down the doping route or not..

Were you ever on a major pro race?

I was a number of times and its an absolute bubble, anyone who has ridden the ras will understand.. the world you live in is the world of the race you are in. Outside influences like national or international news is rarely discussed its all about the race.. So you can imagine what its like for the top pros, they just go from one race to the next.
When the option to go to work in a factory you can see where people could be tempted to make poor choices. The culture has to be that there is no need to have to make the choices and the sport seems to be gradually working towards that point.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but "I have to dope to feed my family" is still nonsense.

The reality was "I have to dope to maintain my lifestyle".

Clum

What's going on here?

"Poor cyclist couldn't win a race so he doped. That's ok cos he couldn't win and had to make a living".

There was a time Lance couldn't win a race. Are we going to understand his perspective and forgive him too?

Every professional sports person, be they cyclists, runners, football players or whatever, know that doping is wrong. It doesn't matter what bubble they live in.

dedocdude

i think we could talk about the tiddlywinks world champion bending the rules and Armstrong would still get mentioned

NeedMoreGears

Lumen wrote: »

That bull**** excuse gets rolled out for all kinds of misdemeanours. QUOTE]

From a distance you're probably right and indeed the "everyone else is doing so it must ok" idea that I referred to is again a bit weak from the outside but when you're immersed in the middle of it, I'm not sure I'd be strong enough to resist. That doesn't make it right just more likely.

dogsears

Clum wrote: »

What's going on here?

"Poor cyclist couldn't win a race so he doped. That's ok cos he couldn't win and had to make a living".

There was a time Lance couldn't win a race. Are we going to understand his perspective and forgive him too?

Every professional sports person, be they cyclists, runners, football players or whatever, know that doping is wrong. It doesn't matter what bubble they live in.

The viewpoint of Wade Wallace over at Cycling Tips - http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/ride-a-kilometre-in-ogradys-shoes-before-judging/

It contains an interesting line "I don’t know whether that’s true or not, but one thing I do know is that it doesn’t take an evil person to cross that line."

Whether or not you agree with that, its an understandable position (though in context - Stuart O'Grady - it may be that there is a little sympathy for a fellow Australian.)

But what I think it helps show in a clearer light is that there IS a difference when it comes to Lance Armstrong. Lots of people doped, and they were wrong to do it, but they weren't necessarily evil in doing so. But with him (not exclusively him but most especially him) the difference is that everything else he did, the vicious reactions to those who crossed him, the abuse of the position he attained in the sport to crucify the reputations of those who made suggestions about him, that all came from an evil place within him.

Slo_Rida

dogsears wrote: »

It contains an interesting line "I don’t know whether that’s true or not, but one thing I do know is that it doesn’t take an evil person to cross that line."

Nobody is calling anyone evil, stay focussed.
We/I am only saying that they are cheating little rats who don't deserve to be in sport at any level.

ratracer

dogsears wrote: »

The viewpoint of Wade Wallace over at Cycling Tips - http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/ride-a-kilometre-in-ogradys-shoes-before-judging/

It contains an interesting line "I don’t know whether that’s true or not, but one thing I do know is that it doesn’t take an evil person to cross that line."

Whether or not you agree with that, its an understandable position (though in context - Stuart O'Grady - it may be that there is a little sympathy for a fellow Australian.)

But what I think it helps show in a clearer light is that there IS a difference when it comes to Lance Armstrong. Lots of people doped, and they were wrong to do it, but they weren't necessarily evil in doing so. But with him (not exclusively him but most especially him) the difference is that everything else he did, the vicious reactions to those who crossed him, the abuse of the position he attained in the sport to crucify the reputations of those who made suggestions about him, that all came from an evil place within him.

I would completely disagree with you mate. IMO Stuart O'Grady and any other cyclist who have taken performance enhancing drugs are all equally as bad as Lance Armstrong. They are all cheating scumbags who would do anything for self preservation. Take it once or take it a thousand times, its the same end result. Cheats are cheats and the whole omerta of the pro tour quite frankly sickens me. Why anyone would buy any team kit and endorse these cheats is really beyond me. Other sports are as bad btw, its just that pro cycling is always in the spot light with regards to doping etc.

dedocdude

ratracer wrote: »

Other sports are as bad btw

which sports?

ratracer

dedocdude wrote: »

which sports?

Most recently athletics, but also swimming, NFL, NHL, and from this brief list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_sport in most professional sports apparently. There will always be temptation for 'athletes' to use PEDs to improve performance and hence improve their financial status, but does it make it right?

niceonetom

ratracer wrote: »

I would completely disagree with you mate. IMO Stuart O'Grady and any other cyclist who have taken performance enhancing drugs are all equally as bad as Lance Armstrong. They are all cheating scumbags who would do anything for self preservation. Take it once or take it a thousand times, its the same end result. Cheats are cheats and the whole omerta of the pro tour quite frankly sickens me. Why anyone would buy any team kit and endorse these cheats is really beyond me. Other sports are as bad btw, its just that pro cycling is always in the spot light with regards to doping etc.

It must be lovely to live in such a simple world, or to see a complex world so simply.

dogsears

ratracer wrote: »

I would completely disagree with you mate. IMO Stuart O'Grady and any other cyclist who have taken performance enhancing drugs are all equally as bad as Lance Armstrong. They are all cheating scumbags who would do anything for self preservation. Take it once or take it a thousand times, its the same end result. Cheats are cheats and the whole omerta of the pro tour quite frankly sickens me. Why anyone would buy any team kit and endorse these cheats is really beyond me. Other sports are as bad btw, its just that pro cycling is always in the spot light with regards to doping etc.

That's fine, I've no problem with your view and share most of it. I am however open to accepting that things would have seemed to be less black and white and more tinged with grey to those making their own decisions early in their careers.

But even though sometimes people can say that "hindsight is always 20:20" etc as if that in some way invalidated it, I think in fact it is possible and valid to see things much more clearly when you have big picture context, as we all do now.

In other words, I think the dopers were cheats and should be exposed and punished (if that is possible - in relation to many of them its not), but at the same time I think I can understand the thought processes and career calculus that may have persuaded riders to go down the doping route, and I don't think they became irredeemable human beings as a result purely of that.

My point arising out of that article was to say that I see LA as in a distinct category of obnoxiousness because of everything he did in addition to (and obviously arising out of) his doping. Much much worse.

Put it this way. Doping is and was wrong. But its not the worst thing a person could ever do. LA is guilty of worse, and I think we need the perspective to distinguish him from, say, Stuart O'Grady.

corny

dogsears wrote: »

That's fine, I've no problem with your view and share most of it. I am however open to accepting that things would have seemed to be less black and white and more tinged with grey to those making their own decisions early in their careers.

But even though sometimes people can say that "hindsight is always 20:20" etc as if that in some way invalidated it, I think in fact it is possible and valid to see things much more clearly when you have big picture context, as we all do now.

In other words, I think the dopers were cheats and should be exposed and punished (if that is possible - in relation to many of them its not), but at the same time I think I can understand the thought processes and career calculus that may have persuaded riders to go down the doping route, and I don't think they became irredeemable human beings as a result purely of that.

My point arising out of that article was to say that I see LA as in a distinct category of obnoxiousness because of everything he did in addition to (and obviously arising out of) his doping. Much much worse.

Put it this way. Doping is and was wrong. But its not the worst thing a person could ever do. LA is guilty of worse, and I think we need the perspective to distinguish him from, say, Stuart O'Grady.

You're right. Lance is reprehensible, Stuey might not be but in a strictly sporting context, what we're discussing i think, they're the same person. I'm not up in arms about this but they were faced with the same dilemma and they both cheated.

Slo_Rida

It's a pity this thread has descended into an LA comparison.

Clum

dogsears wrote: »

Whether or not you agree with that, its an understandable position (though in context - Stuart O'Grady - it may be that there is a little sympathy for a fellow Australian.)

I understand the temptation. I understand the desperation. But whatever the reason it's done, it's still cheating.

He may not be the only one who did it but that just means he's not the only one who cheated.

I've a lot more respect for any rider who walked away from the pro-peleton because they couldn't keep the pace unless they doped, than for those who doped so they could keep up with the others.