Grewal opens the curtain

[thoughtforfood]

http://www.velonews.com/article/74053/an-essay-by-1984-olympic-gold-medalist-alexi-grewal

GREAT READ!!! People like Plectrum, No_Positives, etc, etc, etc, read and understand please. Your apologist attitudes and denial are a joke, and so are your heroes.

 

[Bro Deal]

http://www.velonews.com/article/74053/an-essay-by-1984-olympic-gold-medalist-alexi-grewal

GREAT READ!!! People like Plectrum, No_Positives, etc, etc, etc, read and understand please. Your apologist attitudes and denial are a joke, and so are your heroes.

I'd be more impressed if Grewal would name names, other than Post and his soigneur. He says he knows who took what. Let's hear it.

Grewal was always a hot head, so much so it interfered with his racing.

 

[Crankyfeet]

I'd be more impressed if Grewal would name names, other than Post and his soigneur. He says he knows who took what. Let's hear it.

Grewal was always a hot head, so much so it interfered with his racing.

There are three primary obstacles stopping cyclists from revealing the truth and the extent oif the problem (as people here are already aware)... 1. The desire to keep secret one's own guilt... 2. The pressure of the omerta... and 3. The risk of litigation.

Grewal's essay is a little grandiose IMO, but the more cyclists that come out, the more the house of cards gets closer to fully collapsing.

 

[slovakguy]

"All of us who were there, and who can speak up, should do so."

taking the easy way out, as was pointed out above. all he seems to be saying is that, sure, now that i'm out of the sport, i can admit i doped. the time has come to name names.

 

[thoughtforfood]

"All of us who were there, and who can speak up, should do so."

taking the easy way out, as was pointed out above. all he seems to be saying is that, sure, now that i'm out of the sport, i can admit i doped. the time has come to name names.

I disagree actually. It is up to the conscience of each individual to determine their contribution or lack thereof to this problem. Naming someone because of an investigation, and outing people are two completely different things. On top of all of that, jumping up and saying "he did this or that" without concrete proof is a liable offense. He did what he could. I know the stories about his grandiose attitude, and it sounds like he was a *****; however, in this instance he came clean. Naming others at this point would be legally stupid in the first order. The element of time is the factor here in that because of the antiquity of the doping, proof of the kind needed to beat a defamation lawsuit is long gone except for the other people in the room. The problem there is that if they haven't come clean or were also on your hit list, you are screwed.

His coming out publicly is the best thing he could have done IMO.

 

[kennf]

His essay does read more like a self-indulgent writing exercise than a true mea culpa, but that's his style.

I remember him blowing by me on Mt. Evans (Bob Cook memorial) at about 11,000 feet in '90. I was a cat 4, riding all alone, and the pros started after us (way after us). Mike Engleman was holding his wheel, but I think Grewal set the course record that day. I feel cheated (just kidding). Popping stimulants and riding up to 14,000 feet has gotta be hard on the heart.

 

[slovakguy]

I disagree actually. It is up to the conscience of each individual to determine their contribution or lack thereof to this problem. Naming someone because of an investigation, and outing people are two completely different things. On top of all of that, jumping up and saying "he did this or that" without concrete proof is a liable offense. He did what he could. I know the stories about his grandiose attitude, and it sounds like he was a *****; however, in this instance he came clean. Naming others at this point would be legally stupid in the first order. The element of time is the factor here in that because of the antiquity of the doping, proof of the kind needed to beat a defamation lawsuit is long gone except for the other people in the room. The problem there is that if they haven't come clean or were also on your hit list, you are screwed.

His coming out publicly is the best thing he could have done IMO.

i respect your points, and would generally agree, especially that it would be the best case if the individual came forward voluntarily. just have a problem that the dopers have always had the freedom to come forward and have spit the bit at every turn. reality speaks volumes in this case, where former soigneurs needed to spill the beans for us to learn that past champions were indeed riding hot. just recognising that if you are going to go after a thief, you probably won't be putting very many nuns on the stand to make you case against the accused.

 

[limerickman]

A few of you have raised the point that more people should confess :

Playing devils advocate here - what is to be gained?

What would any former rider gain by confessing after they retired?

It seems to me that there is no upside with any former rider confessing.
Think about it.
By confessing, the former rider tarnishes his reputation (or whatever reputation he/she may have had).
The fact that any confession would relate to something that may have transpired years ago, cannot be punished now (strip them of a title???? - how effective is that????).
By confessiing a former rider may be falsely implicating his former team mates and his former manager.
By confessing a former rider implicates just how poorly the system of doping tests were operated in his/her time.

I can see very little upsaide to any confession from a former rider.


The only benefit that I can see being derived from such a confession is that it may give the anti-doping authorities may knowledge of how teams/riders circumvent the anti-doping tests.

 

[thunder]

A few of you have raised the point that more people should confess :

Playing devils advocate here - what is to be gained?

What would any former rider gain by confessing after they retired?

It seems to me that there is no upside with any former rider confessing.
Think about it.
By confessing, the former rider tarnishes his reputation (or whatever reputation he/she may have had).
The fact that any confession would relate to something that may have transpired years ago, cannot be punished now (strip them of a title???? - how effective is that????).
By confessiing a former rider may be falsely implicating his former team mates and his former manager.
By confessing a former rider implicates just how poorly the system of doping tests were operated in his/her time.

I can see very little upsaide to any confession from a former rider.


The only benefit that I can see being derived from such a confession is that it may give the anti-doping authorities may knowledge of how teams/riders circumvent the anti-doping tests.

how about it is one more step to opening up the actual conduct of the sport to the public, who are shielded from the unpalatable reality.

if there is no transaparency, there can be no healing. There needs to be an admission by the sport for the culture to change. This is part of that.

What is a reputation founded on false assumptions. I think those who have the strength to admit what goes on and went on, show alot more character, and their reputation can only grow. This all needs to be seen int he light of all the faceless Bassons that lost their careers because of doping.

 

[Powerful Pete]

Thunder, fair enough, but what Lim says is true. If I was able to dope and win and earn money some time in the past, why would I admit to the doping? Curing the image of cycling to the public today? That is a bit unrealistic.

I think a 'truth commission' of some sort, with a generalised amnesty to current riders would make more sense - everyone coming clean and then 'starting with a clean slate'. Anyone caught following the amnesty is out for life...

This assumes that the testing is stringent and effective enough to make it hard for dopers to get away with it in the future... a big assumption, I know.

 

[thunder]

Thunder, fair enough, but what Lim says is true. If I was able to dope and win and earn money some time in the past, why would I admit to the doping? Curing the image of cycling to the public today? That is a bit unrealistic.

I think a 'truth commission' of some sort, with a generalised amnesty to current riders would make more sense - everyone coming clean and then 'starting with a clean slate'. Anyone caught following the amnesty is out for life...

This assumes that the testing is stringent and effective enough to make it hard for dopers to get away with it in the future... a big assumption, I know.

you are conflating incentive, personal incentive, and the benefit for the sport.

 

[limerickman]

how about it is one more step to opening up the actual conduct of the sport to the public, who are shielded from the unpalatable reality.

if there is no transaparency, there can be no healing. There needs to be an admission by the sport for the culture to change. This is part of that.

What is a reputation founded on false assumptions. I think those who have the strength to admit what goes on and went on, show alot more character, and their reputation can only grow. This all needs to be seen int he light of all the faceless Bassons that lost their careers because of doping.

I agree with you.
Ethically, morally even, sport should be clean.
And yes, christophe bassons, charley mottet and all of the other clean riders
deserve better.
I don't think that any one here would disagree with you on that point.

But given what we know............it seems to me that there is little or no benefit in any former rider confessing.

I stll hold to the premise that the penalty for doping should be so prohibitive that, if riders/teams haven't got the strength of character to police their own behaviour, the punishment of lifebans would add muster to their ethical/moral fibre.

In other words, don't leave it to the conscience of the riders to make the correct decisions..............................make the alternative so unpalatable that they have no choice bu to act ethically.
That's my view.

 

[Leafer]

A few of you have raised the point that more people should confess :

Playing devils advocate here - what is to be gained?

What would any former rider gain by confessing after they retired?

It seems to me that there is no upside with any former rider confessing.
Think about it.
By confessing, the former rider tarnishes his reputation (or whatever reputation he/she may have had).
The fact that any confession would relate to something that may have transpired years ago, cannot be punished now (strip them of a title???? - how effective is that????).
By confessiing a former rider may be falsely implicating his former team mates and his former manager.
By confessing a former rider implicates just how poorly the system of doping tests were operated in his/her time.

I can see very little upsaide to any confession from a former rider.


The only benefit that I can see being derived from such a confession is that it may give the anti-doping authorities may knowledge of how teams/riders circumvent the anti-doping tests.

But that raises the question of why, then, do so many ex-pros come clean afterwards?

 

[italiano]

But that raises the question of why, then, do so many ex-pros come clean afterwards?

Many different reason…Jaksche make money…Riis limit damage to self in D‘Haunt book…some look to attention…some want tell own story before other say too mucht... too little and few telll it due to clear sole with God ...I confused with Grewal...

 

[slovakguy]

thunder is right on the mark. are the former riders afraid that an informed public might think less of them/their accomplishments? well, so be it. then again, the public might just look favourably on an honest and forthright presentation from the individual given the degree to which the peloton was given over to doping.

 

[TheDarkLord]

thunder is right on the mark. are the former riders afraid that an informed public might think less of them/their accomplishments? well, so be it. then again, the public might just look favourably on an honest and forthright presentation from the individual given the degree to which the peloton was given over to doping.

My 2 cents: I don't think the public perceives most of the peloton as doping. So, chances are that the ones that confess that they won by doping will be ostracized. This will only change if a lot of riders 'fess up to their deeds so that the extent of doping is clear to everyone, not just a group of posters on this forum.

 

[Powerful Pete]

My 2 cents: I don't think the public perceives most of the peloton as doping.

Seriously? I think the cycling-oriented public in Europe is under no illusions...

 

[Crankyfeet]

Metaphorically speaking, if the gold medal winner confesses, it is a positive for the silver medalist (he could at least feel like he would have won the race)... assuming he wasn't doping as well... .

 

[TheDarkLord]

Seriously? I think the cycling-oriented public in Europe is under no illusions...

Ok, I don't know the mindset of the people who watch cycling races in bars, etc. But in general, there is some outrage when pro-athletes are busted for doping... But seriously, if everyone knows that the peloton is doping, why do the riders fight tooth and nail to keep up the charade of being clean when busted?

 

[Powerful Pete]

Ok, I don't know the mindset of the people who watch cycling races in bars, etc. But in general, there is some outrage when pro-athletes are busted for doping... But seriously, if everyone knows that the peloton is doping, why do the riders fight tooth and nail to keep up the charade of being clean when busted?

The risks of being one of the few caught and/or punished. And a two year suspension in what remains a relatively poor paying sport is a serious problem for an average pro rider supporting a family.