Breaking News:Team CSC are refusing to sign!
- Thread starter Dead Star
- Start date
There was evidence that Roche took EPO in his latter years ; hence his return to form in 1992 and 1993. There is an article on the timesonline by David Walsh but right now their website is busy or something, theres a link for this article at the end of Stephen Roches Wikipedia biography, beside the quote by David Walsh; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Roche
regarding Roche's career I am not aware of any evidence of doping and Id like to think he didnt!!! but ja maybe ...what would they have been taking in 1981 when he stormed on to the European scene by winning Paris Nice? was there doping at the Peugeot cycling team - if thats the case then Phil Anderson and Robert Millar would have been part of that too, (also Ducclos Laselle the 1980 winner of Paris Nice), I think by the fact that he's the youngest ever winner of the Ras Tailteann, he was destined to win the triple crown of cycling!!
regarding Roche's career I am not aware of any evidence of doping and Id like to think he didnt!!! but ja maybe ...what would they have been taking in 1981 when he stormed on to the European scene by winning Paris Nice? was there doping at the Peugeot cycling team - if thats the case then Phil Anderson and Robert Millar would have been part of that too, (also Ducclos Laselle the 1980 winner of Paris Nice), I think by the fact that he's the youngest ever winner of the Ras Tailteann, he was destined to win the triple crown of cycling!!
His name was on the same database of riders that implicated Pantoni (of whom he was a team-mate). After being seized from CONI by the Carabinieri, the relevant files were deposed at the trial of Dr Conconi for sporting fraud. Other riders who were also strongly indicated in the files as having used EPO were Chiappucci, Bontempi and Sorensen. The findings were never challenged in Court and there was no room for doubt about the vey specific information contained within the files.
Don't forget as well that the newly moralising Roche, I believe, has maintained a fairly bitter feud with Kimmage because the latter had the temerity to tell the truth over whether he was clean or not. It would seem that to Roche, although not uniquely, the truth is a fairly elastic concept that can be twisted to fit the circumstances. And that is just another of the tragedies implicit in serious, organised drug use. It ultimately degrades and demeans pretty well all of its users.
Don't forget as well that the newly moralising Roche, I believe, has maintained a fairly bitter feud with Kimmage because the latter had the temerity to tell the truth over whether he was clean or not. It would seem that to Roche, although not uniquely, the truth is a fairly elastic concept that can be twisted to fit the circumstances. And that is just another of the tragedies implicit in serious, organised drug use. It ultimately degrades and demeans pretty well all of its users.
wicklow200 said:
Jens Voigt from CSC states in yesterday's www.radsport-news.com (hence probably interviewed right after his Sunday race), that at present all CSC riders are somehow consulting their lawyers (some are sharing the same lawyer), and none really knows yet what to do.
Looks to me as if, in some cases the team foreced throught the signing of the chart (French teams, Disco, Astana,...), in some other cases they didn't (CSC, Rabo, etc).
Karsten Kroon sounded pretty much upset, but in his case he can say whatever he likes, he won't be on the Tour anyway. I'm pretty sure he'll get a hard time from his employers CSC for giving such harsh statement in the actual situation.
Looks to me as if, in some cases the team foreced throught the signing of the chart (French teams, Disco, Astana,...), in some other cases they didn't (CSC, Rabo, etc).
Karsten Kroon sounded pretty much upset, but in his case he can say whatever he likes, he won't be on the Tour anyway. I'm pretty sure he'll get a hard time from his employers CSC for giving such harsh statement in the actual situation.
CSC docs defend practices
Team CSC issued a statement Monday defending its practices in light of recent allegations coming from German rider Jörg Jaksche. Jaksche won Paris-Nice while riding for one season with Team CSC in 2004 and said in a tell-all interview he used banned doping products during all the teams he rode with during his career.
Jaksche admitted he was "Bella" on the Puerto list and said he worked with controversial Spanish doctor Eufemiano Fuentes during the 2005-06 seasons.
Team CSC doctors, however, released this statement in the wake of the interview:
"The medical staff of Team CSC has always been working in an ethical, professional way.
"In case of illness or injury's we try to help our riders, by treating them according to the rules of the UCI (ie. medication, physiotherapy, etc.). No products were used that are on the Prohibited List. The use of glucocorticosteriods for injuries (local infiltrations) and beta-2 agonists (by inhalation) is part of our treatment possibilities.
"We only use these when that treatment is medically appropriate and the use of alternative medications, not on the Prohibited List, would be unsatisfactory for this condition.In those cases, the UCI was always informed, the TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) was signed by the cyclist and one of our medical doctors.
"We support the new UCI ProTour Anti-Doping Programme '100% against doping' completely."
Dr. Joost De Maeseneer
Dr. Piet De Moor
Dr. Piet Danneels
Team CSC issued a statement Monday defending its practices in light of recent allegations coming from German rider Jörg Jaksche. Jaksche won Paris-Nice while riding for one season with Team CSC in 2004 and said in a tell-all interview he used banned doping products during all the teams he rode with during his career.
Jaksche admitted he was "Bella" on the Puerto list and said he worked with controversial Spanish doctor Eufemiano Fuentes during the 2005-06 seasons.
Team CSC doctors, however, released this statement in the wake of the interview:
"The medical staff of Team CSC has always been working in an ethical, professional way.
"In case of illness or injury's we try to help our riders, by treating them according to the rules of the UCI (ie. medication, physiotherapy, etc.). No products were used that are on the Prohibited List. The use of glucocorticosteriods for injuries (local infiltrations) and beta-2 agonists (by inhalation) is part of our treatment possibilities.
"We only use these when that treatment is medically appropriate and the use of alternative medications, not on the Prohibited List, would be unsatisfactory for this condition.In those cases, the UCI was always informed, the TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) was signed by the cyclist and one of our medical doctors.
"We support the new UCI ProTour Anti-Doping Programme '100% against doping' completely."
Dr. Joost De Maeseneer
Dr. Piet De Moor
Dr. Piet Danneels
So because someone doped they are somehow not qualified to comment on how they feel the sport can get itself out of this hole they have dug for themselves? in my eyes dopers are MORE qualified than others on how to get out of this hole... they know the methodolgies, the motivations etc, etc, etc... who the hell cares about this holy than thou, moralizing, mumbo jumbo, bs... we are looking for solutions PERIOD.. who the hell cares who they come from... but just from a practical point of view the clean riders probably don't have a clue how to solve the problem because they are ignorant of doping. what you are saying sounds good but strictly from a practical point of view it just doesn't make sense. and as others have said, we are in despret times.. the sport has one foot in the grave.. how long are sponsors going to stick around with all this bs coming up every few weeks now (used to be years, then months..)Gregers said:
no time for moralizing... we need solutions.
Exactly...... We have a TDF that chances are are going to have fewer viewer numbers then in the last 20 years...... Today we hear of Pettachi...... That eliminates a major component of the showcase for the green jersey.doctorSpoc said:
Sponsors are what drive this sport. They are the most important cog in the TDF and it's success. Without sponsors we have nothing. If the sponsors cannot trust the cycling organizations to let their riders ride in the TDF, then they will consider cycling too big of a risk.
The way things are going, there will not be any riders who can ride. Then at least the French may have a rider on the podium.
There is nothing stopping any sponsor from insisting on longitudinal testing of all team members. The organizers are not at fault because the riders cannot stop doping. Right now the organizers are the main players in the fight against doping.wolfix said:
Funny how that works. As you get rid of the dopers, the riders from the one country that does longitudinal testing and has criminal laws against doping do better.wolfix said:
The organizers are at fault. The only reason they are throwing a fit at this moment is because of the bad press. They are throwing the riders to the wolves. If the organizers are not at fault, then why has doping been so institutionalized since at least the 70's? The riders have come and gone, but the organizers are the same. The organizers didn't just wake up and take notice of this. And it has not been the organizers who have been in the front against doping..... They have been part of the cover-up. Think about it. It has been the civil authorities who have uncovered the labs. The organizers are being forced to respond by the public perception of cycling.
The riders respond to what the organizers allow. We will see that the UCI and the race organizers have allowed doping and promoted it for a long time when all this comes to light.
The french haven't done anything yet.
Doping is going to be allowed [looked the other way] as long as there is professional cycling. As soon as the media gets bored, the state of cycling will go back to what it has always been. The sport and sponsors will demand it. The sport is a market driven entertainment product, not a test of man vs man promoting good health and the desire to win. The sponsors know this, the organizations know this, and the riders know this. Only naive fans think other wise. Flyer is right-on about that.
sponsors are interested in putting their advertising dollars into something that is seen by as many as possible and that espouses the values that they want associated with their company... i.e. clean living, hard work, winning etc, etc... not lying and cheating and drug use... no company want's their company name associated with that.Bro Deal said:
organizers are very interested in getting this thing under raps because it must be affecting their bottom line... but you can't expect sponsors to give a rat's a$$ about figuring a way to end doping in cycling they don't have the time, cycling has nothing to do directly with the business of most of the big sponsors... if cycling isn't working for them and can't get their sh!t together, they just move on to the next sport that can...
organizers get paid by tv rights, direct sponsors (jerseys, prizes, caravan members etc...) so of course orgaiziers are right on top of this problem. tv channels buy the tv rights and they get their money by selling advertisement dollars when the event airs... if no one want to buy ads during the event airing, because no one wants their name associated with cycling then no one will buy the rights and organizers lose a huge revenue stream and the whole thing goes down the tubes.
professional cycling depends completely on sponsors to keep it afloat...no sponsors = no pro cycling... if cycling can't portray itself as something sponsor want to be associated with then it's done... organizers must be feeling the pinch as tv channels want to pay less and less (or nothing at all as in Germany) for cycling because it's so messed up and the ads revenue for it is just too low...
i agree with most of this.. the organizers, the UCI etc are only concerned now, after years of sweeping it under the rug because the press and police have exposed all the cover-up (not the UCI, not organizers, not even WADA) and now it is going to affect sponsorship dollars... now that they are poised to lose money they are concerned. riders are punished for doing exactly what they have be pushed to to... go faster, break records, win at all costs etc.. now the sh!t is hitting the fan and rider get all the blame... it is bs..wolfix said:
CSC will sign the agreement because they did not find other teams who would have refused to sign:
http://www.telesport.nl/wielersport/1836215/___CSC_zwicht_voor_druk_Tour-organisatie.html
http://www.telesport.nl/wielersport/1836215/___CSC_zwicht_voor_druk_Tour-organisatie.html
Since 1998 the ASO has been at the forefront of the fight against doping. The german organizers seem even more outraged than the ASO. And the it has spread, to a lesser degree--to the other GTs. It doesn't matter what the organizer's motives are. They can see which way the wind is blowing, and they know that the endemic doping cannot continue if cycling is to remain a viable sport.wolfix said:
What happened in the 70s is irrelevant. That's thirty years ago, dude. Things change. People's attitudes change. Society and culture changes. The view of doping in cycling has changed. Twenty years ago if a rider was caught, he had ten minutes added to his GC time in a GT. Then we got year long suspensions. Then two year suspensions. Now we effectively have four year suspensions. Even just a few years ago when cyclists were busted, they served their suspension and were welcomed back. That's not happening anymore. Now if you get pipped, you are banished to the minor leagues and many of the organizers don't want you at their events.wolfix said:
I don't think so. The corner has been turned and I don't think it's going back.wolfix said:
From the 70's to the present is a pattern.......dude..... How long have you followed the sport? When has any cycling organization done anything to prevent doping until OP happened????? The civil authorities have forced the organizations act as if something is being done.
Are you kidding me? Do you think the fans care any less today then they did 25 years ago...... ????
If they did, and the winds of change have been happening, why is that this last year has shown us that doping is alive and well in the peloton? And this year , if it is a truly clean tour, and the fans want a clean sport, then the numbers will be high......... But we will see. But don't hold your breathe. If the civil authorities had not busted the Op lab, we would be arguing right now as to why JU/Basso will be able to defend his title again this year.
McQuad is probably making deals today to protect riders from the TDF organization.
This entire thing is all about the ProTour, TDF, and the UCI trying to gain control of the sport. If it was truly about doping we would have WADA all over this.......
Do you really think that cycling is going to sit back and watch other sports who do nothing about doping grab all the sponsorship money? That is the thinking of a grade school student.
The fact of the matter is that doping/cycling sells. It has for the past 20 years or more. It is a proven product. Do you think the fans care if a rider is doped, when it is possible all the contenders are? The past shows us the fans do not care......
And how is the sport going to be cleaned up when new PEDS are being invented all along? When there are millions to be won, do you think a new sense of morality is going to take place? The only people who could change the sport is the fans, and what have they done to want a clean sport? Oh.......you get a few guys running around with "dopers suck" Tee shirts, but I doubt if anyone pays any attention.
The fans want hero's and to be entertained. The TDF,ASO, and the riders know this.
Nothing will change.
Hopefully the hyjacking of Cancer as a cover story WILL NEVER again become a doper apology exemption to hide behind.wolfix said:
Jan Ulrich had no such CANCER chemo doping industrial complex to hide behind, as Lance already co-opted that media excuse and branded $300 Nike 1011 sneakers.
Pro sports are based upon filthy dirty endorsement deals and media help.
i know i could really care less if the riders are doped... i've been watching cycling for 20+ years knowing they are doped... the biggest let down in a long while was last TdF and not being able to see Ullrich and Basso go head to head.. instead we get the second rung guys going at it... which was BORING!!! and the winner still turns up with a positive test... how stupid!!wolfix said:
as an aside - did anyone notice they are calling them non-negative now... what the hell does that mean? is that softening the blow or is that just for an A test coming up positive and the B test hasn't been done? why don't the just say an A test has come up positive?
riding is a spectical and fans don't want to hear about doping just like "Pro" Wrestling fans don't want to hear about how their sport is fake... they know, but so what, let us just watch the spectical in peace...
Similar threads
