Interview of Manuela Ronchi (Part 1)

Discussion in 'Professional Cycling' started by ilpirata, Feb 19, 2006.

  1. ilpirata

    ilpirata New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    2
    I found this on cicloweb.it and translated it as best i could. It has some interesting things. Some of it will not be new to readers of the book "Man on the run" which is actually more accurately translated "Man in escape" from "Uomo in fuga". But naturally "on the run" is a more common expression in the english language. But she reveals a little more about the man and the drama of the isolation, and systematic destruction of Marco Pantani, beginning with his exclusion following the stage ending at Madonna di Campiglio in the 1999 Giro d'Italia.

    [She was one of the most important persons in his life. She was near him in the moments of greatness and in those of despair. When you saw Marco Pantani she was there, near and inseparable like a shadow. Manuela Ronchi, the manager of the Pirate, consents to to tell her personal point of view. And when she talks about Marco, we feel it so neighbor that there seems almost of to touch him.
    How has your life been in the two years from the passing away of Marco?
    «It is a big question. ... In the primary sense it is changed because I have made a treasury of all of the experience that I had being near to so intense a personality, and I looked for the all of the possible teachings imaginable, for that the lens through which I look at the things and that I work is changed, because from him I learned a lot. I have, yes, learned a lot from him, but I learned a lot also from others, and like often and willingly it is necessary to try to create an actual world around us, with the ethics without allowing ourselves to be scratched; I have created an umpteenth wall, seen that however also I am a very sensitive person and seeing how he is remained depressed for many things, I have myself been frightened, because I have more or less the same character, for that seeing how things went, I don’t illude myself so much about many things. And then from the other side instead I taken on some challenges because I did not want to react in passive manner to what happened, because even though I do not have the power of change the things from how they have gone, I feel myself in duty with respect to Marco to carry forward with head high, everything that serves to make understood to the people who was Marco, and therefore little at a time try to restore some Dignity for him that let himself go for fear of having lost it».
    According to you opinion, what happened at Madonna of Campiglio that 5 June 1999?
    «I believe that that day did not be happen a matter of numbers, of values... or better yes, a matter of values happened, that however is not the values of the blood but those of the life, because in an instant in the mind of Marco the human values collapsed, those that he would have expected in the sense that he was a very generous person and had given a lot to the sport and to his colleagues, and to his environment; likely the large disappointment for him that day was that of having so many backs turned on him, and not being listened to anymore by anyone, and I believe this was the true intellectual death of a so sensitive and so intelligent a person. For that, for the fact that the world of the bicycle racing to which had dedicated the life had turned him the shoulders (but not just to have expelled it from the Turn, I speak actual of the environment, of the colleagues, of the sensibility of the persons), I believe that his true inner death happened that day there. From there he did not succeed at making sense of things and also because from that day in things did not improve but worsened, and he saw every day always more people remove desert him, those in which instead he hoped for a help. Help not in practical limits, but in actual connections human and of the to want to find someone that would listen to him and try to understand him, instead he heard himself only judged».
    Do you believe or except the theory of the plot?
    «Frankly I say that the term "plot" is a term that creates some resistances, because however I start always from a premise: when you make accusations you should have some certain facts, instead here unfortunately we have all of the habit of to throw always accusations without having then the proofs, for that the word "plot" would be necessary to use it if the certain proofs of irregular intervention were established . Instead I am convinced that what happened has to be called unexplained and fall back myself to the account of Marco who never made sense of it, fundamental because it would be necessary to live everything that happened in the months of approach to that day: for those situations, of the words said, of the attitudes, that carried one to believe that that day something did not work as it should, The “plot” then becomes the not being able to explain how it is possible that to a professional cyclist that had already in hand the Giro of Italy, could happen a thing of that nature. Secondly, the thing that really leaves uncertain is the non precision and the non faithfulness of the information, because n any event that day Pantani was not found positive, but if any person on the street is interviewed about it, they are convinced that Pantani that day was been found positive. It is this that is really serious, the not to have explained precisely how went the things. I never I asserted some things that I do not know, alone of the certain things: the sole certain thing than there is in the event of Pantani is that never positive in all his career was he found, all of the remainder is air fried. All the suspicions and the presumptions of guilt are nothing other that suspicions and presumptions of guilt, for that to accuse a person as was done with him, to sacrifice him on an altar and to judge and destroy him from the point of view both human and psychological, was done over the premises, of the inferences and of the hypothesis. The problem of the doping exists, in the sport, and Marco was one of those that beat themselves so that this could be conquered, he was certainly not one that sailed thanks to this thing, because the true champions need not these things, or rather, perhaps if were all on bread and water, Pantani rather than give two minutes to all would have given three hours to all with the talent that had. And he said to me always "Manu, look if they really find a way to test with clarity I am the first one that draw the benefit, but until they apply some rules that in themselves are not equal for all and is sought to judge with wrong meters, there will be always who does it open, who does it clever. Why if a morning take Pantani and he blunders, it is just that Pantani pays". He it always it said, I have also of the tapes in which he said these things far from the times of suspicion, back in 95 even. I believe that the true truth on this boy is that, just because he was a person too pure and too consistent, in the end has let himself go, because another could have said "O.K., 15 days I am suspended, I come back and ride, who gives a rats .…", and instead he made it a matter of principle. In the end he destroyed himself rather than compromise. But it was not in his nature to do harm to someone else.».
    Therefore according to you it is because of this bad information that the fans, but also he himself, have been convinced of this personally directed attacks?
    "Sure, but fundamentally I believe that of this story a show has been made without to go to seek the truth of what truly has happened. If one wants to go and make clean the sport, it is not in taking the personage in sight most and demonstrating that we do not stop even in front of he who in that moment winning the Giro of Italy, because if there is some coherence and not hypocrisy, the problem can be resolved in very other ways. And instead it was not the case. Unfortunately Marco is not successful to re demonstrate on the bicycle who was truly Marco Pantani was because he had fallen in the problem of the cocaine; and also here the upteenth bad interpretation, because, again if people are asked, many will be convinced that the cocaine excites helps one to go faster. Many still confuse the doping with the cocaine, and instead the cocaine it debilitates you to the point that you more do not succeed even to be on your feet, and Marco is not successful to make great performances because he had fallen into this depression and then has carried it to uses of the coke. He fought to be on the bicycle fundamentally in order to be away from the other problem, and although this is successful to still make some interesting stages in tours of the last five years, something almost extraordinary what if compared with his colleagues who had a normal life with the family, the affections, or however a regular life under all the points of view, knowing instead in what situation he was: he did not have a near woman, he had psychological problems, he had seven tribunals attacking his heel, he had not trained with continuity because unfortunately the depression has carried him on the drug route, and to succeed to go on the Giro of Italy and to end it, to succeed to make some results in the tours of 2000, is the demonstration of that extraordinary physical ability of this boy; because he was not able to race with equal conditions with competitors, for which what he did was only thanks to the natural dowries. For which we figure ourselves, the true tifoso, who loved Pantani truly, who knew who was Pantani, is not surprised, and still today asks "why that cursed day...". Then there are here of the things that need to be explained: it is not that Marco expected that that day inasmuch as he was Marco Pantani, or inasmuch as he was gaining the Giro of Italy, that there had to be made an exception, no for the love of God! But, if these controanalysis are spoken about, then these controanalysis, should be made, that they should not keep reanalyzing the same test-tube of blood, and then not to say to the world that they have done the controanalysis: because to make the controanalysis means to go to draw a new champion of blood and on that one to make the test. And that is the thing that truly has left us more and more exasperated of the "after" : how never that morning, after that it is uncovered that Marco had the elevated hematocrit one to the norm, nobody of the organizers, nobody of the atmosphere have gone to his room to extend a compassionate hand? Or even to say: Marco alight, you have apparently made a mistake, but we are here with you. (Given that he did in fact make any mistake). He that morning already had been condemned to the prison, removed like if he had had the plague. And this is the thing that it has made to fall truly any type of creedance in a system that functions like it should. Because I remember that I spoke with Michelotti one day, he said to me that when Merckx was found positive the organizers went in his room to provide him with understanding. And with "understanding" one does not agree not to admit that the champion has mistaken, because all can mistake. One would have expected himself to be put all around a table and have himself to be watched straight in face in the eyes, but he cannot expect that he will be just blasted from a distance, and if when he looks for even eye contact with these organizers they all lower the look for earth. And this is the thing that it had truly hurt badly Pantani ".
    But how come according to you there was this attitude with him while with others, in other cases, it has not been taken place?
    "We are speaking about a personage who is not only a champion who went strong. Marco was a person whom it has known to excite the people like few others, and it places itself in a threshold of consideration in the comparisons of the champions of the sport that is more towards the myth that towards the champions who rationally or thanks to the abilities are able to give results . That is, he was a little like the artist of his trade, and therefore when one speaks about artists one cannot ever make a calculation model or make of the logical considerations as they even make themselves with of the persons who normally are with the feet for earth; the artists are always on another planet, for which he was successful to make what he made in the sport fundamentaly because a normal person he was not.: from he wants to make sacrifices, to the things outside from the lines, he did not have a middle way, it was always all or nothing. For which he was a particular personage. What succeeds, that also in this Marco never has been a person who has folded himself to compromises. Therefore I believe that in his atmosphere, above all on the credit side beginning of that famous Giro of Italy del ' 99, he had exposed himself too much for the protection of the group. The riders had called upon him to represent them in contesting to the superimposition of additional controls, contesting a fight or control system of the doping that according to him, like many other runners, did not work as it should. Because he always said: "it must go in the juvenile fields, it must teach to the boys who do not have make of themselves cheaters in order to pass from amateurs to professionals, it must take hard work, etc, because we professionals know to manage ourselves and the young boys not, and in order to try to aim to arrive where we arrive at times they take the shortcuts". Therefore he was for a cleaned up sport, not that he drew a thrill from the fact of having to make use of substances in order to go more strong. Therefore he had exposed himself: and in that Marco moment, having gained Giro and Tour, was a personage who in theory could also gain the elections, because he had the people on his side;his popularity, his notoriety had arrived above the levels of the normal notoriety that has a cyclist. Therefore he has exposed himself not sharing certain organizational thoughts of his atmosphere and this had given a bit of annoyance. And he had given annoyance also to many riders and to many teams because he overshadowed them that is..., of the sponsors that spend hundred of million, of billions, in order to make of the teams, then did not win never. I remember that we went to the Giro of Italy and one time laughing he said to me: "Today I make strike of the interviews, because I do not call the journalists, they are there waiting for me to come, and then when I go to the starting line my colleagues do not look to me in face because they think that I want to cannibalize the press, and I want to say : go also to the others ". But he was not he that he wanted to be to the center of the attention, it was that the press wanted only the interview of Marco Pantani. And how many other "reddened" I know this firsthand because I would here it because I was behind, and the words that I heard from behind the scenes were: "We hope that they take him outside", because he being always the center of the attention was too much. not seen like "Thanks to Pantani the cycling is returning to being one of the sports more followed", inasmuch as in his times a contest that he made on the Mortirolo made more listening audience than that of the Formula One or soccer. Instead of seeing a person that has brought back light on a sport, and consequently all the others could some draw of the advantages, had been seen like what he cannibalized in attention. Therefore much is matured in envies, and this that has been fundamental. I that fateful morning have heard said "Finally the got him, therefore at least they remove him from the coglioni". And then as you make to go to explain to people that after that you have felt thousand voices therefore you can succeed in convincing yourself that there has been a reason for which he had to be removed? But you do not have the proofs, you only have some circumstances that make you to believe that perhaps something has been arranged. And these are just small examples, there are many others, of voices said from journalists, voices that went around and according to which the day before it was already known that then they would stop him; and it is asked to us: why? Why there was this climate like if all they knew that something had to happen? And it is not that this you can explain it in a court saying "Because I have this suspicion and that is why he was removed from the giro". It is of fact that one of the more absurd things on which i would have to reflect is this: that the cycling has placed a rule that that has said if you have the hematocrit within 50 you can run, and if you have it advanced above the 50 it risks the health... and then it is as if it wants to say that if one has 32 he is authorized to dope in order to arrive until 49? The absurdity of this rule is this, because the hematocrit measurement is one that everyone of us possesses in various way; to give one threshold and to say: within that one you are within the rule, over that one risks the health, they have made hypocrisy rule, because in the first place a measured point more or less determiniing the health of a person has no creedance. and secondarily it says that you indirectly give the authority to who has low hematocrit to be able to stimulate it until arriving to one sure threshold and not beyond that one. The rule has already demonstrates the hypocrisy of as they come managed the things. And it is that which Marco did not support, also being be one of those cyclists that have the rule underwriten, because then it was a rule made in attendance that science would succeed in finding a true test for the epo in the blood. Because it was not yet found, they created a rule where it was asked: which is that level to which, if one uses the epo, can begin to say stop that it risks the health? They have only made because one of the consequences of the use of the epo is the elevation of the hematocrit, therefore they have given a limit. But the problem is that the hematocrit is not raised exclusively and solely by assuming epo, it is raised for many other reasons, therefore this rule was so imprecise and imperfect that goodness knows, not long after the case Pantani, they have changed the method. Therefore, these things are all that fans may reflect on and next to the ease with which a man is killed to the level of dignity. And it is the much deeper reasoning to make regarding compared to what I heard said, of the type: "Pantani did not win anymore and then it has been depressed and it has taken drugs". Because then we are all good ones to exemplify the intensity of the feelings that another person can have... I close always the eyes and I say: but if I tomorrow morning look at myself on the first page of a newspaper where they say "the Ronchi has stolen" and I know not to have stolen , I would be embarassed to exit the house. Now, with this I do not want to say that it is justifiable that one falls in a depression and goes to take drugs, because it would be much too easy to justify, and this then is one terrifying thing that unfortunately happens to many... here in one sense, my life today is changed because I go with my head up saying "Yes, he has been a great champion, has been a number one, but be careful because if he did not overcome cocaine, he who was the greatest climber of all times, he who has come back from twenty broken legs, if he did not win the fight against cocaine there must be something to fear from it. So stay attentive not to take it casually ", and therefore I think some positive instruction must be drawn from this history. What to me hurts, is when people banalize the suffering of the man behind "he had so much money, was number one, he did not win anymore and he got depressed, that loser did not have strength of character". It is not true. Perhaps Marco had let himself go because he was too pure. And in the end he has not made evil to anybody, he destroyed only himself. And it is a sin because he had still many things to give and to say. He has made cry the entire world because he has left an emptiness in the heart of all; therefore when one leaves an emptiness also to those that do not get passionate usually for cycling this is because according to me in his short life, in what he has made, he has been able to communicate some real things ".
    Therefore it has gone well for many that he had been found with this high blood value... "
    It is true... I have known of much more people who have drunk a toast regarding that day than they that have cried that day".
    Which role can have on one side had the Federation and from the other Rcs in this matter?
    "I know only this: that that day I did not know even what was the Federation, or what was the Uci, because I had to manage the image of Marco from the point of view of the communication and therefore little did I know of the atmosphere of cycling, for which what I can say they are only considerations that I made with Marco, inasmuch as it is his atmosphere and he knew it very well. What I can say it is that I have not agreed with the attitude of La Gazzetta dello Sport which condemned Marco without never to have thought for a single moment that that day there could have been an error. I do not draw conclusions, I only say that it could also be an error; why he had not been given the possibility to retry it, instead taking their position to the extreme and saying "the drug addict", "have they disappointed us"? We go to read the bottom of Cannavò of La Gazzetta of the day after... that the evening before the same Cannavò was to the Pantani table to speak about beneficence. I want to say, in a night you cannot change you opinion on a person, therefore if the esteem is true, the next morning after you run in his room you say "But Marco , what has happened?". If then he has truly made a mistake he pays, it is not that because it is Pantani does not have to pay, but give him the possibility to understand what has happened. Instead there was no such attitude of trying to understand. And this is the thing that to me has hurt. And for what it regards the Federation, Ceruti has gone to house of Marco and has said to him: "You must shut up your complaining, you must say that you have made a mistake and you will see that nobody will do anything else to you”, and Marco has answered to him: "But you know that I cannot say anything of the sort", and Ceruti: "Eh, but you will be one against all". That then, I also in my book ("a man on the run") have collected testimonies, like as an example that one of David Boifava, that said that during the Giro of Italy, after that Marco went to the Processers of the Stage saying that the runners would be themselves oppossed to the superimposition of the additional controls from CONI for the campaign "I do not risk the health" to those to the Uci, Cipollini called Pantani in order to say: "it cannot be now that every who comes to us we have to give blood to. TheGiro takes 22 days, eight hours for us on the bicycle each day, and we are the only sportsmen who have decided to give themselves up to capture the blood in order to help the war to the doping... Or we gather around a table all the riders and approve of also the controls of the CONI, or they they do not come to us with their syringes like this". And Marco was made the spokesman for this opinion of the riders. Criminally however even though they were all in agreement the evening previous, in the morning there was only Pantani to speak and the others pulled themselves back and left him hanging out to dry.".
    Why did they all pull back? They had fear?
    "They pulled behind all because dottor Squinzi had called all of his boys of the Mapei team, it had been also the history of Tafi that had litigated with Pantani, and had said: "Not, you do what I say, and do also the controls of the CONI". And then Boifava told this to Josti, the co-author of the book with me, than that morning in which Ceruti went from Boifava to tell him "I recommend this to you, all must make also the controls of the CONI", and then Boifava had called Pantani to tell him "Marco please drop this and do the CONI controls. Be careful and remember that not even the Agnelli came down in the public square in order to demonstrate certain things" and after that Boifava said to Ceruti that Pantani was not of agreement with this thing like all the riders, Ceruti said: "Sooner or later even the Gods will come down from Mount Olympus". Then, for who it wants to understand truly what had happened, all these said things, these situations, they leave you with certain doubts, and make you think : but then it was because Pantani had given too much annoyance, had spoken a little too much, had been aligned too much in this fight against the superimposition of the controls. That then it is not that he had had it with the CONI, had only had said: "If the doctors of the CONI want to come, that before at least it is put to us an agreement because then anyone arrives can capture blood, and then in the end, who is it is that can ride a bicycle if 10 liters of blood to the day are removed". Goodness knows because from that morning in then the Giro of Italy for Marco became a witch hunt, from what they tell to me, inasmuch as I have only gone to Cesenatico and Madonna di Campiglio, and I still did not have the experience for being able to perceive sure things. I remember that there was a crazy tension and heard voices that said "They want to stop Marco", but I still did not have the experience for being able to understand until that point this worry was serious; I have understood then after, collecting testimonies, listening the opinions of all, seeing the behaviors and the attitudes of all which has happened and with the powers of attorney to follow. Because going back to what I have said to the beginning, here we can really only declare sure things, and the certainty that Pantani never has not been positive I know it, and people have not still understood it. This does not mean to say that he has not never used anything: I have never seen him use anything, I am not in a position to say if he used or he did not use, I only know that sure he was equal to all the others, made what they made all the others and it isn’t right that just he is made to be the rare beast. _ and this is fundamental, when there are cyclists who are found positive. For them there might be an article with three lines on one day, and then a day later it is all forgotten. Meanwhile Pantani they have gone forward day after day and then months and years to throw him on the first page as the drugged one of all time ".
    On the note of Cannavò: in his editorial of 14 February, he has spoken about "connivences of the environment", leaving the concept suspended and making nearly to think next to rising of impunity during drug test that would have facilitated Pantani.
    "I say this: if Cannavò must say certain things that he finishes what he starts, since it is probably not convenient for anybody to go deep he makes little statements that find the time that they find. These things truly make me laugh because then I ask myself: if he says things of the sort, he that he was the director of La Gazzetta, is it possible that he does not know anything? Then it has gone well also to he until has gone well, I do not know, I have not understood, one that has risen to those levels cannot wash his hands like Pontius Pilate and launch the shot with an arrow like this. That everyone should take responsibilities about what they say and finish the thing they start. The connivenza of the environment is like when it has come outside that Pantani used the cocaine and I have seen all to say: "But come on, he used the cocaine, but how?" and to me they said. "If you had told us before we perhaps could have helped!". But they all knew it! But let’s try to be men for once as well, and say the things as they are; Pantani that day lì could have said: "Boys, we are all equal and in this together" and his colleagues would have said: "Thinks for yourself". Because when you are in a world in which nobody he has the courage to say the things as they are because is more comfortable not to say them, that is what it is ugly. Then he has carried with himself to the tomb the many things and has been silent about because he has accepted to work in this atmosphere and has accepted the rules of its atmosphere. When these rules, for other people's comfort, have turned all against him, probably he found himself alone like a dog. I believe that we are all adults, there has to be some courage, if clarity wants truly to be made, that all say the things as they are, not to make to pay certain persons, with the others always on the pulpit to make the preachings. In the end we must be all a bit more more honest. This is my humble opinion. But I do not have it against Cannavò or any other, I only say that it is not right that the finger must be always headed at Pantani when Pantani has made comfortable all, he has made to the giro money for all, has made newspapers sell to all, has made to make radio programs listened for all. If Marco were the number one regarding all there will be a reason. One what in which I truly believe is that this boy had a talent outside from the norm; all the doctors who I have met when I was with he, that had an oxygen consumption of 106, had 32 beats per minute relaxed, they always said me that this boy had one unreal natural dowry , and what is more it was joined to a determination, to a sacrificing spirit that was outside from the common one: in exited the morning at the hour of 8 and returning on the 6, he was entire days outside training himself alone on the bicycle, he has not passed to the youth like all the other boys with company, or going out to party, he has made a life of sacrifices, therefore it tests the imagination to think, to arrive to 34 years with finally the head raised, to find himself condemned to pass for the only one that what has obtained what he has obtained because has cheated... and then it had Marco reason to say: "Then if you want to attack yourselves on me let’s open the books on all, and put ourselves there, so that the rules are equal for all, only for now everyone is more comfortable because it is I having to pay for all". It is this that it has hurt him badly. Then I repeat: if one wants to be honest, he begins to analyze the situation of those times, who was free taking the epo, who was not free taking the epo, which is the true situations, who has the responsibilities not to manage the things in a sure way, which is the rules, what is made for improving the riders and in order to train them, then it would have truly to open of understood them the infinites being made names and last names and being there to watch the situations. Nevertheless it becomes simpler for all, to throw all on the account of Marco, while the others are always there... like when he was not well and all said me that I have been the only one that has wanted to help him and I have not never asked aid from others: I ask myself: when I had need, where were the persons who wanted to give a hand to me in order to help Marco? To me they said: "Dump him, he is a drug addict and you ruin yourself also". Then when he is dead has become a saint ".
    But according to you to pull out all on all, and to see who took what and who not, who would have the responsibility to complete this step?
    "Then, this is not a discussion that is easily faced. To me Marco has always said that first of all they, the riders, would have to gather around a table, to put themselves of agreement with the Federation and the institutions that regulate the cycling, and to put on serious, ethical and behavioural protocol on as this argument must be managed, being tried to be all transparent, all from the first one to the last one. If however on the inside of this game there people with their own interests and not the will to make clarity, because probably some methods make uncomfortable many, the thing is annulled altogether and we go back to the dog that bites the tail. It is not that there is one that can take in hand the situation, because if Pantani that day had said: "It is true, I used the epo as of the rest they use it all", it would have resolved the problem? That is, if what had been that easy to say anything of the sort, why Pantani would not have said it? What cost has it? The problem is that if that morning when Marco has been found with a point outside from the norm, his colleagues, that they know exactly how are the things, would have abandoned him saying “ Get out of here ", he is trying to burn us", that is to say clarity is not really wanted . If Pantani had opened the mouth I I am sure that all would have said: "We! But think for yourself that you are found outside the norm ". Now I do not want to make the same error that it has been made in the comparisons of Marco, for which I do not allow myself neither to accuse the Federation, neither to accuse Cannavò or the riders, these are only my considerations that I make because I have an interest in sports as well, I have a child that I must carry to make sport, and I feel the tensions. Moreover I am trying now with the Foundation Pantani to make a little formation for the sport and at times I see the mechanisms that they leave from when the children are small, with the parents who also to make them win them would make whichever thing, also to see the son succeed the pocketbook would take care of all, and the society says to you: "Or the number one or the loser who does not get taken into consideration", and therefore they prime of the doping mechanisms that are not only those to use the substances, but are a mistaken ethics that it consists in the fact that today to the boys comes said: "If you apply yourselves well and make hard work and you put us much time then your are a loser, you must make it happen in a hurry all because if he does not demonstrate being the number one early, they cut you out from the games, and if you do not make the result you receive a shoe in seating area, and the society closes the doors on you . This is the culture today. Therefore if you must go to see who would have the responsibility to do something, there would have to be an analysis that you do not know where it will end; the family or the competitor cannot themselves be blamed or only the rider, or only the sport society. To summarize, from making an analysis that watches which are today the models that could become proposals, because all it depends on that, Then I say myself: since we are not ingenuous, and we know very well that today in order to live in our society unfortunately you must try to survive, with all the compromises, the more or less just, more or less ethical, then ethics in ones own life are created, because when then it goes to bed the evening he must be square with his conscience. Then I say, why must we be hypocritical? Either it is truly attempted to make the things as they must be made from A to Z, otherwise do not attempt in order to make the entire world see that you are first class in trying to resolve problems, that you go and take someone down every now and again. It is not right ".
    An other thing that had come outside in those days was that Ivano Fanini had spoken about the exchange of tests-tube between Pantani and Forconi the day of the crono of Lugano of the Giro of the ' 98.
    "I was not there , and I have not never understood to what scope Fanini pursued in bringing this argument. As far as these things, of which one hundred thousand cases could be not only cited and not only on Marco, I always start from the presupposition that if the judicial processes are made on newspapers or with declarations, we would have to be on the list of defendants every day. The opportune centers exist in order to verify the things, and if it is true that one has made a mistake it is just that he pays. I make only this example: we in the last years had put together a team, fundamentalally in order to try to motivate Marco and to keep him from the cocaine far away because the only stimulus was the bicycle. I knew already that he could not ever make great results because he had this problem, but more or less we tried to limit the damages and to try with much patience and little time to reconstruct him on the psychological level and the physical level. Therefore we put on it’s feet this team, making the investments... and they suspend Marco eight months because they say that insulin syringe has been found one in the room of his hotel. Therefore: for presumption of guilt Marco it has been suspended eight months: which effectively has ruined his year of cycling, investments of the sponsors, entrepreneurial risks, and psychologically this boy has been completely destroyed. In the end what is the result?: That there is not any evidence to support the claim, there should at least have been a reduction of the suspension, especially since by then the suspension time had already ellapsed and they just come to the realization that there is no evidence to support a suspension. Who pays for this mistake? Nobody. Because as far as the presumption of guilt, or you are in a position to demonstrating that one has cheated, or you cannot suspend that person on the base of presumption. In suspending him, they inflicted more moral damage, a working damage, disillusion of the expectations of people, in order then to end in what? In nothing. Marco when has gone to Rome from the anti-drug proxy Ajello and said to them: "it Feels, beyond that you have classified me as the doper, now you want to give me also the title of imbecille, because I that I have seven powers of attorney chasing my heels, if I were to make use of insulin, am I therefore so stupid to forget the syringe in the basket about my room". Then, these are of the situations that are inexplicable. Because then, thinking next on all these things, and multiplying them by all the proceeding that he has been brought against him. I say that in the end nobody he has ever demonstrated if it were true that he took something, in fact on this I do not want myself to be expressed, I have not never played the innocent one, I am only speaking about that what has been applied in the comparisons of Marco and of judicial outcomes: all one reason or the other have always ended in acquital. In the meantime what has been made this boy? Irreparable, psychological, physical, economic damages, only he has paid. Who has mistaken to judge, or who has accused him without proofs, or who has put in play these processes that then are ended in nothing, has not at all paid. Therefore, in all this, I ask myself if these are just methods. The accusations cannot themselves first be verified, and then, when it is itself truly sure, then be communicated? Why then on newspapers when they accuse you they print large first page bold news. When you are cleared you must bring a magnifying glass and go to the last page, notes or the news flash to read something in the event that something is written at all; While you from your own house have shame to exit... and Marco from the morning to the evening to his mother always asked: "Mother, but you are eshamed of me". Of that shame he is dead. These are the situations to watch beyond doping or not doping; Cannavò can continue to make illatons for all the life, but he was the director of the Gazzetta dello Sport: I would like to ask him why that morning has had not gone to Marco to speak, inasmuch as thinks himself the papà of all the various sportsmen, why he had not gone to speak with a his "boy" who could have made a mistake one morning? This is the question that I would want to make Cannavò, why that morning he had not gone to Marco, did someone block the door? I inasmuch as I am not technical, speak from the human point of view, inasmuch as he makes always those tear jerking articles . Perhaps Cannavò has a reason, but I ask myself alone if like director of the Gazzetta in front of a pupil that brought the name of the Gazzetta and the Giro of Italy up high, he was not worth the pain that morning even going to Marco to give him a pat on the shoulder, for encouragement. Marco would perhaps have appreciated it more than many other things. I sincerely think that sport is fine, but first of all comes the man, comes his behavior, his ethics, his comportment. Marco can have had three thousand defects, but as man was a great gentleman.
    In the discussion of all these processes, there is also the incarcerated Renato Vallanzasca, that has made several heavy declarations but never has been allowed to testify in court...
    "Yes, Vallanzasca has made some declarations that then are ended in null like many the other things that have been said, but it is normal that for the parents of Marco these things are remained very impressed. Because then one wants to understand why they have been said: because either one says these things in order makes publicity for themselves, or in the world of betting it is true that there ciculated these voices. Because then it is obvious that the thesis of the conspiracy finds a real base ".
    But why has he never has he been brought to testify at a process?
    "This I do not know it to say, because we could not do it. All these "how is it possible?" they are the same ones that we discussed together with Marco when we felt impotent in resolving these situations. The impotence to resolve the things is just that, to say "but why if there is will to make clarity, it does not come made clarity on all". And all the written notes that Marco has left all over leave these large questions : "Why?", "Why clarity has not been made", "Why I have not had answer from that one?", "Why this one has not been heard?". Unfortunately you feel impotent, and the impotence is that which makes you feel more badly than all, because it is not that you can decide alone to make justice ".
    These questions therefore to who would go made?
    " I do not know to say who, because every process had a various reason for being introduced. Probably as far as what has been said from Vallanzasca, that had to be called to testify to the inside of the process of Trento, it is not known why, but for he that managed the things it was not deemed necessary his deposition. Or perhaps because it was uncomfortable, but truly I do not know it to say, we have cracked our heads trying to understand the why of many things, but we have not been able of giving the answers ".
    But you believe it is a matter of the bets the fact that could have influenced in some way in the issue?
    "Frankly not a lot, because if it were true, we would have to truly all be worried and of all... I do not want to believe this, because it would make me to collapse whichever spontaneous passion I had for any type of sport. If it were true therefore it would be a drama ".]
     
    Tags:


  2. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    Too much to read.
    I glanced at some of it.
    She was in it up to her eyeballs, what do you THINK she's gonna say.
    "Yes, Marco doped, he doped a lot, those of us on the inside knew it. And our livelihoods which depended on him depended on him sticking a needle full of EPO up his rear all the time. Now he's dead because of the doping and all of us are guilty?"
    It would be refreshing of course.

    "I've seen the neddle and the damage done...
    a little part of it in everyone..."

    Neil Young

    FREE TYLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
Loading...
Loading...