Maybe Phonak was too competent?

[[email protected]]

A comment by "wasafloydfam" on the http://trustbut.blogspot.com
discusion wonders:

"I am surprised that no one has suggested that Phonak had so many
positive doping cases because it would not manage the doping of its
riders or at least look the other way. This would certainly make the
riders more likely to get caught.

Obviously, this is not something the other teams or the UCI would want
to suggest. They would prefer that we conclude that Phonak was the
worst. But it seems at least possible that they were the best. They had
a boss and a DS that were really opposed to doping, so their riders had
to manage and conceal their own programs. This lead to them getting
caught."

In the words of Ms. Tomlin, "I try hard to be cynical, but it's so hard
to keep up."

-dB

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> A comment by "wasafloydfam" on the http://trustbut.blogspot.com
> discusion wonders:
>
> "I am surprised that no one has suggested that Phonak had so many
> positive doping cases because it would not manage the doping of its
> riders or at least look the other way. This would certainly make the
> riders more likely to get caught.
>
> Obviously, this is not something the other teams or the UCI would want
> to suggest. They would prefer that we conclude that Phonak was the
> worst. But it seems at least possible that they were the best. They had
> a boss and a DS that were really opposed to doping, so their riders had
> to manage and conceal their own programs. This lead to them getting
> caught."

dumbass,

how does this make them "too competent" ? if they were competent they
would test their riders and make sure that they are i) either clean or
ii) certain to not fail drug tests.

 

[dbrower]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> dumbass,
>
> how does this make them "too competent" ? if they were competent they
> would test their riders and make sure that they are i) either clean or
> ii) certain to not fail drug tests.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. The argument, as I understand
it, is that the team had good control and tests; this drove the riders
into even darker corners to do their dirty work than on other teams,
which have the staff help with the nefarious work. Not only do the
riders need to beat the ADA testing, but the team testing. A good
fraction of the Phonak cases were from internal control, and not just
from external testing.

I suppose that "too competent" is in the context of actually trying to
control and stop the doping in the team, as compared to other teams
that are "incompetent" at that, and perhaps quite competent at helping
riders do their doping and hide it from tests.

It made some hypothetical sense to me, in a kind of reggae-off-the-beat
kind of way. Andy Rihs is certainly putting on a good act of being
dismayed, suggesting that he really was trying to stop it, and
couldn't. That said, there are plenty of really good liars involved
in that game, and I don't pretend to be able to tells the sinners from
the angels with dirty wings.

-dB

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

> A comment by "wasafloydfam" on the http://trustbut.blogspot.com
> discusion wonders:
>
> "I am surprised that no one has suggested that Phonak had so many
> positive doping cases because it would not manage the doping of its
> riders or at least look the other way. This would certainly make the
> riders more likely to get caught.
>
> Obviously, this is not something the other teams or the UCI would want
> to suggest. They would prefer that we conclude that Phonak was the
> worst. But it seems at least possible that they were the best. They had
> a boss and a DS that were really opposed to doping, so their riders had
> to manage and conceal their own programs. This lead to them getting
> caught."

It's a theory.

However,

(1) Andy Rihs really had no option but to make continuous anti-doping
noises, because the failures of his team put him under continuous
pressure to do so. I'm not saying he was being dishonest, only that
we've no real means of knowing, since he would almost certainly have
said the same things either way.

(2) Rihs certainly failed to suppress a belief among his elite riders
that doping was OK. The team's internal culture wasn't sufficiently
anti-doping.

(3) Rihs selected successive lead riders who were dopers. That's at best
a profound error of judgement.

I don't really know that much about Rihs' personal management style. By
contrast, /if/ Ivan Basso was doping, I would be enormously surprised if
Bjarne Riis didn't know about it. Bjarne gives the impression of being a
very involved directeur sportif, very close to his riders and very
accessible to him. Is Andy the same, or is he more distant?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; lovely alternative to rice.

 

[Cyrus De Kline]

dbrower schrieb:

> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > dumbass,
> >
> > how does this make them "too competent" ? if they were competent they
> > would test their riders and make sure that they are i) either clean or
> > ii) certain to not fail drug tests.
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful response. The argument, as I understand
> it, is that the team had good control and tests; this drove the riders
> into even darker corners to do their dirty work than on other teams,
> which have the staff help with the nefarious work. Not only do the
> riders need to beat the ADA testing, but the team testing. A good
> fraction of the Phonak cases were from internal control, and not just
> from external testing.
>
> I suppose that "too competent" is in the context of actually trying to
> control and stop the doping in the team, as compared to other teams
> that are "incompetent" at that, and perhaps quite competent at helping
> riders do their doping and hide it from tests.
>
> It made some hypothetical sense to me, in a kind of reggae-off-the-beat
> kind of way. Andy Rihs is certainly putting on a good act of being
> dismayed, suggesting that he really was trying to stop it, and
> couldn't. That said, there are plenty of really good liars involved
> in that game, and I don't pretend to be able to tells the sinners from
> the angels with dirty wings.
>
> -dB

Yesterday Andy Rhis claimed something similar on swiss TV:
Not that their team was more efficient with internal tests, but that
the swiss olympic comitee was more severe than others with thier
out-of-competition tests.
It seemed kind of a lame excuse, but the part with the
out-of-competition tests is certainly true. Camenzind and Sydney
Tria-Gold Medalist MacMahon were both caught this way. What other
national federation would "destroy" their own heroes this way?
Elsewhere, the atlethes get internal bans and are put on medical leave
with some excuse or "retire", but thing like that do not go public.

 

[Cyrus De Kline]

Simon Brooke schrieb:
>
> I don't really know that much about Rihs' personal management style. By
> contrast, /if/ Ivan Basso was doping, I would be enormously surprised if
> Bjarne Riis didn't know about it. Bjarne gives the impression of being a
> very involved directeur sportif, very close to his riders and very
> accessible to him. Is Andy the same, or is he more distant?
>

Well their role in the respective team was completely different. Rihs
is the sponsor, Riis is the team manager. Or to put it the MAPEI-way,
Rihs is a Giorgio Squinzi and Riis more like a Patrick Lefévère. Of
course, the lines are blurred

 

[[email protected]]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> I don't really know that much about Rihs' personal management style. By
> contrast, /if/ Ivan Basso was doping, I would be enormously surprised if
> Bjarne Riis didn't know about it. Bjarne gives the impression of being a
> very involved directeur sportif, very close to his riders and very
> accessible to him. Is Andy the same, or is he more distant?

Riis is team owner and DS, Rihs on the other hand is the team owner,
and a bit furhter from the action. I think Lelangue is the top DS, he
was at the TdF. Rihs doesn't rely on cycling for his income, if the
team folds he doesn't lose his job.

 

[[email protected]]

dbrower wrote:

> Thanks for your thoughtful response. The argument, as I understand
> it, is that the team had good control and tests; this drove the riders
> into even darker corners to do their dirty work than on other teams,
> which have the staff help with the nefarious work. Not only do the
> riders need to beat the ADA testing, but the team testing.

> A good
> fraction of the Phonak cases were from internal control, and not just
> from external testing.

Which ones ?

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>A comment by "wasafloydfam" on the http://trustbut.blogspot.com
> discusion wonders:
>
> "I am surprised that no one has suggested that Phonak had so many
> positive doping cases because it would not manage the doping of its
> riders or at least look the other way. This would certainly make the
> riders more likely to get caught.
>
> Obviously, this is not something the other teams or the UCI would want
> to suggest. They would prefer that we conclude that Phonak was the
> worst. But it seems at least possible that they were the best. They had
> a boss and a DS that were really opposed to doping, so their riders had
> to manage and conceal their own programs. This lead to them getting
> caught."
>
> In the words of Ms. Tomlin, "I try hard to be cynical, but it's so hard
> to keep up."

In my relations with the Swiss businessmen, they are extremely demanding but
extremely fair. You are probably on target there.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > A comment by "wasafloydfam" on the http://trustbut.blogspot.com
> > discusion wonders:
> >
> > "I am surprised that no one has suggested that Phonak had so many
> > positive doping cases because it would not manage the doping of its
> > riders or at least look the other way. This would certainly make the
> > riders more likely to get caught.
> >
> > Obviously, this is not something the other teams or the UCI would want
> > to suggest. They would prefer that we conclude that Phonak was the
> > worst. But it seems at least possible that they were the best. They had
> > a boss and a DS that were really opposed to doping, so their riders had
> > to manage and conceal their own programs. This lead to them getting
> > caught."
>
> dumbass,
>
> how does this make them "too competent" ? if they were competent they
> would test their riders and make sure that they are i) either clean or
> ii) certain to not fail drug tests.

What makes you think that Phonak's compulsory tests would be any more
effective than WADA approved tests? The riders have been beating the
system for a while now. The bottom line is: the riders a) want to
win, and be able to command better contracts and b) to not lose their
slot on the team due to lack of results or contribution. There is
plenty of non team-generated motivation to dope.