What credibility now.................



Status
Not open for further replies.

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
What credibility now ?

The grand tour winners of the past several years have now all been shown to have doped at some time in their careers.

Armstrong TDF winner
Heras Vuelta winner
Garzelli/Simoni Giro winner
Gonzalez Vuelta winner

We've had the cocaine/PED allegations levelled during the Giro 2000/2001, we have had the EPO allegations levelled at the TDF since 1999, we have PED allegations against Vuelta consistently.

In 1998, we had the Festina scandal which was followed by reciminations, counter allegation, statements of intent from the UCI.
Finally as the civil authorities in France became involved we got, for the first time, admissions of doping by Virenque and Zulle.
That brief window, when the sport could have re-established it's credibility - and perhaps have saved cyclists lives - was slammed shut by our sports inability (unwillingness ??) to deal with the doping issue, once and for all.

The 7 year charade has come unstuck with this latest doping story.

Only it's the fans of the sport who have been cheated - cheated by the riders, UCI, and in some cases, the sponsors.

The perception is now the reality.
 
limerickman said:
What credibility now ?

The grand tour winners of the past several years have now all been shown to have doped at some time in their careers.

Armstrong TDF winner
Heras Vuelta winner
Garzelli/Simoni Giro winner
Gonzalez Vuelta winner

We've had the cocaine/PED allegations levelled during the Giro 2000/2001, we have had the EPO allegations levelled at the TDF since 1999, we have PED allegations against Vuelta consistently.

In 1998, we had the Festina scandal which was followed by reciminations, counter allegation, statements of intent from the UCI.
Finally as the civil authorities in France became involved we got, for the first time, admissions of doping by Virenque and Zulle.
That brief window, when the sport could have re-established it's credibility - and perhaps have saved cyclists lives - was slammed shut by our sports inability (unwillingness ??) to deal with the doping issue, once and for all.

The 7 year charade has come unstuck with this latest doping story.

Only it's the fans of the sport who have been cheated - cheated by the riders, UCI, and in some cases, the sponsors.

The perception is now the reality.
I suppose this is why Lance was fighting from this year's TdF podium. Because so much negative press and media hoopla about doping.
Compare to baseball or football in the US...all these guys have been doped to the gills for years, but it is always cycling that gets the worst press.
Now, unfortunately, another guy who I think has obviously been on the needle for a while gets sloppy and gets caught.
Heras IS probably guilty.
But what to do about the entire sport or problem.
If Heras was guilty, then I am sure Menchov Sastre and the rest were too.
Tant pis.
 
credility zero!

But there needs to be a repeat positive for Heras i believe. And though i am not a fan of Simoni, I think the cocaine thing can not really be considered performance enhancing drug. So for me he is still an escapee. I have no doubt he uses stuff, as they all must be doing. I am really interested in the 1998 retains as you know. But perhaps there are legal barriers to revealing the results of these tests.

limerickman said:
What credibility now ?

The grand tour winners of the past several years have now all been shown to have doped at some time in their careers.

Armstrong TDF winner
Heras Vuelta winner
Garzelli/Simoni Giro winner
Gonzalez Vuelta winner

We've had the cocaine/PED allegations levelled during the Giro 2000/2001, we have had the EPO allegations levelled at the TDF since 1999, we have PED allegations against Vuelta consistently.

In 1998, we had the Festina scandal which was followed by reciminations, counter allegation, statements of intent from the UCI.
Finally as the civil authorities in France became involved we got, for the first time, admissions of doping by Virenque and Zulle.
That brief window, when the sport could have re-established it's credibility - and perhaps have saved cyclists lives - was slammed shut by our sports inability (unwillingness ??) to deal with the doping issue, once and for all.

The 7 year charade has come unstuck with this latest doping story.

Only it's the fans of the sport who have been cheated - cheated by the riders, UCI, and in some cases, the sponsors.

The perception is now the reality.
 
ilpirata said:
credility zero!

But there needs to be a repeat positive for Heras i believe. And though i am not a fan of Simoni, I think the cocaine thing can not really be considered performance enhancing drug. So for me he is still an escapee. I have no doubt he uses stuff, as they all must be doing. I am really interested in the 1998 retains as you know. But perhaps there are legal barriers to revealing the results of these tests.
Beltran, Armstrong, Hamilton, and now Heres all caught up in drug scandals… one link… US Postal / Discovery seem to be propagating the drug culture in cycling after the 1998 Festina affair.
 
It's more obvious now the stance of a certain Mr Leblanc. He wouldn't like to be in Cordero's shoes. Because we' re not talking about any positive rider but the winner of the race. Even last year when the second was the one who was caught, it wasn't that serious as now.

From all the cases that limerickman states I believe the Simoni case is very different. He was acquitted and not for technicalities but giving proof.

Very sad news...
 
whiteboytrash said:
Beltran, Armstrong, Hamilton, and now Heres all caught up in drug scandals… one link… US Postal / Discovery seem to be propagating the drug culture in cycling after the 1998 Festina affair.
Come on man... There were raids in races there were the Cofidis affair there were cases and cases.
The fact is that before 1998 (or should I say before 2000) riders were wild. There were no hematocrit tests, EPO was undetectable organizers and federations were sleeping and so on. It's difficult if not impossible that a rider in the middle of his career will change his ways. So I think it's the "education" that should be blamed not a certain team.
 
I think those who say no credibility because of doping have no idea what it actually takes to compete at the professional level. The drugs don't make the athlete who he/she is. These people still diet and train their butts off. Just like in bodybuilding, the roids don't make the guys huge-the training does. It would be great if we could rid sports of enhancers, but it just isn't going to happen. The human will to win at any cost is too strong...
 
Dimos said:
Come on man... There were raids in races there were the Cofidis affair there were cases and cases.
The fact is that before 1998 (or should I say before 2000) riders were wild. There were no hematocrit tests, EPO was undetectable organizers and federations were sleeping and so on. It's difficult if not impossible that a rider in the middle of his career will change his ways. So I think it's the "education" that should be blamed not a certain team.
But there is a link is there not ? ………………….sure other individual were on the gear and have been caught but all the recent scandals have a link to one team. USPS / Discovery.

The combined hematocrit of the USPS team would be higher than the Armstrong's salary ! :cool:
 
Seems to me there are 2 choices:

1) Improve testing, enforce longer bans and continue to position the sport at the forefront of the anti doping fight. Educate riders from amateur level. Institute the French model where riders are subjected to year round blood work and medical checks.

2) Abandon any pretence at testing, make sure team doctors administer EPO under lab conditions and monitor riders closely for any medical problems.

Until as recently as 2001, EPO use was pretty much a free for all but we then expect riders to have kicked their habits, gone clean and be winning races on mineral water and hard training. Riders have always tried to get an edge, legally or illegally, since the advent of stage racing and its demands. But, if we are to continue to see ever increasing speeds and riders sprinting uphill, then we need to accept option 2 above. To make the committment to option 1 will involve us, as fans, accepting a very different kind of racing to that which we've been used to.

But the only way to hope to restore credibility is to take the TdF/WADA route and I just foresee that as being too hard for the UCI and all those pharma companies to swallow.
 
whiteboytrash said:
Beltran, Armstrong, Hamilton, and now Heres all caught up in drug scandals… one link… US Postal / Discovery seem to be propagating the drug culture in cycling after the 1998 Festina affair.

Why limit yourself to the USPS/Discovery team? Let's look at the other teams that the riders you accuse were associated with.

Beltran rode for MAPEI, who lost Garzelli to doping convictions, and eventually discontinued their 10 year sponsorship of a cycling team because of doping problems.

Hamilton rode for Phonak, where he and Santi Perez got nailed for blood doping.

And Heras rode for Kelme - weren't they chucked from the 2004 Tour after 22 years of participation, because of doping allegations made by Jesus Manzano?

For that matter, has any member of the USPS/Discovery team been suspended for doping while they were with the team? The team that "seems to be propogating the drug culture since 1998" has an astonishing lack of actual convictions.
 
JohnO said:
Why limit yourself to the USPS/Discovery team? Let's look at the other teams that the riders you accuse were associated with.

Beltran rode for MAPEI, who lost Garzelli to doping convictions, and eventually discontinued their 10 year sponsorship of a cycling team because of doping problems.

Hamilton rode for Phonak, where he and Santi Perez got nailed for blood doping.

And Heras rode for Kelme - weren't they chucked from the 2004 Tour after 22 years of participation, because of doping allegations made by Jesus Manzano?

For that matter, has any member of the USPS/Discovery team been suspended for doping while they were with the team? The team that "seems to be propogating the drug culture since 1998" has an astonishing lack of actual convictions.


One of their riders - Benoit Joachim - tested positive and was dropped by USPS - then discreetly hired back again when the fuss died down...
 
We can all agree to draw a line in the sand at 1998. Beltran and Heres may of rode for other teams but there is a common thread to all these positives and or drug scandals... USPS / Discovery. If we look a little deeper we find a national federation that’s not independent and refuses to take responsibility of the Hamilton and Armstrong's cases, and a team which has cultivated more positive tested riders through its system than any other team since 1998. I think there is a lot to be afraid of. How can we now possibly believe anything that Bruyneel or Discovery put in front of us now ? Bruyneel is a fraud, Armstrong ownership is based upon profit and not ethics and the entire team is a swindle.

The Discovery team should be suspended from all competition until a full investigation is completed into there practices and trafficking.



JohnO said:
Why limit yourself to the USPS/Discovery team? Let's look at the other teams that the riders you accuse were associated with.

Beltran rode for MAPEI, who lost Garzelli to doping convictions, and eventually discontinued their 10 year sponsorship of a cycling team because of doping problems.

Hamilton rode for Phonak, where he and Santi Perez got nailed for blood doping.

And Heras rode for Kelme - weren't they chucked from the 2004 Tour after 22 years of participation, because of doping allegations made by Jesus Manzano?

For that matter, has any member of the USPS/Discovery team been suspended for doping while they were with the team? The team that "seems to be propogating the drug culture since 1998" has an astonishing lack of actual convictions.
 
micron said:
Seems to me there are 2 choices:

1) Improve testing, enforce longer bans and continue to position the sport at the forefront of the anti doping fight. Educate riders from amateur level. Institute the French model where riders are subjected to year round blood work and medical checks.

2) Abandon any pretence at testing, make sure team doctors administer EPO under lab conditions and monitor riders closely for any medical problems.

Until as recently as 2001, EPO use was pretty much a free for all but we then expect riders to have kicked their habits, gone clean and be winning races on mineral water and hard training. Riders have always tried to get an edge, legally or illegally, since the advent of stage racing and its demands. But, if we are to continue to see ever increasing speeds and riders sprinting uphill, then we need to accept option 2 above. To make the committment to option 1 will involve us, as fans, accepting a very different kind of racing to that which we've been used to.

But the only way to hope to restore credibility is to take the TdF/WADA route and I just foresee that as being too hard for the UCI and all those pharma companies to swallow.


I think these are excellent points.

As far as I am concerned, professional cycling has reached a crisis point. Has Lim points out above, winners of all three GTs have shown doping positives. 2005 has been a major embarressment. Hondo, Aitor, Armstrong, and Heras and just the major riders to get nabbed. Countless others as well.

Pro teams are going to be facing serious issues with retaining sponsorship. The media is already wondering what Liberty Mutual will do.

Fans are going to be skeptical of everything. Heras suddenly is a TT specialist? Santi Perez as well? George Hincapie can suddenly TT and climb? Why should we believe it?

No fans and no sponsors and the cyclists will have themselves to blame.
 
My ex-coach and fellow Irishman, oh and, err, newly installed UCI President Pat McQuaid thinks that there is no problem in cycling with drugs.

Over to you, Pat !.












I think I'll get me coat.............................
 
whiteboytrash said:
We can all agree to draw a line in the sand at 1998...
You're making an assumption there. I, for one, don't agree to draw a line in the sand at 1998. Why should I? Usage of performance enhancers has been endemic in professional (and some amateur) cycle racing for many decades. You are choosing 1998 because it is convenient for your hypothesis.
Whilst it wouldn't surprise me if US Postal / Discovery had either promoted or turned a blind eye to doping, I would experience the same low level of shock at finding the same in any of the other teams that have competed in the Grand Tours over the last several decades.
I'm not at the level of Flyer where I see cyclist = enhancer-user, but I do suspect that, with the high average speeds being attained today, such usage is widespread, and not just limited to one team. No facts or data, just suspicion.
 
With what is going on thru-out Pro-cycling I think I am going to change my focus next year as a fan. Pro cycling has just lost it's appeal to me. I am not an American fair weather fan, I have followed the Tour over 36 years. Next year I am going to focus on the local crit boys. I know these guys are clean except for maybe a little smoke, which is not a PED.
I followed American cycling when guys like John Howard, John Allis, Andy Hampsten, George Mount, ,the Stetina brothers, and that dude Greg somebody ..... I can't remember his name, but he did good in Europe.
American racing at the top end is probably not clean ,,but it is at the lower level. Watching it live beats it on OLN anyday.
Sure I will miss L'Alp d'Huez, Paris-Roubaix , the Giro, and most of the riders.
No matter what state in the USA you are in , what region of your country you are in , there are local riders who need fan support more then those guys that are riding high tech bicycles that we as fans cannot even afford.
We do not have much in common with the Pro riders.
The sport will continue as it is today, I know that. And the way I feel today after reading about Heras I could care less what direction it takes. When a nutcase like Flyer starts making sense, then it is time to exit out the door.
 
limerickman said:
What credibility now ?

The grand tour winners of the past several years have now all been shown to have doped at some time in their careers.

Armstrong TDF winner
I AM NOT SO SURE THAT LANCE IS DECLEARED GUILTY AT THE CURRENT MOMENT...

THE CREADBILITY - LANCE BROUGHT THE BEST SHOW EVER IN SPORTS AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE IF IT WERE POSSIBLE... BUT HE HAS RETIRED...
 
EoinC said:
You're making an assumption there. I, for one, don't agree to draw a line in the sand at 1998. Why should I? Usage of performance enhancers has been endemic in professional (and some amateur) cycle racing for many decades. You are choosing 1998 because it is convenient for your hypothesis.
Whilst it wouldn't surprise me if US Postal / Discovery had either promoted or turned a blind eye to doping, I would experience the same low level of shock at finding the same in any of the other teams that have competed in the Grand Tours over the last several decades.
I'm not at the level of Flyer where I see cyclist = enhancer-user, but I do suspect that, with the high average speeds being attained today, such usage is widespread, and not just limited to one team. No facts or data, just suspicion.

Eoin,

Been following this game for more years than I care to remember - but remember I will.

Years ago, seeing the guys in the TDF at the end of a days stage, they all looked knackered.
I can clearly recall the 1985 TDF when Greg LeMond was interviewed after a stage and he looked bolloxed (and he was pushing Hinault as hard as possible).
Hinault didn't look great either.
As the Tour wore on guys just looked more and more tired.
That is normal - you should look tired with 2,500 in your legs over three weeks.

I contrast 1985 to 2005 and LA looking as fresh as fcuking daisy on the podium.
And that's cycling nearly 4km quicker - for every kilometre of the 2005 TDF compared to 1985 TDF :
4kms quicker for every single kilometre.
Food for thought.

Ever try cycling faster over a specific long distance ? You and I know that it is hell on heart trying to increase pace by even 1 mph for every mile cycled.

Doping is prevalent - more prevalent than ever.
 
You know that people who aren't able to see what you're saying will just cry out 'ooo but diets and training methods are better!' :D
limerickman said:
Eoin,

Been following this game for more years than I care to remember - but remember I will.

Years ago, seeing the guys in the TDF at the end of a days stage, they all looked knackered.
I can clearly recall the 1985 TDF when Greg LeMond was interviewed after a stage and he looked bolloxed (and he was pushing Hinault as hard as possible).
Hinault didn't look great either.
As the Tour wore on guys just looked more and more tired.
That is normal - you should look tired with 2,500 in your legs over three weeks.

I contrast 1985 to 2005 and LA looking as fresh as fcuking daisy on the podium.
And that's cycling nearly 4km quicker - for every kilometre of the 2005 TDF compared to 1985 TDF :
4kms quicker for every single kilometre.
Food for thought.

Ever try cycling faster over a specific long distance ? You and I know that it is hell on heart trying to increase pace by even 1 mph for every mile cycled.

Doping is prevalent - more prevalent than ever.
 
limerickman said:
Eoin,

Been following this game for more years than I care to remember - but remember I will.

Years ago, seeing the guys in the TDF at the end of a days stage, they all looked knackered.
I can clearly recall the 1985 TDF when Greg LeMond was interviewed after a stage and he looked bolloxed (and he was pushing Hinault as hard as possible).
Hinault didn't look great either.
As the Tour wore on guys just looked more and more tired.
That is normal - you should look tired with 2,500 in your legs over three weeks.

I contrast 1985 to 2005 and LA looking as fresh as fcuking daisy on the podium.
And that's cycling nearly 4km quicker - for every kilometre of the 2005 TDF compared to 1985 TDF :
4kms quicker for every single kilometre.
Food for thought.

Ever try cycling faster over a specific long distance ? You and I know that it is hell on heart trying to increase pace by even 1 mph for every mile cycled.

Doping is prevalent - more prevalent than ever.
Not excusing Armstrong, but counldn't this be from his focusing on the Tour and the fact that he does little to no work for most of the Tour? Not to mention better diet, training, IV"S etc? Of course drugs could be part of it, but who knows?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Replies
40
Views
975
Road Cycling
MagillaGorilla
M
D
Replies
22
Views
675
Road Cycling
Morten Reippuert Knudsen
M