Professional Cycling & Fans should note the following...

greeko33

http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.com/

In particular yesterdays post.

This website has been an eye opener since I found it a few months ago. Puts the rest of cycling press to shame when they champion the achievements of blatant dopers.

leguape

It's easy to gob off when you're anonymous, unlikely to be sued and don't have to rely on advertisers for revenue.

Kléber

Yes leguape, it makes you independent of all those shiny frame manufacturers and not dependent on PR agents to get you meaningless interviews with doping stars.

The free PR given to Basso concerns me, almost no tough questions put to him. Given he led journalists up the path with his endless denials and then his silly "attempt" story, why are the media so keen to offer non-critical interviews with him?

Remember, Liquigas is breaking the ethical agreement to sign him. Are the likes of Cannondale happy with rule breaking and signing a liar? Clearly they are, so long as it shifts a few frames in Italy.

So give me an independent, critical voice any day. I don't have to accept it all but cyclingfansanonymous is a powerful, and at times lone, voice.

avoidingmyphd

OK, so let's look at e.g. the most recent post, on Lampre. What in there could possibly be a basis for being sued?

the story is pretty straightforward: these are the doping rules; this team didn't obey them; noone said anything. I think it's a good story. It speaks volumes.

Whose responsibility is it to say something? I'd say the press. Certainly not CFA's. So it's a bit galling that (s)he's fulfilling that responsibility better than anyone else.

Can you point out where (s)he gobs off? The site is a combination of posts like the Lampre one, which are good journalism, and more personal posts where (s)he expresses dismay and sadness, but still generally about well documented facts.

andyp

Remind us what you do for a living again leguape?

leguape

avoidingmyphd wrote:

OK, so let's look at e.g. the most recent post, on Lampre. What in there could possibly be a basis for being sued?

the story is pretty straightforward: these are the doping rules; this team didn't obey them; noone said anything. I think it's a good story. It speaks volumes.

Whose responsibility is it to say something? I'd say the press. Certainly not CFA's. So it's a bit galling that (s)he's fulfilling that responsibility better than anyone else.

Can you point out where (s)he gobs off? The site is a combination of posts like the Lampre one, which are good journalism, and more personal posts where (s)he expresses dismay and sadness, but still generally about well documented facts.

Millar signed with Slipstream at the beginning of last season. By Pro Tour rules they shouldn't have signed him as he only finished his ban in 2006. Which puts Garmin in the same bag as Liquigas who he criticises for signing Basso. And they haven't even got round to joining the whole sham yet.

Attacking Zomegnan and the Giro for not retesting, accusing them of not being bothered, when the reality is that the TDF organisers didn't re-test either, AFLD, a government funded agency did. ASO never even had to dip into their coffers for it.

That and some of their insinuations about the GB setup which were wide of the mark. And for which they rightly got a bit of a torching in the comments.

Kleber, the "free PR" on Basso cuts both ways I think. Wait until there's some results on the table then start loading the rifles I reckon. No point wasting ammunition on him before he's actually made himself a useful target.

Yes CFA is an independent critical voice but sometimes I just get plain tired of some of its more shiny-eyed zealotry.

I find it grossly unfair to say "Puts the rest of cycling press to shame". It's pretty easy to "shame" someone when you aren't in the same line of business. Comparing the role of CFA to that of the mags is apples and oranges.

Rule one of publishing is "don't piss off the advertisers", rule two is "don't get sued". When you don't have to worry about either for your daily bread then I'd say you can be a heck of a lot more bold.

dave_1

leguape wrote:

avoidingmyphd wrote:

OK, so let's look at e.g. the most recent post, on Lampre. What in there could possibly be a basis for being sued?

the story is pretty straightforward: these are the doping rules; this team didn't obey them; noone said anything. I think it's a good story. It speaks volumes.

Whose responsibility is it to say something? I'd say the press. Certainly not CFA's. So it's a bit galling that (s)he's fulfilling that responsibility better than anyone else.

Can you point out where (s)he gobs off? The site is a combination of posts like the Lampre one, which are good journalism, and more personal posts where (s)he expresses dismay and sadness, but still generally about well documented facts.

Millar signed with Slipstream at the beginning of last season. By Pro Tour rules they shouldn't have signed him as he only finished his ban in 2006. Which puts Garmin in the same bag as Liquigas who he criticises for signing Basso. And they haven't even got round to joining the whole sham yet.

.

Millar was banned from June 2004 and the Pro Tour 4 year ban rule came just after by a weeks or months so Millar was allowed back into a Pro Tour team as his offence pre dated the new rule back then. Millar was convicted of doping in July or August of 2004 but in appeal CAS accepted his ban as having started June 04 as was not allowed to race from June 04

Kléber

leguape wrote:

Rule one of publishing is "don't wee-wee off the advertisers", rule two is "don't get sued". When you don't have to worry about either for your daily bread then I'd say you can be a heck of a lot more bold.

Exactly, that's what makes cfa so good, isn't it.

Like I've said before on here, several "journalists" have said to me they want to publish certain things but if they reveal the truth, the fanboys stop buying the magazines and vising the sites and the advertisers begin to flee. I could quote verbatim but the messages were sent in confidence. CFA doesn't have to worry about the Emperor's New Clothes, it can speak out.

iainf72

Matt Rendell recommended CFA on the ITV Tour podcasts. I don't recall him giving a warning saying it was fanciful.

And I think Matt might know a thing or two.

micron

leguape, what a truly silly argument about the Tour retesting. Who do you think invited AFLD to do the testing in the first place because the UCI weren't prepared to :roll: Fact is, ASO made a great decision (of which you were highly critical at the time) - can't have it both ways. As Kleber and iain point out, cfa is highly credible, well regarded - and independent. I don't expect he/she will be getting an Armstrong interview any time soon but the sport needs the independent, unfettered voices saying the things that some people don't like to hear.

Patrick1.0

Why is it wrong for them to be doing what they're doing? I think it's a good thing that they're highlighting this. So many of these teams are still dirty as hell. My personal view is that any team with one single dirty rider should fold.

Either way, the sponsors will all just disappear eventually because nobody wants to be seen as funding drug cheats. Once the sponsors go, that's game over for a lot of these teams. Hopefully the shake up will continue.

It does anger me that absolute blatent cheats like Rebellin still get by the testers. What a ducker and diver he is - both on and off the bike.

leguape

micron wrote:

leguape, what a truly silly argument about the Tour retesting. Who do you think invited AFLD to do the testing in the first place because the UCI weren't prepared to :roll: Fact is, ASO made a great decision (of which you were highly critical at the time) - can't have it both ways. As Kleber and iain point out, cfa is highly credible, well regarded - and independent. I don't expect he/she will be getting an Armstrong interview any time soon but the sport needs the independent, unfettered voices saying the things that some people don't like to hear.

You genuinely think ASO would be doing it if someone else wasn't footing the bill and it wasn't backed at governmental level? I just don't buy it, they'd be making like RCS. Look how quickly they've managed to make peace in the last year, or at least semblance of one.

moray_gub

Kléber wrote:

leguape wrote:

Rule one of publishing is "don't wee-wee off the advertisers", rule two is "don't get sued". When you don't have to worry about either for your daily bread then I'd say you can be a heck of a lot more bold.

Exactly, that's what makes cfa so good, isn't it.

Like I've said before on here, several "journalists" have said to me they want to publish certain things but if they reveal the truth, the fanboys stop buying the magazines and vising the sites and the advertisers begin to flee. I could quote verbatim but the messages were sent in confidence. CFA doesn't have to worry about the Emperor's New Clothes, it can speak out.

So can you...... name the journos and what they said ?

cheers
MG

SpaceJunk

Kléber wrote:

leguape wrote:

Rule one of publishing is "don't wee-wee off the advertisers", rule two is "don't get sued". When you don't have to worry about either for your daily bread then I'd say you can be a heck of a lot more bold.

Exactly, that's what makes cfa so good, isn't it.

Like I've said before on here, several "journalists" have said to me they want to publish certain things but if they reveal the truth, the fanboys stop buying the magazines and vising the sites and the advertisers begin to flee. I could quote verbatim but the messages were sent in confidence. CFA doesn't have to worry about the Emperor's New Clothes, it can speak out.

Jeremy Whittle had the perfect opportunity to spill the beans. Instead he wrote a book saying how dismayed he was with the pro cycling industry, made sure we understood that he knew who doped and who didn't, and then said that until the omerta is broken, doping would remain an issue.

And then he decided to live by this same code of silence by keeping it all to himself.

My understanding is that Jeremy now writes for a UK paper (I think it was him that labelled Cadel Australia's new Greg Noran), but he doesn't have ties to any magazines.

Surely he is now far enough removed from Pro Cycling (edit: th industry, not just the mag) to speak the truth.

Isn't he??

richard wants a baum

Patrick1.0

My personal view is that any team with one single dirty rider should fold.

Firstly your intitled to your view but cycling would be finished in a couple of years if they did that. Wouldnt be enough new teams to replace the teams leaving and probably no better than the teams getting kicked out. Its been said before but bans arent going to stop doping, as far as i can tell nothing will really. All the sport can do is develop better tests, protocol for the labs (and remove alot of dopers excuses) and deal with the % of riders that think they can beat the system.

Kléber

Moray Gub wrote:

So can you...... name the journos and what they said ?

No, they wrote to me in confidence so I'll respect this. But I can repeat the notion that they have to bite their tongues in order to support advertisers and maintain readership levels and that they are aware that commercial pressure distorts what they have to write.

Yellow Peril

Kleber is right to respect the confidence of his sources.

If every insider is "outed" then we'll be completely in the dark as to what is really going on inside racing and therefore never in a position to put things right. CFA is a useful tool. The sport needs a thorn in its side until it is as honest and clean as it ever possibly can be. Then the thorn will stop hurting.

timoid.

Screw CFA. I want to know where Forearms van Pettegem gets his info.

Patrick: You do realise that CFA has openly stated it thinks Armstrong is dirty.

greeko33

I understand the need for the press to stay on side with cyclists, DS's as well as the sponsors/manufacturers.

Its therefore understandable that they will not drive the change to improve cycling. What they could consider is not talking up the achievements of known cheaters or even better start their own blog like CFA

We know that teams can't/won't change the culture (remember its 9 years since Festina) so the only solution lies in legislation/regulation that’s applies to all i.e. not country specific.

The almost aggressive nature of this year’s testing and hunting down of suspicious riders was almost as exciting as the racing IMHO. Hopefully the UCI will behave in the same manner once the passports are up and running.

This and the threat of 4 year bans and retrospective testing for 8 years looks like it’s going in the right direction.

Patrick1.0

Timoid. wrote:

Screw CFA. I want to know where Forearms van Pettegem gets his info.

Patrick: You do realise that CFA has openly stated it thinks Armstrong is dirty.

We'll see when he makes his comeback won't we? I am more open to the idea now that he did dope than I was before, Timoid. I don't have a problem with people having better information and better access to it than myself and calling very suspect characters into question.

SunWuKong

Slipstream aren't a pro tour team, so are they bound by that (seemingly pointless) agreement?

Kléber

CFA is on top form again:
http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.co ... te_24.html