Are you surprised

dave_1 · June 2009

that Kloeden is on the shortlist for Astana's TDF team? I am not..

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... jun05news2

calvjones · June 2009

I'd be surprised if ASO let him race, but then these are different days to the old regime. And worse.

eh · June 2009

Well he's a better rider than all but Contrador and possibly LA in that team, so if they think they can get him in OK then I'm not surprised.

mididoctors2 · June 2009

calvjones wrote:

I'd be surprised if ASO let him race, .

me too...

LangerDan · June 2009

No, but TBH, not much is surprising anymore.
(Although, Rapha's selection of self-admitted doper and lucky-not-to-be-in-jail-currently Johan Museeuw as their Guest of Honour at tomorrow nights Smithfield Nocturne has raised a single eyebrow, Roger Moore-stylee)

blazing_saddles · June 2009

Disappointed, but not surprised.
Seems it's not just the economy that's in recession.

dave_1 · June 2009

calvjones wrote:

I'd be surprised if ASO let him race, but then these are different days to the old regime. And worse.

err...coud be an inconvenient question ...but what evidence is there against him? Pat and his gf say they drove him somewhere, he denies it and we have no other evidence-no DNA, no blood bags, names, no pics, no CCTV.... I'd be surprised if ASO don't accept Kloeden

don key · June 2009

LangerDan wrote:

No, but TBH, not much is surprising anymore.
(Although, Rapha's selection of self-admitted doper and lucky-not-to-be-in-jail-currently Johan Museeuw as their Guest of Honour at tomorrow nights Smithfield Nocturne has raised a single eyebrow, Roger Moore-stylee)

I read that on the BC website and do not think I will be able to attend , unless It is as a protestor, dicksusting.

secretsqirrel · June 2009

Have to admit that I am surprised.............pleasantly surprised.

He takes the selfless super-domestique role to a new level, if he is in, he will make a difference.

Ok he has a past, but possibly everyone involved with T-Mob has. If the 'preparation' was organised, shoot the organiser.

dennisn · June 2009

don key wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

No, but TBH, not much is surprising anymore.
(Although, Rapha's selection of self-admitted doper and lucky-not-to-be-in-jail-currently Johan Museeuw as their Guest of Honour at tomorrow nights Smithfield Nocturne has raised a single eyebrow, Roger Moore-stylee)

I read that on the BC website and do not think I will be able to attend , unless It is as a protestor, dicksusting.

I thought you wanted these "dopers" to admit to their "crimes"? Well, Museeuw did,
yet you still aren't happy? What more do you really want? What more can they offer you
in the way of penance? It's a serious question. What more do YOU want? And while I'm at it WHY?

andyp · June 2009

SecretSqirrel wrote:

Ok he has a past, but possibly everyone involved with T-Mob has. If the 'preparation' was organised, shoot the organiser.

That's known as the Nuremburg Defence and it didn't wash then and doesn't wash now. The athlete alone is responsible for whatever is in his system.

What happened to the Pro Tour Ethical Code? Yet again Bruyneel rides roughshod over it, despite one of his riders being under investigation, which should mean he is suspended from racing by his team.

I'd hope ASO would step up to the mark but now Patrice Clerc has gone they seem to have lost the balls they'd grown and reverted back to a policy of keeping their head firmly in the sand.

dennisn · June 2009

andyp wrote:

SecretSqirrel wrote:

Ok he has a past, but possibly everyone involved with T-Mob has. If the 'preparation' was organised, shoot the organiser.

The athlete alone is responsible for whatever is in his system.

Yet again Bruyneel rides roughshod over it, despite one of his riders being under investigation, which should mean he is suspended from racing by his team.

If the "athlete alone" is responsible for what's "in his system" then Bruyneel is nothing in the larger scheme of things. Yet you seem to have a problem with him.
Also, as for "..... one of his riders...... which should mean.....", I'm going to assume that
"....should mean....." is NOT the rule, just a rule YOU think "should" be in force but isn't on the books? Correct?

blazing_saddles · June 2009

Forget Bruyneel, for once.
Went from the infamous 2006 T Mobile, to the equally infamous 2007 Astana. Linked by their fondness for blood doping.
57 pages of German investigation, that, as Dave points out, is non-evidence.

So, he will ride the Tour and the ASO will remain mute.
They had their 15 minutes of doping fame in 2008.

Normal service has been resumed and they all have passports to prove it.

Yet, when Ricco and Sella return, they will revert to being the forum whipping boys.

secretsqirrel · June 2009

andyp wrote:

That's known as the Nuremburg Defence and it didn't wash then and doesn't wash now. The athlete alone is responsible for whatever is in his system.

Steady on Andyp, he is just a bike rider!

Although, seriously you are right, and I too would like to think that in that position I could say 'no thank you'. But I am never going to find out.

Have you ever heard of Stanley Milgram?

andyp · June 2009

dennisn wrote:

If the "athlete alone" is responsible for what's "in his system" then Bruyneel is nothing in the larger scheme of things. Yet you seem to have a problem with him.
Also, as for "..... one of his riders...... which should mean.....", I'm going to assume that
"....should mean....." is NOT the rule, just a rule YOU think "should" be in force but isn't on the books? Correct?

I see you selectively removed part of my quote so you can do one of your elliptical arguments. Nice.

Bruyneel signed up to the Pro Tour Ethical Code which stated that any rider under investigation for doping should be suspended by his team from racing. Regardless of who was his team manager when Kloden was alleged to have doped, Bruyneel should, having signed the Ethical Code, remove Kloden from racing until he is either convicted or cleared.

So it is a rule and one Bruyneel agreed to uphold when he signed up to the Pro Tour.

andyp · June 2009

SecretSqirrel wrote:

Steady on Andyp, he is just a bike rider!

Although, seriously you are right, and I too would like to think that in that position I could say 'no thank you'. But I am never going to find out.

Have you ever heard of Stanley Milgram?

He is a bike rider, but he has, by agreeing to the terms of his racing license, accepted that he is bound by the anti-doping rules that the UCI have, which means he is responsible for any substances in his system. Therefore, any claim that he was just doing what he was told is invalid.

Is Milgram the academic who came up with the 'small world' theory, i.e. what is popularly known as six degrees of separation? If so, I'm not sure I see your point.

dulldave · June 2009

I'll shout Godwin's law here. Argument over. Andyp loses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

andyp · June 2009

dulldave wrote:

I'll shout Godwin's law here. Argument over. Andyp loses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Damn.

dennisn · June 2009

andyp wrote:

dennisn wrote:

If the "athlete alone" is responsible for what's "in his system" then Bruyneel is nothing in the larger scheme of things. Yet you seem to have a problem with him.
Also, as for "..... one of his riders...... which should mean.....", I'm going to assume that
"....should mean....." is NOT the rule, just a rule YOU think "should" be in force but isn't on the books? Correct?

I see you selectively removed part of my quote so you can do one of your elliptical arguments. Nice.

Bruyneel signed up to the Pro Tour Ethical Code which stated that any rider under investigation for doping should be suspended by his team from racing. Regardless of who was his team manager when Kloden was alleged to have doped, Bruyneel should, having signed the Ethical Code, remove Kloden from racing until he is either convicted or cleared.

So it is a rule and one Bruyneel agreed to uphold when he signed up to the Pro Tour.

I "selectively removed" to keep it short. Also I see your point about this "Ethical Code".
Is it anything that is legally binding? Or is it a moral issue? I think we all have broken a few "codes" in our day. I would have to say that this sounds a bit severe. i.e. to deprive
someone of their livelyhood on an accusation or speculation. I wouldn't be happy about it,
but maybe that's just me. Anyone else out there want to lose their job on unproven
charges? Or have your name spread around as if you HAD done something?

don key · June 2009

dennisn wrote:

don key wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

No, but TBH, not much is surprising anymore.
(Although, Rapha's selection of self-admitted doper and lucky-not-to-be-in-jail-currently Johan Museeuw as their Guest of Honour at tomorrow nights Smithfield Nocturne has raised a single eyebrow, Roger Moore-stylee)

I read that on the BC website and do not think I will be able to attend , unless It is as a protestor, dicksusting.

I thought you wanted these "dopers" to admit to their "crimes"? Well, Museeuw did,
yet you still aren't happy? What more do you really want? What more can they offer you
in the way of penance? It's a serious question. What more do YOU want? And while I'm at it WHY?

You seem to think a lot of things, I think. He has admitted nothing, just like moist of them. His dedication to medication could only be outshone by your own, seemingly, high needs.
OK , so I haven't had as many wins as you've had hot nappies but I'm Ok with that.

dennisn · June 2009

don key wrote:

dennisn wrote:

don key wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

No, but TBH, not much is surprising anymore.
(Although, Rapha's selection of self-admitted doper and lucky-not-to-be-in-jail-currently Johan Museeuw as their Guest of Honour at tomorrow nights Smithfield Nocturne has raised a single eyebrow, Roger Moore-stylee)

I read that on the BC website and do not think I will be able to attend , unless It is as a protestor, dicksusting.

I thought you wanted these "dopers" to admit to their "crimes"? Well, Museeuw did,
yet you still aren't happy? What more do you really want? What more can they offer you
in the way of penance? It's a serious question. What more do YOU want? And while I'm at it WHY?

You seem to think a lot of things, I think. He has admitted nothing, just like moist of them. His dedication to medication could only be outshone by your own, seemingly, high needs.
OK , so I haven't had as many wins as you've had hot nappies but I'm Ok with that.

Didn't you say Museeuw was a "self admitted doper"? Then you say "He has admitted nothing"? Or am I missing something? I am old, after all. It's not the greatest of excuses
but it will do in a pinch.
Once again. What MORE do you want from these people and why? That's the real
question.

LangerDan · June 2009

dennisn wrote:

don key wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

No, but TBH, not much is surprising anymore.
(Although, Rapha's selection of self-admitted doper and lucky-not-to-be-in-jail-currently Johan Museeuw as their Guest of Honour at tomorrow nights Smithfield Nocturne has raised a single eyebrow, Roger Moore-stylee)

I read that on the BC website and do not think I will be able to attend , unless It is as a protestor, dicksusting.

I thought you wanted these "dopers" to admit to their "crimes"? Well, Museeuw did,
yet you still aren't happy? What more do you really want? What more can they offer you
in the way of penance? It's a serious question. What more do YOU want? And while I'm at it WHY?

OK, lets see. I am questioning why a man that admitted doping three years after he had retired, would be at no risk of retrospective sanctions from the cycling authorities and only came clean as he was about to be named in legal procedings anyway, would be regarded as suitable as a "guest of honour". Seems to me there was very little honour about his activites.

This isn't some "did he / didn't he" matter - Museeuw was determined by a judge to have had his hand firmly in the cookie jar. If he hadn't punctured from the winning break in the 2004 Paris Roubaix (Museeuw, that is, not the judge) he could well have taken his fourth Roubaix win and at a time when he later admitted he was taking growth hormone. In most jurisdictions, if someone admits after the event to having committed a crime, they can expect to be retrospectively punished for it. Museeuw on the other hand still seeks to benefit from his.

BTW, I'm interested to know why you typed the term as "crimes" - he was convicted at the end of last year in the Belgiam criminal court - no quotation marks about it - and given a 10 month sentence, (which was suspended, otherwise he'd still be in jail tomorrow night rather than at some knees-up in London).

dennisn · June 2009

LangerDan wrote:

dennisn wrote:

don key wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

No, but TBH, not much is surprising anymore.
(Although, Rapha's selection of self-admitted doper and lucky-not-to-be-in-jail-currently Johan Museeuw as their Guest of Honour at tomorrow nights Smithfield Nocturne has raised a single eyebrow, Roger Moore-stylee)

I read that on the BC website and do not think I will be able to attend , unless It is as a protestor, dicksusting.

I thought you wanted these "dopers" to admit to their "crimes"? Well, Museeuw did,
yet you still aren't happy? What more do you really want? What more can they offer you
in the way of penance? It's a serious question. What more do YOU want? And while I'm at it WHY?

OK, lets see. I am questioning why a man that admitted doping three years after he had retired, would be at no risk of retrospective sanctions from the cycling authorities and only came clean as he was about to be named in legal procedings anyway, would be regarded as suitable as a "guest of honour". Seems to me there was very little honour about his activites.

This isn't some "did he / didn't he" matter - Museeuw was determined by a judge to have had his hand firmly in the cookie jar. If he hadn't punctured from the winning break in the 2004 Paris Roubaix (Museeuw, that is, not the judge) he could well have taken his fourth Roubaix win and at a time when he later admitted he was taking growth hormone. In most jurisdictions, if someone admits after the event to having committed a crime, they can expect to be retrospectively punished for it. Museeuw on the other hand still seeks to benefit from his.

BTW, I'm interested to know why you typed the term as "crimes" - he was convicted at the end of last year in the Belgiam criminal court - no quotation marks about it - and given a 10 month sentence, (which was suspended, otherwise he'd still be in jail tomorrow night rather than at some knees-up in London).

Well, I am not the one who named him Guest of Honour at some "knees up" thing.
It was Rapha. No relation to me I'm afraid. "Crimes" probably didn't deserve the quotation marks. I tend to use them way too much. I'm not saying he's a good or bad person, just asking my same old, way over asked question, what more do you want from these people and why? As yet no one has really answered it to my satisfaction. Then again no one really has to.

don key · June 2009

dennisn wrote:

don key wrote:

dennisn wrote:

don key wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

No, but TBH, not much is surprising anymore.
(Although, Rapha's selection of self-admitted doper and lucky-not-to-be-in-jail-currently Johan Museeuw as their Guest of Honour at tomorrow nights Smithfield Nocturne has raised a single eyebrow, Roger Moore-stylee)

I read that on the BC website and do not think I will be able to attend , unless It is as a protestor, dicksusting.

I thought you wanted these "dopers" to admit to their "crimes"? Well, Museeuw did,
yet you still aren't happy? What more do you really want? What more can they offer you
in the way of penance? It's a serious question. What more do YOU want? And while I'm at it WHY?

You seem to think a lot of things, I think. He has admitted nothing, just like moist of them. His dedication to medication could only be outshone by your own, seemingly, high needs.
OK , so I haven't had as many wins as you've had hot nappies(diapers) but I'm Ok with that.

Didn't you say Museeuw was a "self admitted doper"? Then you say "He has admitted nothing"? Or am I missing something? I am old, after all. It's not the greatest of excuses
but it will do in a pinch.
Once again. What MORE do you want from these people and why? That's the real
question.

No I didn't, you're not accusing me of being rash on the nappies(diapers) front, the allies were bombarded with them re-lentilessly, we could join sides if I could only sell my soul to the Devils advocate.

eh · June 2009

I think its cool Museeuw is coming over, big deal he did some drugs in his career but so what everyone else as well. If you only invited non-dopers to your event you'd have very short list to choose from, over the last 40 years.

don key · June 2009

dennisn wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

dennisn wrote:

don key wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

No, but TBH, not much is surprising anymore.
(Although, Rapha's selection of self-admitted doper and lucky-not-to-be-in-jail-currently Johan Museeuw as their Guest of Honour at tomorrow nights Smithfield Nocturne has raised a single eyebrow, Roger Moore-stylee)

I read that on the BC website and do not think I will be able to attend , unless It is as a protestor, dicksusting.

I thought you wanted these "dopers" to admit to their "crimes"? Well, Museeuw did,
yet you still aren't happy? What more do you really want? What more can they offer you
in the way of penance? It's a serious question. What more do YOU want? And while I'm at it WHY?

OK, lets see. I am questioning why a man that admitted doping three years after he had retired, would be at no risk of retrospective sanctions from the cycling authorities and only came clean as he was about to be named in legal procedings anyway, would be regarded as suitable as a "guest of honour". Seems to me there was very little honour about his activites.

This isn't some "did he / didn't he" matter - Museeuw was determined by a judge to have had his hand firmly in the cookie jar. If he hadn't punctured from the winning break in the 2004 Paris Roubaix (Museeuw, that is, not the judge) he could well have taken his fourth Roubaix win and at a time when he later admitted he was taking growth hormone. In most jurisdictions, if someone admits after the event to having committed a crime, they can expect to be retrospectively punished for it. Museeuw on the other hand still seeks to benefit from his.

BTW, I'm interested to know why you typed the term as "crimes" - he was convicted at the end of last year in the Belgiam criminal court - no quotation marks about it - and given a 10 month sentence, (which was suspended, otherwise he'd still be in jail tomorrow night rather than at some knees-up in London).

Well, I am not the one who named him Guest of Honour at some "knees up" thing.
It was Rapha. No relation to me I'm afraid. "Crimes" probably didn't deserve the quotation marks. I tend to use them way too much. I'm not saying he's a good or bad person, just asking my same old, way over asked question, what more do you want from these people and why? As yet no one has really answered it to my satisfaction. Then again no one really has to.

I missed this connection the other day as I was tired.

No not Rapha but The Face Partnership, who do they manage when they have no crosswords to do, David Millar and Mark Cavendish, thats who. What, if anything is going on?

It seems you are turning the other ,less padded cheek on this one, a case of Rapha Nash?

dave_1 · June 2009

No DNA, no blood bags, no pics, no CCTV, ..zilch , zero, nothing.. I don't believe AK, you don't...... JB can field Kloden if he wants as there's not a shred of evidence that would stand up in court from what we can see.

calvjones · June 2009

Dave_1 wrote:

No DNA, no blood bags, no pics, no CCTV, ..zilch , zero, nothing.. I don't believe AK, you don't...... JB can field Kloden if he wants as there's not a shred of evidence that would stand up in court from what we can see.

Is he under investigation in Germany? If so, the Pro Tour rule should stand and he should be suspended, just like Valverde.

Eh?

oh.

dave_1 · June 2009

calvjones wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

No DNA, no blood bags, no pics, no CCTV, ..zilch , zero, nothing.. I don't believe AK, you don't...... JB can field Kloden if he wants as there's not a shred of evidence that would stand up in court from what we can see.

Is he under investigation in Germany? If so, the Pro Tour rule should stand and he should be suspended, just like Valverde.

Eh?

oh.

Anyone can stop a pro rider from racing by making an accusation is what you are defending here people-very unfair!. I saw Alberto Contador doping last week...right...that's good enough, no tour for AC then? Do the pro tour rules state anything about the credibility of an accusation or can any doper just say what they hell they like and get the rider suspended for years while the truth is found out? Surely the pro tour rules specifiy or are the riders all crapping themselves in case an ex team rider with a grudge has their career suspended or ended while an investiagtion is carried out?

I don't doubt Kloeden did stuff...but surely we are defending an unfair process?

secretsqirrel · June 2009

I agree Dave_1, to turn it around..................

A genuinely clean rider in this situation would find it impossible to prove that he was innocent 3 years down the line, without evidence. So the rules can protect these guys as well.

dennisn · June 2009

So everyone is still innocent until PROVEN guilty. NOT, guilty maybe or I think he's guilty
or what about those stories of him being guilty or but it's been proven to MYsatisfaction
or we all know he's guilty.

I would rather see a hundred dopers out there racing than one innocent one lose his job
because of speculation and maybe's. No matter how sure a person may be of someones guilt, it doesn't matter, because they(and you and I) are not the jury.

Are you surprised

Comments

Categories