Other Teams' Dodgy Staff

Richmond Racer

Whilst we mull over Sky's policy and dwindling staff roster, and whilst other teams Carry On Regardless, it's worth taking a look at a list of dodginess re staff (not riders) put together by @dimspace over at Velorooms.

It is...enlightening.

http://velorooms.com/the-doping-section ... 61317/#new

and as @dimspace says, its a work in progress - more names are likely to be added..

DeadCalm

Richmond Racer wrote:

Whilst we mull over Sky's policy and dwindling staff roster, and whilst other teams Carry On Regardless, it's worth taking a look at a list of dodginess re staff (not riders) put together by @dimspace over at Velorooms.

It is...enlightening.

http://velorooms.com/the-doping-section ... 61317/#new

and as @dimspace says, its a work in progress - more names are likely to be added..

I was just about to post the same link. Pretty scary stuff.

Richmond Racer

DeadCalm wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Whilst we mull over Sky's policy and dwindling staff roster, and whilst other teams Carry On Regardless, it's worth taking a look at a list of dodginess re staff (not riders) put together by @dimspace over at Velorooms.

It is...enlightening.

http://velorooms.com/the-doping-section ... 61317/#new

and as @dimspace says, its a work in progress - more names are likely to be added..

I was just about to post the same link. Pretty scary stuff.

It is. And @dimspace hasnt got around to adding the likes of Erik Dekker yet

Paul 8v

That's some pretty scary stuff!

blazing_saddles

Amazingly, the Asylum seems to have missed most of these guys.
Probably because if teams don't claim to be clean, it's OK for them to employ as many
convicts as they like. :roll:

Lichtblick

Richmond Racer wrote:

Whilst we mull over Sky's policy and dwindling staff roster, and whilst other teams Carry On Regardless, it's worth taking a look at a list of dodginess re staff (not riders) put together by @dimspace over at Velorooms.

It is...enlightening.

http://velorooms.com/the-doping-section ... 61317/#new

and as @dimspace says, its a work in progress - more names are likely to be added..

RR, Hi.

I read halfway down that list and then thought......".....and your point is?"

I'm the only one I know (in biking-buddy world) who defended Landis right up to the end. I'm the only one who thought the clenbutorol microgram judgement on a rest day was unfair to Contador. I used to (years ago) admire Armstrong. Now I think yeah, they're all doing it (with possible tiny exceptions to Sastre Evans and Wiggins, Sagan and Cavendish, I suppose.....)

The more of this that comes out, the more cynical I feel. Not that my opinion will count one whit, but there is no doubt that I'm not alone.

That won't stop me watching next year's Tour, but I'll be thinking Yeah Yeah......... :roll:

Richmond Racer

Lichtblick, 'your point' being my point in posting the link, or the author's point in compiling such an inventory?

The author's compiling this for a couple of reasons, one of which is to highlight just how every team is tainted or infected with cycling's past at the staff level. I think it also shows that as Garmin develop their persona as cycling's equivalent to the Betty Ford Clinic, and OGE and Sky fire people, just how many skeletons there are in all of the other teams whilst those teams keep their heads down below the parapet and seemingly do nothing.

It also shows how invidious some team doctors are in the sport, with their appearances in so many teams with doping scandals.

It also highlights what might happen if every team was made to clear out all staff with a past....some teams would have most if not all of their staff roster, kicked out.

As a fan, I guess you just choose how you're going to approach watching cycling.

Maybe you believe in the ability of someone to change their ways - just because they doped as a rider doesnt mean at all that they run or coach a doping team (example for me is Bobby Julich)
Maybe you have faith in certain teams or certain riders and enjoy unquestioningly when they win - in my case, I believe Sky and OGE are clean, just to give a couple of examples
Maybe there are teams or riders that you look on with some doubt when they win - for me, that can be some riders from Movistar, Katusha, Astana, or specifically Bertie or Valverde
or
Maybe you just decide that doping is a fact of life in cycling and you'll just enjoy a race for what it is - and if a winner tests postive, well it goes with the territory

Or maybe I'm talking utter c%^p which is entirely possible.

buckmulligan

Haha, why aren't we talking about Cavendish's quick exit from Team Sky as soon as this high and mighty doping policy came into force?!?! Lack of support mr @rse, he's probably on more steroids than Barry Bonds!

alanjay

BuckMulligan wrote:

Haha, why aren't we talking about Cavendish's quick exit from Team Sky as soon as this high and mighty doping policy came into force?!?! Lack of support mr @rse, he's probably on more steroids than Barry Bonds!

Off all the posts I have ever seen on any internet forum that has to be the right up there as one of the most unbelievable ones if it is meant in any way seriously...

No_Ta_Doctor

Richmond Racer wrote:

Maybe you believe in the ability of someone to change their ways - just because they doped as a rider doesnt mean at all that they run or coach a doping team (example for me is Bobby Julich)
Maybe you have faith in certain teams or certain riders and enjoy unquestioningly when they win - in my case, I have belief that Sky and OGE are clean, for example)
Maybe there are teams or riders that you look on with some doubt when they win - for me, that can be some riders from Movistar, Katusha, Astana, or specifically Bertie or Valverde
or
Maybe you just decide that doping is a fact of life in cycling and you'll just enjoy a race for what it is - and if a winner tests postive, well it goes with the territory

On the nail as usual RR.

For my money, there are two approaches that can work for a properly clean team.

1) Active rehabilitation: confess, repent, and be born again as a clean rider/DS/staff member.
2) Zero tolerance. You might be the anti-doping messiah now, but if you doped before, sorry mate.

The problem with the second approach is that you lose out on a lot of good people who could benefit your team - both sportingly and in anti-doping.
The problem with the first approach is its open to abuse, the Oprah sofa style "I was young and made a mistake" is a bit too easy.

Part of the point of the list being posted originally was actually to defend Sky. Because whether or not you agree with their approach, it's one of two that could work. Most of the other teams just don't give a f***. Sky continue to take a beating from the twitterati, while none of them bother about Katusha, OPQS, Astana etc.

Richmond Racer

yeah, you're right, dimspace has had enough of the bitching and whining of the Taliban solely on Sky and sod all questioning of other teams. And there's one thing about him, his ability to show facts to prove a point can never be underestimated

No_Ta_Doctor

Richmond Racer wrote:

yeah, you're right, dimspace has had enough of the bitching and whining of the Taliban solely on Sky and sod all questioning of other teams. And there's one thing about him, his ability to show facts to prove a point can never be underestimated

He's done some top research work on Armstrong's tests, the connections between the various Armstrong / Livestrong players etc. I don't always agree with him, but he's usually reliable with his facts.

thomthom

That Katusha team is unsurprisingly hilarious.

No_Ta_Doctor

ThomThom wrote:

That Katusha team is unsurprisingly hilarious.

OPQS is quite worrying. A team I'd love to be a ble to believe in, but have major issues with... :-/

Pross

It is an interesting / worrying list but there does seem to be a lot of guilt by association in the list (not saying that doesn't mean guilt though obviously!).

esafosfina

Check out this site... doesn't sensationalize anything, just gives evidence, facts, figures etc... Some of the names implicated/sanctioned makes for interesting reading.
http://www.dopeology.org/

pat1cp

Implicating Andy Riis seems a little harsh. I always regarded him more as a victim. Or am I being naive again :oops:

Richmond Racer

pat1cp wrote:

Implicating Andy Riis seems a little harsh. I always regarded him more as a victim. Or am I being naive again :oops:

Maybe look at it this way:

Imagine that Sky have 4 riders including their Tour team leader, test positive one year
2 years later another, different GT team leader tests positive and thrown off during the Tour
Sky have had enough and disband the team

In what light would you regard Dave Brailsford?

thomthom

pat1cp wrote:

Implicating Andy Riis seems a little harsh. I always regarded him more as a victim. Or am I being naive again :oops:

There is no doubt that Riis did dodgy decisions in the early 00's. Might even had a program running. Especially after 2007, confession and depression I don't think he's had a major role doping wise on the team.

Kim Andersen and his 'close friendship' with the Shlecks is, however, another story. I think Kim Andersen is very much underrated. As dodgy as they get.

EDIT: Hehe, thought you were talking about Bjarne

dave_1

Perhaps lifebans are needed for many more??...Banning 3 to 5 as USADA has/will looks like a drop in the ocean when you see how many need chased away from the sport

DeadCalm

Some more details on some of the doctors...

http://www.inthegc.com/2012/10/pro-cycl ... ctors.html

Richmond Racer

When Richmond Racer overthrows the UCI, the first thing that will happen is bans for life for any doctor employed by a team at the time of a doping incident irrespective of whether or not it can be proved the individual was implicated.

Some 'innocents' may end up as collateral damage, but tough. Dodgy doctors have been one of the scourges of the sport. Hypocratic oath, my a£$s.

I would also degree that remaining doctors and new doctors brought in by cycling teams, have to undergo some kind of review process, run by an independent body.

Teams will have to be made to source doctors from outside cycling - but that's far from a bad thing.

hammerite

First there were the jokes with everyone on here saying they won the tour in the Armstrong years. At this rate most of the teams will be needing us and our knowledge of Pro Cycling to drive the cars and call the shots. PTP and Fantasy Pro Cycling are really just ploys to find some managerial talent, the top 30 finishers in each of these will all get a contract.

Next years Grand Tours will be the most exciting as clueless internet forum people who have seen the Skoda advert on TV send riders up the road on audacious breaks and have their star rider attack on every pimple.

dimspace

First of all, thanks guys for some of the nice things said about me in this thread

Secondly, the reason behind the list has been pretty well explained within this thread, but to put forward my point of view on it. It was never done to portray certain teams as worse or better than others. For what its worth I think Sky's policy is the totally wrong way to go about things. Guys like Jullich may have doped as riders, but having fully disclosed their pasts (if they have fully disclosed), doesnt mean they cant play an important part in the sport going forward. If you get rid of bad eggs, more bad eggs will appear, so maybe its better to keep the bad eggs (or the not so bad eggs) while at least knowing that they used to be bad eggs..

The list is more about the level of the problem in the sport, there isnt a team that doesnt employ someone with a dodgy past, do we fire them all?

BMC is a great point of example. Full of people who have extremely dodgy pasts, from guys who worked at Motorola and Postal, to guys who funded Landis's doping programme, to those caught up in the Weisel corruption. Then again, from what I know, they rode 2012 season pretty much clean, to the point where two riders joining the team (Hushovd and Gilbert) were told as long ago as last October that they were not to dope over the winter, nor on joining the team. So a team can have a dodgy past and move forward. That said, the mere presence of some of those people can make them seem dodgy.

But by the opposite viewpoint, if the guys at BMC that had those pasts came out and said "yes, we did things we werent proud of, we doped riders, we doped as riders" and admitted their pasts, but showed a desire to move forward where would that put BMC in peoples minds. They would be viewed in a totally different light. My big issue with most of the guys on those lists is the deafening silence.

iainf72

pat1cp wrote:

Implicating Andy Riis seems a little harsh. I always regarded him more as a victim. Or am I being naive again :oops:

Did you ever read Floyd's confession?

I like Andy, but he knew the score and was happy to fund it

shinyhelmut

dimspace wrote:

BMC is a great point of example. Full of people who have extremely dodgy pasts, from guys who worked at Motorola and Postal, to guys who funded Landis's doping programme, to those caught up in the Weisel corruption. Then again, from what I know, they rode 2012 season pretty much clean, to the point where two riders joining the team (Hushovd and Gilbert) were told as long ago as last October that they were not to dope over the winter, nor on joining the team. So a team can have a dodgy past and move forward. That said, the mere presence of some of those people can make them seem dodgy.

So that's what it takes to prove your team is riding clean. An email to 2 of your top riders reminding them not to dope in the off season. If only the UCI had thought to email all professional license holders they could save a fortune on testing

dimspace

ShinyHelmut wrote:

dimspace wrote:

BMC is a great point of example. Full of people who have extremely dodgy pasts, from guys who worked at Motorola and Postal, to guys who funded Landis's doping programme, to those caught up in the Weisel corruption. Then again, from what I know, they rode 2012 season pretty much clean, to the point where two riders joining the team (Hushovd and Gilbert) were told as long ago as last October that they were not to dope over the winter, nor on joining the team. So a team can have a dodgy past and move forward. That said, the mere presence of some of those people can make them seem dodgy.

So that's what it takes to prove your team is riding clean. An email to 2 of your top riders reminding them not to dope in the off season. If only the UCI had thought to email all professional license holders they could save a fortune on testing

Ok, its an example. As far as BMC goes, they certainly arent my team. I think Jim O is a total bellend, and if youd asked me a couple of years ago I would have said that He, Rihs and the rest had no place in the sport. However, the various bits of information I have point to BMC riding 2012 pretty much clean. Now wether that was over a genuine desire to change the sport, or simply fear of what the USADA investigation might drag up is another matter entirely, my cynical hunch says it is entirely the latter.

The point is, every team has skeletons, without exception, BMC's list is extremely extensive. As long as they remain silent people will look at the names and be convinced they have a program wether they have or not. If some of them actually stand up and say "yes we did, but we dont now", the public perception of them as a team could be very different.

That was the point of the list. Not a which team is dirty, which has the dodgiest staff, but which teams perhaps need to stop being silent, make some admissions, co-operate fully with any investigations, and play a part in the sport going forward.

Richmond Racer

Dave (dimspace): fundamentally can you see many owners and sponsors being happy with their teams' personnel going public? As much as anything, that goes right to the heart of the matter. And that assumes many people would come forward and say what they've done in the past, admit to their families, to their friends, get put through the mill right royally by the media - locally and globally - have every result they've ever achieved as a rider, as a DS, put in doubt (no matter what they say about when they doped and when they stopped).

Because I have to admit that I dont see it. And tbh I suspect that if everyone and I mean truly everyone who was involved went public about their past - the riders, DSs, coaches, drivers, soigneurs, doctors, right down to the very last man - that truly could bring about the death of the sport. I dont think it could survive that.

dimspace

Its a catch 22, admit their guilt and the sport is damned, or dont admit and they are assumed guilty. Im not sure which is worse.

Anyway, i just stopped by to drag up this old thread and put in my two pennorth worth. Didnt even realise i was a member here. Off back into obscurity again for me.