wiggo and cav on armstrong

ozzzyosborn206

Is anyone else annoyed/confused at the reactions Cav and wiggo have shown since Armstrong was stripped of his titles and also since he confessed. I seem to remember they were both, especially Cav quite pally with him on his comeback. Surely it must have been pretty common knowledge in the peloton that he had doped yet when it wasn't official he had doped they were ok with him and now they are blaming him for ruining the sport.

I guess some of it is that they are just saying 'what they have to say' so they do not look suspect?

ddraver

Sorry bud but there are so many of these - viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12874120

edhornby

even when he was right at the end of his riding career he had a lot of supporters and neither Brad nor Cav had evidence of dopage

look at it this way, you've all worked with people you don't like but do you have raging arguments based on rumour and heresay in front of customers?

Trev The Rev

edhornby wrote:

even when he was right at the end of his riding career he had a lot of supporters and neither Brad nor Cav had evidence of dopage

look at it this way, you've all worked with people you don't like but do you have raging arguments based on rumour and heresay in front of customers?

What happend with Bassons & Simeoni was not just rumour or hearsay. They may not have been able to prove he was a cheat but Wiggins & Cavendish knew he was a scumbag.

Did Wiggins or Cavendish defend Bassons or Simeoni or Betsy Andreu or Emma O'Reilly? No, but they did suck up to Armstrong.

shinyhelmut

It's because of what happened to Bassons and Simeoni that anyone who wanted to continue in the peloton had to keep schtum. That's how the omertà works.

RichN95.

Trev The Rev wrote:

edhornby wrote:

even when he was right at the end of his riding career he had a lot of supporters and neither Brad nor Cav had evidence of dopage

look at it this way, you've all worked with people you don't like but do you have raging arguments based on rumour and heresay in front of customers?

What happend with Bassons & Simeoni was not just rumour or hearsay. They may not have been able to prove he was a cheat but Wiggins & Cavendish knew he was a scumbag.

Did Wiggins or Cavendish defend Bassons or Simeoni or Betsy Andreu or Emma O'Reilly? No, but they did suck up to Armstrong.

The Bassons incident was in 1999, Frankie Andreu retired from cycling in 2000, the same year O'Reilly left US Postal.

All of these happened before Wiggins had even done a race as a professional and Cavendish hadn't even done his GCSEs yet. It's not their world, it's not their fight - they know nothing about it. It really has nothing to do with them. So why would anyone expect them to get involved?

Trev The Rev

All I'm doing is commenting on Brailsford's words below. That is not trolling, Brailsfords words speak for thenselves, why does he have doubts about everyone telling the truth? Fair question, fair comment.


He said: "You've got to think about what's the outcome. Everybody telling the truth doesn't make things better - acting upon what you find and doing something tangible with that information so it doesn't happen in the future will only make it better. Everybody telling the truth which then sits in a pot isn't going to change anything.

"My personal opinion is if you get 25 guys to tell you how to rob a bank, and then 100 guys tell you how to rob a bank, the majority of what you learned on how to rob a bank would have come from the first 25. It's the law of diminishing returns.

"If you're trying to establish all the individuals involved, who then come clean and are forgiven, what have we learned? You talk about culture. How come so many people fell into his mindset? If you get an expert to look into this and why so many people fell into this culture and you make something tangible out of it to ensure it wouldn't happen again, for sure is worth it.

He added: "Truth on its own is only half the equation. You've got to decide what your outcome goal is. If it is to minimise the risk of doping in this sport then you know what information you may need. I'm not sure anybody's got the outcome worked out yet."

Trev The Rev

RichN95 wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

edhornby wrote:

even when he was right at the end of his riding career he had a lot of supporters and neither Brad nor Cav had evidence of dopage

look at it this way, you've all worked with people you don't like but do you have raging arguments based on rumour and heresay in front of customers?

What happend with Bassons & Simeoni was not just rumour or hearsay. They may not have been able to prove he was a cheat but Wiggins & Cavendish knew he was a scumbag.

Did Wiggins or Cavendish defend Bassons or Simeoni or Betsy Andreu or Emma O'Reilly? No, but they did suck up to Armstrong.

The Bassons incident was in 1999, Frankie Andreu retired from cycling in 2000, the same year O'Reilly left US Postal.

All of these happened before Wiggins had even done a race as a professional and Cavendish hadn't even done his GCSEs yet. It's not their world, it's not their fight - they know nothing about it. It really has nothing to do with them. So why would anyone expect them to get involved?

In 2009 both Wiggins & Cavendish knew Armstrong was a cheat and a bully, everyone knew but they still sucked up to him.

nic_77

Trev The Rev wrote:

All I'm doing is commenting on Brailsford's words below. That is not trolling, Brailsfords words speak for thenselves, why does he have doubts about everyone telling the truth? Fair question, fair comment.


He said: "You've got to think about what's the outcome. Everybody telling the truth doesn't make things better - acting upon what you find and doing something tangible with that information so it doesn't happen in the future will only make it better. Everybody telling the truth which then sits in a pot isn't going to change anything.

"My personal opinion is if you get 25 guys to tell you how to rob a bank, and then 100 guys tell you how to rob a bank, the majority of what you learned on how to rob a bank would have come from the first 25. It's the law of diminishing returns.

"If you're trying to establish all the individuals involved, who then come clean and are forgiven, what have we learned? You talk about culture. How come so many people fell into his mindset? If you get an expert to look into this and why so many people fell into this culture and you make something tangible out of it to ensure it wouldn't happen again, for sure is worth it.

He added: "Truth on its own is only half the equation. You've got to decide what your outcome goal is. If it is to minimise the risk of doping in this sport then you know what information you may need. I'm not sure anybody's got the outcome worked out yet."

You are just making yourself look very foolish by re-posting this everywhere, why not have a think about the perfectly intelligent point Brailsford is making.

Trev The Rev

nic_77 wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

All I'm doing is commenting on Brailsford's words below. That is not trolling, Brailsfords words speak for thenselves, why does he have doubts about everyone telling the truth? Fair question, fair comment.


He said: "You've got to think about what's the outcome. Everybody telling the truth doesn't make things better - acting upon what you find and doing something tangible with that information so it doesn't happen in the future will only make it better. Everybody telling the truth which then sits in a pot isn't going to change anything.

"My personal opinion is if you get 25 guys to tell you how to rob a bank, and then 100 guys tell you how to rob a bank, the majority of what you learned on how to rob a bank would have come from the first 25. It's the law of diminishing returns.

"If you're trying to establish all the individuals involved, who then come clean and are forgiven, what have we learned? You talk about culture. How come so many people fell into his mindset? If you get an expert to look into this and why so many people fell into this culture and you make something tangible out of it to ensure it wouldn't happen again, for sure is worth it.

He added: "Truth on its own is only half the equation. You've got to decide what your outcome goal is. If it is to minimise the risk of doping in this sport then you know what information you may need. I'm not sure anybody's got the outcome worked out yet."

You are just making yourself look very foolish by re-posting this everywhere, why not have a think about the perfectly intelligent point Brailsford is making.

He makes a valid point. So why remove the original post?

If you are trying to establish all the individuals involved you speak to all the witnesses not just 25% of them. Brailsford's record at establishing the truth so far is very poor indeed. If he had asked enough people in the first place perhaps he would not have employed so many ex dopers.

salsiccia1

But is the aim to establish the names of all the individuals involved? Or is to get enough understanding of how cycling came to find itself in this situation and stop it happening again? If getting all the names out is the only way to do that, then go ahead. Brailsford's point (as I interpret it) is that naming every individual who ever doped is not going to provide anything constructive. And I'm inclined to agree.

Trev The Rev

Salsiccia1 wrote:

But is the aim to establish the names of all the individuals involved? Or is to get enough understanding of how cycling came to find itself in this situation and stop it happening again? If getting all the names out is the only way to do that, then go ahead. Brailsford's point (as I interpret it) is that naming every individual who ever doped is not going to provide anything constructive. And I'm inclined to agree.

Would clean riders who were cheated agree that the cheats should not be named?

salsiccia1

Trev The Rev wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

But is the aim to establish the names of all the individuals involved? Or is to get enough understanding of how cycling came to find itself in this situation and stop it happening again? If getting all the names out is the only way to do that, then go ahead. Brailsford's point (as I interpret it) is that naming every individual who ever doped is not going to provide anything constructive. And I'm inclined to agree.

Would clean riders who were cheated agree that the cheats should not be named?

I don't know, you'd have to ask them all. But the aim of the process is to move cycling forward, and rightly or wrongly that doesn't automatically equate to vindicating everyone who performed honestly and cleanly.

ddraver

Starting to become Trev myself as I keep repeating this when T&R comes up:-

Do you think Trev/Cyclismas/FestinaGirl etc would nt have the worlds biggest party if Sky admitted they'd been doping for the past 3 years? If Contador confessed to all we think he's done and waved 8 fingers at me if he wins in July, do you think I would nt tear all 8 off one by one? There is nothing for riders today to gain from T&R

I am coming round to that fact that actually it might be better to get everything from the 90's/early 20020's out at once. The current drip drip drip of info as different federations all release their own reports is just making cycling look worse and worse. That said, I don't think we re really going to learn anything new any more. Just get some more details. However (again) I can see why it winds up people like Vaughters when they re constantly referred to as "Confessed doper DS"or whatever as they know and we know that almost every DS could be described in such a way. Last year it was all of them until Sky/OGE sacked them.

The reality is that we re not going to learn anything useful that'we don't already know. The question we need to answer is how can we stop such a culture of omerta ever happening again and how can we prevent a situation where dopers are the vast majority not the stupid actions of the foolish or desperate....

rob churchill

Trev The Rev wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

But is the aim to establish the names of all the individuals involved? Or is to get enough understanding of how cycling came to find itself in this situation and stop it happening again? If getting all the names out is the only way to do that, then go ahead. Brailsford's point (as I interpret it) is that naming every individual who ever doped is not going to provide anything constructive. And I'm inclined to agree.

Would clean riders who were cheated agree that the cheats should not be named?

Brailsford's point is that naming every individual who ever doped is not going to provide anything constructive on its own. Nowhere did Brailsford say anything that could legitimately be construed as indicating that he thinks individual dopers should not all be named. He's saying that we need some clarity on what we propose to do with the information.

Trev The Rev

rob churchill wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

But is the aim to establish the names of all the individuals involved? Or is to get enough understanding of how cycling came to find itself in this situation and stop it happening again? If getting all the names out is the only way to do that, then go ahead. Brailsford's point (as I interpret it) is that naming every individual who ever doped is not going to provide anything constructive. And I'm inclined to agree.

Would clean riders who were cheated agree that the cheats should not be named?

Brailsford's point is that naming every individual who ever doped is not going to provide anything constructive on its own. Nowhere did Brailsford say anything that could legitimately be construed as indicating that he thinks individual dopers should not all be named. He's saying that we need some clarity on what we propose to do with the information.

So what does he mean here?

"My personal opinion is if you get 25 guys to tell you how to rob a bank, and then 100 guys tell you how to rob a bank, the majority of what you learned on how to rob a bank would have come from the first 25. It's the law of diminishing returns."

No_Ta_Doctor

He means you're not going to learn anything new about how they avoided testing positive. It's pretty simple.

rob churchill

Trev The Rev wrote:

So what does he mean here?

"My personal opinion is if you get 25 guys to tell you how to rob a bank, and then 100 guys tell you how to rob a bank, the majority of what you learned on how to rob a bank would have come from the first 25. It's the law of diminishing returns."

He means that if you somehow got a 100 riders, DS's, soigneurs etc to tell everything they know about dopage, you'd learn less from the last 75 than you did from the first 25, whether you're talking about general principles (how to minimise your chances of testing positive) or specific instances ("I saw rider X having a transfusion on the second rest day of the 2012 Tour"). Because eventually, you start hearing the same old things over again and fewer and fewer new things.

Which fits with his general point that it's futile to acquire data if you then do nothing with it - and that still applies even if you could find a way to get at every last little bit of data.

FFS, it's really not complicated.