Doctors in action

thomthom

Depressing stuff. Also depressing that Katusha got their license back.

http://www.cyclismas.com/2013/03/is-the ... the-house/

danlikesbikes

Put aside the part that most of their reports are tongue in cheek - the list does make for depressing news.

rob churchill

I got as far as this:

Andrea Andreazzoli – Astana

Former doctor at Lampre, now at Astana. Andrea was investigated as part of the Mantova investigation, but was cleared in January of 2012 and adjudged to have committed no crime. In fact, he was described as “a respected professional of the first order who had seen his name sullied by a bad history of doping in cycling.”

...and couldn't really see the point in reading any further.

inkyfingers

That's one of the first Cyclismas articles that I've read all the way through, not normally a fan.

It's very interesting and shows just how blinkered those who are obsessed with just looking at Sky and their ex dodgy doctor are (though that's not to say that Sky don't have questions to answer).

It also makes me think that cycling has no real chance of getting clean until most of those doctors have been ejected from the sport.

inseine

I was moderately optimistic for the sport. It's quite depressing. Is it only the French and Garmin who don't have dodgy doctors?

rick_chasey

What do people expect? This stuff had been going on with doctors since the late 80 / early 90s and up till 2009 at the very very least. Why would all the doctors teams used suddenly change??

LeicesterLad

A note to point out the article was written by our very own Dimspace and isn't the usual muck over at Cyclismas.

Good, but depressing article.

rjgr

Rick Chasey wrote:

What do people expect? This stuff had been going on with doctors since the late 80 / early 90s and up till 2009 at the very very least. Why would all the doctors teams used suddenly change??

Because where else would you start if not with a uncontaminated doctor IF you were management deciding to run a clean team. Other than hiring riders who complied with a 'zero tolerance' policy, of course :idea:

dave_1

Do teams need a Dr on the races? Perhaps have Drs appointed by the organisers? Medicals available when needed

inseine

What do people expect? This stuff had been going on with doctors since the late 80 / early 90s and up till 2009 at the very very least. Why would all the doctors teams used suddenly change??

You could change the word 'doctors' for 'drugs' and maybe the answer were be clearer. If the teams are serious about the drugs problem then starting with the doctors seems reasonable.

danlikesbikes

Think that is good point, as I would never want to say a team should not employ a doctor as they were implicated but not charged with drugs offences. But you would expect the teams if they are serious about kicking out drugs & clearing up the already damaged image of cycling to want to not take on doctors/medical staff that are tainted.

rick_chasey

It's not a question of 'taking on ' as they're the doctors who've been there for 10 years.

Where is this imaginary line beyond which all is clean?

Any doctor who was worth anything to a team in the last 20 years knew about doping. Otherwise they're uncompetitive and thus not worth emplying.. Doesn't mean they're still for doping and still helping riders to dope. And who else will do it? A lot of these teams have been around in different forms for just as long. You can't just revamp personel like that. If only. I'd have made much more money as a headhunter.

And if people are so into marginal gains / being competitive and sports science they should understand why doctors are useful to have, doping or not.

inseine

. Doesn't mean they're still for doping and still helping riders to dope

And it doesn't mean they're not. There hasn't been a line in the sand with doping, and like you say there is no imaginary line. Same way I don't see why people see a busted rider who comes back as naturally clean. I really am one of those people who hopes it's cleaner now, but these guys give me a very uneasy feeling.

danlikesbikes

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not a question of 'taking on ' as they're the doctors who've been there for 10 years.

Where is this imaginary line beyond which all is clean?

Any doctor who was worth anything to a team in the last 20 years knew about doping. Otherwise they're uncompetitive and thus not worth emplying.. Doesn't mean they're still for doping and still helping riders to dope. And who else will do it? A lot of these teams have been around in different forms for just as long. You can't just revamp personel like that. If only. I'd have made much more money as a headhunter.

And if people are so into marginal gains / being competitive and sports science they should understand why doctors are useful to have, doping or not.

Beg to differ but if you read the report whilst many of the doctors have been around the block in terms of time involved. But the report states 8 of the doctors named had moved from one team to another so they have been taken on by the new team.

As for the line it is imaginary & beyond that line all is not clean. But if we are going to clean this sport up IMHO to outsiders of the cycling world who think "oh well most of them are drugged up" they might find it suspicious that doctors who are tainted by suggestions of drugs are being taken on in the last 2-3 years.

I'm not suggesting that the doctors are or an not now helping riders dope, but if you don't revamp your team to exclude such doctors then you are including them & the outsiders to our sport (& me included in that number) will still have their suspicions.

It is only my opinion, but we can hardly sign from the parapets that our sport is clean if we still employ staff that have baggage.