'98 retro testing...

andyp

I've little sympathy for Blijlevens or Zabel to be honest. Both had the opportunity to tell the truth and both chose not to.

But I take your point Iain. It's 15 years after the event, time to move on.

moray_gub

iainf72 wrote:

People losing their jobs over this is stupid. It actually makes me angry.

So they were doping in 98, like just about everyone. Big deal. Have they been doing the right thing over the last few years?

I love the gossip but that's all it is. It's not relevant to anything, it's all just pointless.

I agree where does it all end ?
A lot of this false indignation being displayed gets on my t*ts.
So they doped 15 years ago like most pro cyclists of that era............time to move on and focus on the future not the dark distant past. Its not like they are current riders .

mididoctors

iainf72 wrote:

People losing their jobs over this is stupid. It actually makes me angry.

So they were doping in 98, like just about everyone. Big deal. Have they been doing the right thing over the last few years?

yeah well probably ...perhaps ...maybe? Most of them :?:

I love the gossip but that's all it is. It's not relevant to anything, it's all just pointless.

yeah well I guess its all not so harmless

TheBigBean

iainf72 wrote:

People losing their jobs over this is stupid. It actually makes me angry.

The private sector is sanctioning people in the way that the UCI should be. No anger from me. USADA proved you can still ban someone even if they don't hold a licence.

iainf72 wrote:

So they were doping in 98, like just about everyone. Big deal. Have they been doing the right thing over the last few years?

I love the gossip but that's all it is. It's not relevant to anything, it's all just pointless.

That's tantamount to saying that doping is fine now as long as it is undetectable, or at least widespread.

There are two reasons to sanction a rider (i) it punishes a past wrong (ii) it discourages someone else committing the same wrong today. Both reasons are equally valid 15 years on.

timoid.

Art Vandelay wrote:

So of those implicated who were still involved in the top end of the sport:
Zabel (Katusha) - gone
Heppner (NetApp director) - gone
Julich (BMC trainer)
Merckx (Team Bontrager director)
Stefano Zanini (Astana director)
Blijlevens (Belkin director) - gone (is he still on Eurosport?)
Jacky Durand (Commentator Eurosport)
Olano (Vuelta Espana director) - gone
Chanteur (President UNCP)

Quite a clear out. Are the circumstances of the re-testing (Senate inquiry/research re-testing by AFLD) exceptional or is there a likelihood for anything similar?

Julich I can live with. He came clean before he had to and it already cost him his job. BMC knew what it was hiring.

mfin

If cycling hadn't been so riddled with doping for years, you wouldn't get all the stories about dopers.

What needs to be done is every last bit of it exposed, and instead of cycling saying 'we're moving on' to people outside of the core fans, it needs to say 'you know we have this sh1t reputation, well, lets just be clear just how sh1t it was, here's the evidence... the sport went through a massive period of being probably more of a joke than you think it was'.

Once that approach has been made, all this will die out, there's only so much retrospective testing that can be done. Cycling needs to come clean and take the hit.

What we actually need is to pull down some of the big names like Contador now, clear out the sh1t for good.

Once everything is properly purged, 'cycling-and-doping' one day might be more of a dirty memory.

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

People losing their jobs over this is stupid. It actually makes me angry.

The private sector is sanctioning people in the way that the UCI should be. No anger from me. USADA proved you can still ban someone even if they don't hold a licence.

No, that's self-righteous horseshit. These people weren't unusual - they were standard. That's what happened. And anyone with a brain knows it. To single out individuals is stupid.

So if someone hires a successful rider from the late 90s then unless they have rocks for brains, they have to know that there is a very good chance that they doped. So unless they specifically asked the question - and I'm guessing few did - then they have no right to sack them. It's like people who buy $100 Rolexes and then complain when they turn out to be fakes.

What people did 15 years ago isn't a reflection on what they do now. If you feel that everyone should carry around their sins until punished then there is no incentive to change.

All this comes from vacuous celebrity culture. People now expect people in the public eye to parade their failings for their entertainment. That confessions and contrition must be paid to the sanctimonious TV audience who feel that pressing a button on their remote entitles them to pass judgement.

nic_77

RichN95 wrote:

People now expect people in the public eye to parade their failings for their entertainment.

Not me. I expect people to be punished for their 'crimes'. 'Celebrity' or not. In the past or in the present. It's a shame that not all will be caught, but that doesn't excuse those that are.

rick_chasey

Is a little odd commentators losing their jobs for doping.

If anything they're in a better position to judge.

I guess it shows that if you take control of the truth getting out you get treated differently.

Riis (untill stuff he kept hidden falls out anyway), Virenque, Vaughters, Museeuw etc.

Have to say, sitting back from it occasionally, observing and trying to guess who the forum will pardon and who they won't is a kind of interesting.

Yellow Peril

nic_77 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

People now expect people in the public eye to parade their failings for their entertainment.

Not me. I expect people to be punished for their 'crimes'. 'Celebrity' or not. In the past or in the present. It's a shame that not all will be caught, but that doesn't excuse those that are.

Got to agree with Nic77 on this. Most of these guys were quite successful riders through doping and have built post race careers on that success which we know was a fraud.

Iain's comment that unless they were specifically asked the question about doping when they were hired then there is no right to sack them is flawed. Most have openly denied doping until they were caught, some such as Zabel denied, got caught out, confessed to doping once, have been caught out again and then had to confess again.

Lots of people are saying enough is enough, well I guess we are getting closer to that point.

mididoctors

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is a little odd commentators losing their jobs for doping.

If anything they're in a better position to judge.

I guess it shows that if you take control of the truth getting out you get treated differently.

Riis (untill stuff he kept hidden falls out anyway), Virenque, Vaughters, Museeuw etc.

Have to say, sitting back from it occasionally, observing and trying to guess who the forum will pardon and who they won't is a kind of interesting.

some of the commentators who never doped should lose their job. CK aside some of the commentators have repeatedly tried to sweep this stuff under the carpet and were perhaps part of the problem

tailwindhome

Zabel to OPQS?

mididoctors

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

People losing their jobs over this is stupid. It actually makes me angry.

The private sector is sanctioning people in the way that the UCI should be. No anger from me. USADA proved you can still ban someone even if they don't hold a licence.

No, that's self-righteous horseshit. These people weren't unusual - they were standard. That's what happened. And anyone with a brain knows it. To single out individuals is stupid.

So if someone hires a successful rider from the late 90s then unless they have rocks for brains, they have to know that there is a very good chance that they doped. So unless they specifically asked the question - and I'm guessing few did - then they have no right to sack them. It's like people who buy $100 Rolexes and then complain when they turn out to be fakes.

What people did 15 years ago isn't a reflection on what they do now. If you feel that everyone should carry around their sins until punished then there is no incentive to change.

All this comes from vacuous celebrity culture. People now expect people in the public eye to parade their failings for their entertainment. That confessions and contrition must be paid to the sanctimonious TV audience who feel that pressing a button on their remote entitles them to pass judgement.

You raise an interesting specter this story hasn't really got to yet. or at least hasn't damaged

Then is it down more to the employer ? It strikes me your anger is actually directed at the sponsors/teams who knowingly hired these guys thinking it was all water under the bridge. I suppose the team sales crew may be lying to their sponsors (strikes me as somewhat a thin defense give the rolex analogy)

the money men have walked away with ease from any responsibility. I wonder if trek sales suffered because of the postals debacle?

they may have hired them ahead of time with the understanding that any bad news can result in dismissal... wouldn't be an unreasonable conversation to have?

ddraver

Rick Chasey wrote:

Have to say, sitting back from it occasionally, observing and trying to guess who the forum will pardon and who they won't is a kind of interesting.

This!

One of the worst things about this '98 samples "scandal" is that it's making me start to feel sorry for Lance Armstrong, which is not a feeling I'm very happy with! Zabel should have his GJ's stripped just as Larry had his YJ's stripped, or vice versa...

The blatent lying is just insulting frankly. As iain says, do they really think we don't know what they were up to?

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Have to say, sitting back from it occasionally, observing and trying to guess who the forum will pardon and who they won't is a kind of interesting.

This!

One of the worst things about this '98 samples "scandal" is that it's making me start to feel sorry for Lance Armstrong, which is not a feeling I'm very happy with! Zabel should have his GJ's stripped just as Larry had his YJ's stripped, or vice versa...

The blatent lying is just insulting frankly. As iain says, do they really think we don't know what they were up to?

Funny - I'm starting to feel the same way...not that I'd want to have a coffee with Lance any time soon, you understand.

It frustrates me that the managers, DSs, docs, other back room staff who enabled the doping, are still getting away without being brought to account, for the most part. But then when you get the usual stuck record of 'I did it on my own' from the likes of O'Grady and Zabel (who are just carrying on the fine tradition of bleating this), what else can be expected, I guess.

And I still dont get those who keep banging on that T&R is the only way forward. For god's sake, all evidence shows is that with a few exceptions, ex-pros only put their hand up when they're totally boxed in a corner and the best they can hope for is damage control by admitting.

TheBigBean

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

People losing their jobs over this is stupid. It actually makes me angry.

The private sector is sanctioning people in the way that the UCI should be. No anger from me. USADA proved you can still ban someone even if they don't hold a licence.

No, that's self-righteous horseshit. These people weren't unusual - they were standard. That's what happened. And anyone with a brain knows it. To single out individuals is stupid.

It's simply an opinion that is contrary to yours.

I believe your argument has three points:
(i) They were all doping
(ii) There should be a statute of limitations
(iii) Due to (i) the private sector should be aware of this.

In response:
(i) A lot of them (not all) chose to dope. A crime is not justified by mass participation e.g. riots in London. Those that chose not to dope lost out considerably.
(ii) I'm sure this has been debated in the legal profession ad nauseam. It is clear we sit on different sides of the argument.
(iii) We have no idea what contractual arrangements individuals signed up to. O'Grady was asked to confirm he had never doped. Either way I have little sympathy because I would like them to be sanctioned by the UCI which was my original point.

RichN95 wrote:

All this comes from vacuous celebrity culture. People now expect people in the public eye to parade their failings for their entertainment. That confessions and contrition must be paid to the sanctimonious TV audience who feel that pressing a button on their remote entitles them to pass judgement.

Without wishing to be overly judgemental, this makes you sound like a grumpy old man. I have no interest in celebrities, and find the assertion that my opinion may be influenced by a "vacuous celebrity culture" to be even more insulting than the "self-righteous horseshit" mentioned above.

KieranHardman

I dont think any of these ex-riders are being punished because of their actions. This looks like a number of organisations showing their "dear valued customer/fan" that they are proactively addressing todays hot topic of PEDs in sports.

Its a bunch of PR because noones sponsors or Olympic committee wants to have any confirmed ties to PEDs. Its just business. Theyll all get another job in cycling on the quiet in 6 months or so when the media storm dies down and it goes back to just internet forums pointing the finger.

Macaloon

ddraver wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Have to say, sitting back from it occasionally, observing and trying to guess who the forum will pardon and who they won't is a kind of interesting.

This!

One of the worst things about this '98 samples "scandal" is that it's making me start to feel sorry for Lance Armstrong, which is not a feeling I'm very happy with! Zabel should have his GJ's stripped just as Larry had his YJ's stripped, or vice versa...

The blatant lying is just insulting frankly. As iain says, do they really think we don't know what they were up to?

Renewing your zero-tolerance vows last year doesn't seem like such a bad idea now (however cynical the motivation). There's no way Sky could tolerate anyone with a known doping past on their staff in the current climate. They don't get a pass, unlike other teams.

I'd suggest that this stance put them at a short-term disadvantage in losing experienced staff (Julich, *Yates), but may put them ahead of other teams currently benefiting from the services of the un-confessed.

*Prophylactic edit to note that Yates' departed for different reasons than Julich

FJS

mididoctors wrote:

some of the commentators who never doped should lose their job.

Ha. Actually, Tim Krabbe (of 'The Rider') accounts in one of his non-fiction books how Jean Nelissen and another TV commentator once doped themselves to test the effect of doping on (untrained fat middle aged men's) performance for themselves. Nonsense of course. That was the in the late 70s/early 80s. Not sure what they took - at that time amphetamines probably

mididoctors

Richmond Racer wrote:

It frustrates me that the managers, DSs, docs, other back room staff who enabled the doping, are still getting away without being brought to account, for the most part. But then when you get the usual stuck record of 'I did it on my own' from the likes of O'Grady and Zabel (who are just carrying on the fine tradition of bleating this), what else can be expected, I guess.

someone will have to job them in for that to happen as there is no retro testing for them. and what are your chances of getting a post rider career in the backrooms if you did?...

I suppose only a environment were the sponsors/sport sanctions staff who are squeaky clean

sherer

Look at some of the ex dopers or were \ are involved in the sport.

Rudy Pevenage - Doper who encouraged riders to dope
Riis - Doper who encouraged riders to dope
Bruyneel - Suspected doper who encouraged riders to dope.

As long as we have DS, coaches, doctors etc who are all part of the old school who think you have to dope this will happen time and time again. We need to get ride of this you have to dope to win. We saw with CERA and other drugs that as soon as EPO could be detected they found a new way to use it or just moved onto a new drug

oneof1982

I take issue with RichN95 and Ianf on this. The views that you are putting forward this morning are no different from the old line, of "everyone is doing it, and i don't want to know". If you carry on that way, cycling will never change, and in no time at all, the next wave of dopers or super dopers will be along.

Now, it may be that you hanker after "old fashioned cycling" where doping was the done thing, and everyone kept the omerta. Maybe you have a misplaced romanticism for super junked performances, and dead young Belgian cyclists. I don't. I don't want procycling to be akin to American Wrestling. I want it to be a credible sport, in the eye of the widest public. And I want to know, as far as is possible, that I am watching a clean sport.

I want the dopers identified, and I want them out. At last this is what is happening. It won't be long before we see more teams adopting a "no ex-dopers" recuritment policy.

ddraver

oneof1982 wrote:

I take issue with RichN95 and Ianf on this. The views that you are putting forward this morning are no different from the old line, of "everyone is doing it, and i don't want to know". If you carry on that way, cycling will never change, and in no time at all, the next wave of dopers or super dopers will be along.

Now, it may be that you hanker after "old fashioned cycling" where doping was the done thing, and everyone kept the omerta. Maybe you have a misplaced romanticism for super junked performances, and dead young Belgian cyclists. I don't. I don't want procycling to be akin to American Wrestling. I want it to be a credible sport, in the eye of the widest public. And I want to know, as far as is possible, that I am watching a clean sport.

I want the dopers identified, and I want them out. At last this is what is happening. It won't be long before we see more teams adopting a "no ex-dopers" recuritment policy.

I think we all want that, we just disagree on how to get there...

oneof1982

ddraver wrote:

I think we all want that, we just disagree on how to get there...

Are you sure? Frankly, I am not convinced.

TheBigBean

oneof1982 wrote:

It won't be long before we see more teams adopting a "no ex-dopers" recuritment policy.

I mostly agree with you, but I think this point amounts to a lifetime ban which would probably be unfair. It would be better if they served a suspension and then were allowed back, rehabilitated and all that.

ddraver

oneof1982 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

I think we all want that, we just disagree on how to get there...

Are you sure? Frankly, I am not convinced.

Not much point continuing the conversation then...

mike6

TheBigBean wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

It won't be long before we see more teams adopting a "no ex-dopers" recuritment policy.

I mostly agree with you, but I think this point amounts to a lifetime ban which would probably be unfair. It would be better if they served a suspension and then were allowed back, rehabilitated and all that.

That was almost the plan in place when teams agreed not to sign riders who were returning from suspensions or were implicated in doping, a good few years ago now. Sadly some team managers just saw it as a good opportunity to get the dopers/suspected dopers, on board for a lower contract. Basso, for example.

oneof1982

ddraver wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

I think we all want that, we just disagree on how to get there...

Are you sure? Frankly, I am not convinced.

Not much point continuing the conversation then...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

iainf72

oneof1982 wrote:

I want the dopers identified, and I want them out. At last this is what is happening. It won't be long before we see more teams adopting a "no ex-dopers" recuritment policy.

Shouldn't they just adopt a "no one who was a pro in the 90s and 00's" in that case? Because all that will happen is something will come out of the woodwork later

FJS

There's nothing odd with organisations firing employees who lied to them. A blanket 'all dopers out' is unworkable and counterproductive. When they're open about it, regret it as a mistake and actively work to help others avoid making the same mistake, why not?