# I hope its not true about Frank Schleck



## mondobongo (26 Sep 2008)

Cycling News have a newsflash that Frank Schleck has been id'd as a customer of the infamous Dr Fuentes. 

If the story turn outs to be true it is going to be very damaging and raise so many questions about this years Tour.

The Bad News


----------



## yello (26 Sep 2008)

Well, it's seems it's true that he had an appointment with the good doctor. Read into that what you will but I hope, I really do hope, there's nothing in it even if it was several years ago.


----------



## marinyork (26 Sep 2008)

. Hope not.


----------



## girofan (26 Sep 2008)

Do I see smoke rising from someone's fire?


----------



## Noodley (26 Sep 2008)

I did not think this was news. I am sure I have read something about Frank Schleck having 'associations' in the past...maybe I dreamt it?


----------



## yenrod (26 Sep 2008)

Nothing surprises me...


----------



## maurice (26 Sep 2008)

My god,


----------



## Noodley (27 Sep 2008)

OK, cast your minds back to July...who were the dopers targetting? Why? 

Genuinely, I remember something about Schleck before this article. I lose track of it all cos there is so much.

Maybe it's easier to take the 'never failed a test' approach.


----------



## Keith Oates (27 Sep 2008)

Nothing suprises me any more, but the report says he was seen visiting the doctor along with Riis. Now that could be really explosive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## maurice (27 Sep 2008)

Presumably the Shlecks father's car getting stopped and searched during a stage of the tour had something to do with this.


----------



## Noodley (27 Sep 2008)

maurice said:


> Presumably the Shlecks father's car getting stopped and searched during a stage of the tour had something to do with this.



<strokes chin > well, there may be a reason for certain riders being the subject of certain measures...although I reckon the TdeF stops would be based on more recent information.

Anyway, no failed tests...


----------



## Chuffy (27 Sep 2008)

Noodley said:


> Anyway, no failed tests...


Phew, that's ok then!

Anyway, as the Great Lance has said


> "I don't believe it is beneficial for cycling to constantly sit around and question performance," said Armstrong.


 so lets not worry our pretty little heads eh?


----------



## mondobongo (27 Sep 2008)

Somehow I missed the story below from Cycling News last week, what is going on. They are going back to retest samples. I think there is going to be a god almighty kick off more or less at the end of the Season.

*Tour de France samples to undergo further anti-doping tests*

The French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) said it will be re-testing several blood samples taken during the Tour de France this July. According to the _Associated Press_, the lab found results of urine sample tests from several riders "inconclusive" based on initial testing in Lausanne.
"I have decided that we will retest – with blood testing – all those who showed up as suspicious during the urine samples," said Pierre Bordry of the AFLD to the _AP_. "When we did the urine samples of those athletes, we had a serious suspicion that there was CERA [third generation of the blood boosting, performance enhancing drug EPO - ed.]. 
"The laboratory could not say definitively. The same analysis will be done, but in the blood samples," he said."
Samples will be returned to France, where the tests will be conducted at the Chatenay-Malabry lab. The AFLD declined to name the cyclists who had produced the suspicious samples.
Bordry estimated that the additional testing would take nor more than 10 or 15 days, which means results could be available as soon as before or during the World Championships in Italy.
Several riders tested positive during the 2008 Tour de France including Riccardo Riccò (for EPO-CERA), Manuel Beltran (for EPO) and Dmitriy Fofonov (for the stimulant heptaminol). Riccò's teammate Leonardo Piepoli also  confessed to his team manager to using the same banned substance as Ricco.
Moises Dueñas Nevado secured his place on the doper's list Wednesday after his "B" sample came back positive for EPO, confirming "A" sample results. He had previously confessed to using the banned substance.


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Sep 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Phew, that's ok then!
> 
> Anyway, as the Great Lance has said so lets not worry our pretty little heads eh?



If people want to believe someone is taking performance enhancing drugs then it is like the old witchcraft trials....... being unable to prove guilt is unnecessary as no-one will believe or accept an innocent verdict anyway.


Guilty - burn him.


----------



## rich p (27 Sep 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> If people want to believe someone is taking performance enhancing drugs then it is like the old witchcraft trials....... being unable to prove guilt is unnecessary as no-one will believe or accept an innocent verdict anyway.
> 
> 
> Guilty - burn him.



Eh? What was the 7,000 euros to Dr Fuentes for then? Plasters? Immac?


----------



## Chuffy (27 Sep 2008)

Anyone fancy signing this petition. Noodley? Girofan? I'm sure you'd support a proposal that gives you a clean slate so long as you can evade les flics for a year.


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Sep 2008)

rich p said:


> Eh? What was the 7,000 euros to Dr Fuentes for then? Plasters? Immac?



What was it for?

Fact - not assumption please.........


----------



## Noodley (27 Sep 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Fact - not assumption please.........



Bollocks.


----------



## Chuffy (28 Sep 2008)

Noodley said:


> Bollocks.


+1
Or +2, seeing as bollocks come in pairs.


----------



## Noodley (28 Sep 2008)

I cannot understand why some people keep banging on about "proof". The system is stacked in favour of the dopers. If you cannot understand that some people have an opinion based on the piecing together of a number of elements rather than a one-off test then you need to look a bit more at the meaning of 'evidence'.


----------



## rich p (28 Sep 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> What was it for?
> 
> Fact - not assumption please.........



A cyclist gives a large sum of money to a doctor who very soon after was proved to have been blood doping many other cyclists. If you think that's adding up 2 and 2 and making 5 then you probably also believe OJ was innocent!


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Sep 2008)

> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by Cunobelin View Post
> > Fact - not assumption please.........
> 
> ...



Well plastic surgery is expensive...........


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Sep 2008)

rich p said:


> A cyclist gives a large sum of money to a doctor who very soon after was proved to have been blood doping many other cyclists. If you think that's adding up 2 and 2 and making 5 then you probably also believe OJ was innocent!




A young lady was pursued across a field by an unfit overweight miller with amorous intent. 

He was incapacitated and had one side of his body afflicted so that he could not move his muscles or speak properly.

She was accused of "smiting him down" by witchcraft.


No proof needed, just association - the answer was obvious enough to burn her and 6 of her family.


Why are we so scared of actually waiting for proof inthese cases before jumping to accusations and innuendo?

Apart from doing away with the burning - it is sad how little things have changed over the years


----------



## Chuffy (28 Sep 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> A young lady was pursued across a field by an unfit overweight miller with amorous intent.blah blah etc


What utter rubbish. In the case of Puerto the blood bags were labelled with names and code names. The cyclists named (and I'm thinking of Ullrich and Basso particularly) consistently refused to take a DNA test which would prove the innocence that they so vehemently protested. Both were subsequently proven to be lying through their teeth. Schleck looks to be following the same pattern. Perhaps us nasty cycling fans should stop taking notice of all the evidence of the massive doping problems that cycling has had and has always had. Unless a rider comes forward of his own free will and offers a confession we should do nothing, say nothing and pretend that nothing is wrong.
FFS.


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Sep 2008)

> Schleck looks to be following the same pattern. Perhaps us nasty cycling fans should stop taking notice of all the evidence of the massive doping problems that cycling has had and has always had. Unless a rider comes forward of his own free will and offers a confession we should do nothing, say nothing and pretend that nothing is wrong.
> FFS.



And therein lies an equal problem......

Please read the two posts - the "Guilty" decision is already made.

This devalues the system. There is no suggestion that we should ignore doping, Simply that we need to deal with it in a formal, legal and coherent way.


"Schleck looks to be following the same pattern"

Well that may be enough proof for you, but why not wait for some real evidence..... but then again that was never what witch hunts were about was it?

To carry on with disorganised infantile name calling and accusations in this way only works for the cheats. The system needs to be tougher, more evidence based and also clear of the present corruption, hearsay, gossip and leaks that are going to eventually discredit the anti-doping agencies.


----------



## mondobongo (28 Sep 2008)

Fact the documents relating to this payment to Fuentes were uncovered by the German Federal Police and have been confirmed by the Attorney General of Luxembourg we are not talking mickey mouse rumour mongering here.

So to the payment what was the 7,000 Euro payment for??? Why from the rider surely a top pro would be looked after top to toe by his Team.

Unconfirmed as a fact yet but I would imagine they will stand up is witness statements stating Schleck was seen at Fuentes clinic with Riis in 2005.

Its not a smoking gun maybe but fingerprints at the scene. It most certainly needs clarification.


----------



## Chuffy (28 Sep 2008)

Riders and those apologists who will defend them no matter what have been bitching about anti-doping measures and tossing the phrase 'witch-hunt' about ever since testing and sanctions came into being. Armstrong has consistently put the boot into the anti-doping authorities and riders who speak out against doping, far more strongly than he has ever spoken out against doping itself. Attitudes like that and the way that Landis, Rasmussen and Hamilton, to name but three, have lied and lied and lied just means that cyclists have no right, no right at all to simply say 'trust me' and grump about being distrusted. I feel sorry for the genuine guys, the ones racing clean and who have always raced clean because they have to bear the burden of being looked at with cynical eyes. You call it a witch-hunt, I call it justified distrust. Besides, as has been pointed out, there is evidence that Schleck was employing Fuentes. Please feel free to dismiss this as nothing more than a figment of the mob's imagination. Or try to explain what innocent use Schleck could have for the services offered by Fuentes. I'm looking forward to hearing whatever reason Schleck (and Riis come to that) comes up with.


----------



## rich p (28 Sep 2008)

FYI, Cunobelin, we're not the real judge and jury and our discussion on here is the equivalent of a few blokes down the pub mulling it over. We can say what we like to each other, just as you can, and if we choose to think it all smells a bit fishy then we are at liberty to say so. It matters not one jot to the UCI, ASO or Frank effing Schleck himself what me and Chuffy think, so please don't tell us again not to have an opinion.


----------



## Noodley (28 Sep 2008)

Maybe one step closer to the identity of Amigo de Birillo.


----------



## rich p (28 Sep 2008)

The Italian police raided the Luxemborg hotel in Varese but didn't find anything apparently.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/sep08/sep28news3


----------



## mondobongo (28 Sep 2008)

rich p said:


> The Italian police raided the Luxemborg hotel in Varese but didn't find anything apparently.



Strange that the Police never knocked on the door of the Norwegian Team who were staying in the same hotel.


----------



## Chuffy (28 Sep 2008)

mondobongo said:


> Strange that the Police never knocked on the door of the Norwegian Team who were staying in the same hotel.


Maybe the Norwegian team doesn't contain any witches...


----------



## Noodley (28 Sep 2008)

rich p said:


> The Italian police raided the Luxemborg hotel in Varese but didn't find anything apparently.
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/sep08/sep28news3



I have read that a hypobaric chamber/tent was found during the search, not a method which breaches UCI doping rules, but illegal in Italy. Such a pity they were in Italy then... 

Seems like it was being used by Beniôt Joachim rather than Schleck. Allegedly.


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Sep 2008)

rich p said:


> FYI, Cunobelin, we're not the real judge and jury and our discussion on here is the equivalent of a few blokes down the pub mulling it over. We can say what we like to each other, just as you can, and if we choose to think it all smells a bit fishy then we are at liberty to say so. It matters not one jot to the UCI, ASO or Frank effing Schleck himself what me and Chuffy think, so please don't tell us again not to have an opinion.




You are quite entitled to an opinion...... at least I am polite enough to raise points, rather than just some your opinion as "Bollocks"..... Or is that the epitome of reasoned and coherent debate here?

I simply feel that we should be clamping down through a substantive, verifiable trail of evidence and proof. *Then* deal with the issues and individuals.

That is being a realist not an apologist!


----------



## Noodley (28 Sep 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> I simply feel that *we *should be clamping down through a substantive, verifiable trail of evidence and proof. *Then* deal with the issues and individuals.



We? Since when have 'we' been in a position to clamp down on anything. Perhaps you mean "the authorities". In which case I agree. 

We can carry on speaking as much bollocks as we want.


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Sep 2008)

WE - as in the Royal "WE"

As fans and supporters "we" have a stake in the sport - and it will always be the grass roots support that will determine the success or failure.


----------



## Noodley (28 Sep 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> WE - as in the Royal "WE"
> 
> As fans and supporters "we" have a stake in the sport - and it will always be the grass roots support that will determine the success or failure.



So how do "we" clamp down through a substantive, verifiable trail of evidence and proof? 

We cannot. We can discuss our opinions and views. That's all. We can form an opinion.


----------



## yenrod (28 Sep 2008)

mondobongo said:


> Strange that the Police never knocked on the door of the Norwegian Team who were staying in the same hotel.



Talk about bloody rediculous - i'm surprused they never invited the cameras and media like most Italian raids...so those who get nabbed can look nice and coifured etc...

Bloody rediculous.


----------



## mondobongo (29 Sep 2008)

Noodley said:


> I have read that a hypobaric chamber/tent was found during the search, not a method which breaches UCI doping rules, but illegal in Italy. Such a pity they were in Italy then...
> 
> Seems like it was being used by Beniôt Joachim rather than Schleck. Allegedly.



Yep Astana rider Joachim had declared using the tent on his doping control.

Raid lasted 8 hours apparently, seems a long time to look for a tent with 20 coppers. Looks like they took the view of what else can we find.


----------



## Chuffy (29 Sep 2008)

mondobongo said:


> Yep Astana rider Joachim had declared using the tent on his doping control.
> 
> Raid lasted 8 hours apparently, seems a long time to look for a tent with 20 coppers. Looks like they took the view of what else can we find.


Was it useful or just a rather heavy handed way of looking like firm action is being taken? Surely, since the 2001 raids on the Giro, no sane rider would dare have naughty stuff in his hotel?


----------



## girofan (29 Sep 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Anyone fancy signing this petition. Noodley? Girofan? I'm sure you'd support a proposal that gives you a clean slate so long as you can evade les flics for a year.



I'd prefer to strip all transgressors of drug legislation over the last forty years of their palmares and give those still alive five years with no parole for their self-serving lies.


----------



## girofan (29 Sep 2008)

Further to the above having read about 'proof' of doping, and having seen the post about witches. Burning seems a better idea than prison. 
THE ULTIMATE DETERRENT.


----------



## Noodley (30 Sep 2008)

Witch-hunt-o-rama-tastic:

14 samples taken at the Tour are being re-tested. Can anyone guess the teams involved? GO on, you know you want to...all gossip, but what the hell.

(edit)
Okay, here's an obvious starter: 
Saunier Duval


----------



## shooter560 (30 Sep 2008)

OK here is a good one for you, I'm a cyclist and now starting to race, OK I'll never ever be pro league, however in a race changing rooms you find me slumped over with a needle in my leg, am I a cheat/drug user??
























By the way this thread is going yes, I'm guilty because I have something in common with others that have been proven to cheat. As such you report me to the governing body, I am banned without having the chance to say a word. YOU ARE HAPPY

















OK now step backwards, now you ask why I have a needle in my arm, rather than just tar me with the brush you so like to wave around. It is then that I explain that I suffer from an allergic reaction to wasp stings, and had to self administer an adrenalin shot to stop myself from going into anaphylaxis shock and possibly dying. So now am I the cheat that you wanted to call me?











Oh and this did happen to me, not in cycling but archery, at the World Champs in 91, I was initially called a cheat by competitors until they heard the truth and FACTS from the IOC etc, how stupid did they look and feel.

No matter what you think you know, wait till the full facts come out as its very easy to think the worst and pretend that everything is as simple as black and white.



Back to Frank Schleck, personally I believe everyone is innocent till proven guilty, rather than the Cycle Chat boys network of Shoot now ask questions later brigade.


----------



## Chuffy (30 Sep 2008)

Shooter – so you need to spike yourself with adrenalin in case of an allergic reaction. Fine, if that was the case then it will be on your medical records. Easily explained and dealt with. It’s interesting though that your fellow competitors cried foul the moment they saw it. If only cyclists were that willing to question each other. 
But in this case, does Dr Fuentes specialise in allergy treatment? No, I don’t believe he does…


----------



## MichaelM (30 Sep 2008)

As Noodley has said, the system is stacked in the favour of the dopers. Hard evidence of doping (other than an admission) would be a positive test. In this years tour, Rico tested positive (I read somewhere but - can't remember where, that later he stated he should have tested positve on occaisions prior to this), then Piepoli (from what I've read) admits to using the same substance but as far as I know didn't actually test positive.

In other words, the testing system is not 100%. It's quite right to be suspicious af any rider who is somehow involved with Fuentas.


----------



## rich p (30 Sep 2008)

I'm continually amazed that people think us doubting Thomas's have some influence in the wide world of cycling. We don't, we just like discussing the issues and chewing over the possibilities. Calm down, now. You can keep your morals intact by ignoring our chatter. No harm done!


----------



## shooter560 (30 Sep 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Shooter – so you need to spike yourself with adrenalin in case of an allergic reaction. Fine, if that was the case then it will be on your medical records. Easily explained and dealt with. It’s interesting though that your fellow competitors cried foul the moment they saw it. If only cyclists were that willing to question each other.
> But in this case, does Dr Fuentes specialise in allergy treatment? No, I don’t believe he does…



That is exactly my point Chuffy, if you take the time to check then its easy to see that I had a valid reason, however in this thread some are saying guilty by association.

OK so Dr Fuentes has a poor record, however I would bet that he has other sides to his work which are legal, anyone here bothered to find out?? I bet the answer is NO, in fact as you said you don't believe/know if he specialises in allergy treatment, but he could well do. Also he needs to make a living and I'm sure doping cyclists although well paid does not support him in life, he must have other income, being a doctor means that he has several avenues he can follow all at the same time. So he could have treated FS either for doping reasons or maybe valid/legal reasons but until the evidence is produced and blame/guilt is laid fair and square at peoples feet, I'm willing to live under the cover of Innocent till proven guilty.

If Frank is proven to be dirty then I hope he gets banned for life, however till proof I want to see him race without a cloud over his head. Dope testing is very good and quicker than many think, plimenary results are available within 48 hours and these are 91% accurate, I know I've been tested over 200 times in 17 years of international competition, in and out of competition and training including many home visits where I was given less than 24 hours notice, and not just when I was in the UK


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Sep 2008)

shooter560 said:


> Dope testing is very good and quicker than many think, plimenary results are available within 48 hours and these are 91% accurate



Which tests? How was the accuracy measured? What do the tests actually measure and how likely is this to catch people who are doping? Not everything is tested for, the tests vary in what they are actually attempting to detect (actual substances, breakdown products, indirect effects etc.) and the levels of tolerance they will allow, the margins of error they provide etc. In addition once riders know the details of tests measures can (and are) taken to mask or flush out the substances or states being tested for - and unless you have a test for those masking agents your initial dope test is meaningless. The only reason why Ricco was caught this summer was because ASO were using a test that they had not widely publicised so some teams and riders did not have time to get hold of counter-measures. Ricco actually had the nerve to complain about this at the time! He also stated that he had used the substance on several other days but was only caught on one.


----------



## Noodley (30 Sep 2008)

shooter560 said:


> OK so Dr Fuentes has a poor record, however I would bet that he has other sides to his work which are legal, anyone here bothered to find out?? I bet the answer is NO...



A poor record!!?? Understatement of the year.

And you'd be wrong to bet I don't know anything about Fuentes.


----------



## Chuffy (30 Sep 2008)

Ok Shooter, perhaps you can explain why a cyclist would feel the need to go to Dr Fuentes for legal treatment. Does he not have a team doctor? Is Fuentes a specialist in some obscure area of medicine? I'm sorry, but following Puerto , association with Fuentes is damn good grounds for suspicion. Please note that no-one here is building a pyre and rounding up the mob for Schleck. We're just deeply distrustful and with damn good reason, you only have to look at the history of doping within cycling. I think we're entitled to look askance at Schleck until he provides some very convincing evidence that his association was clean.

Oi, Noodley, what do you know? C'mon, spill or I'll give you a Chinese burn that'll make your eyes water.


----------



## Noodley (30 Sep 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Oi, Noodley, what do you know? C'mon, spill or I'll give you a Chinese burn that'll make your eyes water.



I know there was a report in Belgian media which mentions the teams that 'may' have riders whose samples are being re-tested. 

And since you lot are obviously crap at guessing the teams/riders named are:
AG2R: Valjavec plus one other rider
Saunier Duval: Ricco, Piepoli, Cobo
CSC: 5 riders
Columbia: 2 riders
Gerolsteiner: 2 riders

The power of the threat of a chinese burn...


----------



## Chuffy (30 Sep 2008)

Noodley said:


> I know there was a report in Belgian media which mentions the teams that 'may' have riders whose samples are being re-tested.
> 
> And since you lot are obviously crap at guessing the teams/riders named are:
> AG2R: Valjavec plus one other rider
> ...


Bloody hellfire! Has anyone told Mr Damsgard? 

But you intimated that you knew about Fuentes. That Chinese burn is still pending and I've got birillo pads strapped to my palms....


----------



## Noodley (30 Sep 2008)

Chuffy said:


> But you intimated that you knew about Fuentes.



Well I know he's a gynaecologist. <bad taste> so he's used to working with fannies <bad taste>  Seriously he is a gynaecologist.


----------



## MichaelM (30 Sep 2008)

Noodley said:


> CSC: 5 riders



A useless piece of info.

I read somewhere that Riis has never had a rider in his team test positive - that includes Basso.


----------



## Noodley (30 Sep 2008)

MichaelM said:


> I read somewhere that Riis has never had a rider in his team test positive - that includes Basso.



There's a first time for everything 

Remember this test is testing for the previously untestable


----------



## Chuffy (30 Sep 2008)

Noodley said:


> There's a first time for everything
> 
> Remember this test is testing for the previously untestable


Extra nipples, familiars, broomsticks etc...


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2008)

Frankie boy has been suspended by his team:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/oct08/oct03news2


----------



## Chuffy (3 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> Frankie boy has been suspended by his team:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/oct08/oct03news2


Hmmm. First reaction is good. His team are being strict, his association want to deal with this quickly and that he's been quick to offer a DNA sample.

Second reaction is not so good. What exactly does _"Schleck further said that he "has never received, nor made use of any services from these people – including Eufemiano Fuentes, whom he has never met," and that he was not aware of the link between his contact and Fuentes."_ mean? Looks like he is saying that he was paying a third party without being fully aware of who was at the end of the process. Just what was he paying for?That bit smells rather... 

Or am I just being an nasty old witchhunter?


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Just what was he paying for?



C'mon Chuffy keep up man, it's obvious:

He rides for CSC, a pro cycling team well known for their training programmes, innovation and testing new technology. 

He therefore needs to pay a third party 7000 Euros to give to someone else he has never met nor appears to know anything about so he can get a training programme. 

Sheesh, it's so obvious. What are you like? 

So like his pal, Basso, he was preparing to dope train.


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2008)

Can I also just throw something else in to my witch hunt:

Frank Schleck started his career as a stagiaire for Festina in 2001, then went to CSC after the Festina drugs bust. 

<nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more...>


----------



## Chuffy (3 Oct 2008)

"I didn't inhale and never tried it again" as someone once said...

You have no evidence for those nasty insinuations and are just joining random dots to produce an apparently damning picture. Stop trying to cast apersions on honest athletes with these spurious accusation. You just need to believe in these cyclists.

PS - don't forget to write to Santa Claus this year.


----------



## Chuffy (3 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> Can I also just throw something else in to my witch hunt:
> 
> Frank Schleck started his career as a stagiaire for Festina in 2001, then went to CSC after the Festina drugs bust.
> 
> <nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more...>


Festina in 2001? Hang on, was there another bust after 98 then?


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Festina in 2001? Hang on, was there another bust after 98 then?



sorry I should have typed " Festina went bust" rather than "Festina drugs bust", but the two words just seem to go together when thy come after the word Festina.


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2008)

I wonder who it was who recommended Schleck hand over 7000 Euros?

It must have been someone he trusted to part with that kind of cash to someone he had never met.


----------



## rich p (3 Oct 2008)

he should make a claim in the Small Claims Court de Luxembourg for his 7K euros if he never got any juice training schedule.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Oct 2008)

So what about "Team GB"?

All those negative tests, and a dodgy rider with a positive rider last year?

Should we be querying the obvious drug related activity in "Team GB"?


And of course the ultimate confirmation - allegations in the french press that the increased performance and success can only be drug fuelled....


What more do we need to prove their guilt?


----------



## Chuffy (3 Oct 2008)

Cute Cunobelin, very cute. FWIW I do think that Team GB should be subject to the same scrutiny as other teams. However, lets look at the scenario properly shall we?

Dodgy rider - Hayles is known as a track rider. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of all the drug scandals in track cycling over the last decade or so? There just isn't the same history of it as in road teams is there?

Allegations in the French press. Your anti-French prejudice is clouding your judgement. Do you really believe that the reports in the French press are all based on massive national jealousy of any other nation's success? Please, you're a grown up, leave that kind of logic to the 'Lans is grat and u ar all haterz' brigade. As with any press story, sometimes there's substance, sometimes there isn't. No-one on here takes everything as gospel just because it's in the press and you'd be stupid to imply that they did.

There is nothing to suggest that Team GB are anything other than clean or even that track cycling has a serious drug problem in the same way that road cycling does. There just isn't the same context. Whereas a rider on a team managed by an self-confessed doper, in a sport riddled with doping woes, paying money to a doctor known and proven to be a blood doper to the cycling stars _including that team's previous star rider_, now _that_ raises eyebrows.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Oct 2008)

Hayles has road experience and was a professional road rider and hence exposed to the endemic drug culture. 

Why are we trying to cover this up?


----------



## Chuffy (3 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Hayles has road experience and was a professional road rider and hence exposed to the endemic drug culture.
> 
> Why are we trying to cover this up?


Ok, let me ask you why you think it is so out of order for us to raise our collective eyebrows at Frank Schleck paying money to Dr Fuentes. Do you think that there is nothing there at all to cause concern? Your Team GB comments are just a red herring because the context is completely different. If Hayle's haematocrit test came with a bit more baggage, ie a team with a shady past or a dodgy doctor or a previous failed test etc etc then you would have more of a point.


----------



## mondobongo (3 Oct 2008)

Like Chuffy I initially saw positives suspended strict action by the team, rider offering a DNA test. Then it descends into a quagmire of third party escrow payments! If he did break contact on realising who he was actually dealing with on the advice of his father and friends could they have not also advised him on a better defence.

Regarding Hayles was he not suspended as a precaution and subsequently found to have no case to answer hence him then going on to contest and win the British Nationals.


----------



## Chuffy (3 Oct 2008)

mondobongo said:


> Regarding Hayles was he not suspended as a precaution and subsequently found to have no case to answer hence him then going on to contest and win the British Nationals.


14 day mandatory suspension. The old 'for the good of the rider's health' thing that came in when the 50% haematocrit limit was set. The urine test, taken on the same day as the dodgy blood sample, subsequently tested negative for EPO, hence he was cleared to race.

Hayles, as seen on this thread and this one probably got an slightly easier ride than, say, a Rasmussen or Landis would have got. Not that he reads this forum and anyway, our views matter less than a flea's whisker in the real world. However, there was nothing else to raise suspicions in his case whereas there is other, circumstantial, evidence against both of those riders. Enough that their protestations of innocence rang very hollow.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Oct 2008)

Why shouldn't we be suspicious?

We have learnt that negative tests are simply bad luck, and not proof of innocence!


Simply apply the same standards - evidence of a level that is admissible in a court of law or official hearing.


----------



## Chuffy (3 Oct 2008)

The lawyers for Landis, Rasmussen, Hamilton et al thank you for your statement of support.

Meanwhile the rest of us will carry on chewing over the latest news and groaning at the same old lies and excuses being trotted out. 'kay?


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Simply apply the same standards - evidence of a level that is admissible in a court of law or official hearing.



That is where you are going wrong - your interpretation of evidence. Evidence is not just something which can be tested by a scientist. 

Evidence can come from many sources. How it is applied in a court or hearing is then dependent on the processes applied within a particular set of rules.

The processes involved on a cycling forum and the processes involved in pro cycling are not the same. Hence we can make comment on what we view as evidence, yet which would not necessarily be admissable as evidence within the processes of pro cycling.

Nonetheless the processes within pro cycling may still use the same information available to us to target specific individuals within the pro peleton. Hence we see specific riders tested at the Tour. There will have been a reason that specific riders were targetted, based on information (evidence) that they may have been involved in specific practices. Much the same as if a person seen walking away from the scene of a crime would be questioned - nothing concrete to say they committed the crime, but certainly enough to warrant further enquiry and a degree of suspicion. If further information (evidence) is found then further enquiry is made; if nothing else indicates continued suspicion then the matter is not pursued.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2008)

Maybe it will not be too long until we hear the results of all 14 tests. Looks like the first result is available:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/Piepoli_latest_positive_at_Tour_de_France_article_269424.html


----------



## rich p (6 Oct 2008)

Piepoli? I'm glad I didn't rush to condemn him before the positive result otherwise I'd have felt totally vindicated


----------



## rich p (6 Oct 2008)

They mention Schumacher too which makes this old thread all the more amusing!

Hindsight or foresight!!!

...I told you so...


----------



## maurice (6 Oct 2008)

Shuey is a bit of a big one!!


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2008)

I reckon they could be releasing the results in order of most obvious first down to least obvious/biggest shockeroonee....


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> ...riders whose samples are being re-tested.
> 
> And since you lot are obviously crap at guessing the teams/riders named are:
> AG2R: Valjavec plus one other rider
> ...



Okay, that's Schumacher and Piepoli out of the equation.

12 to go....


----------



## Chuffy (6 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> They mention Schumacher too which makes this old thread all the more amusing!
> 
> Hindsight or foresight!!!
> 
> ...I told you so...


Heh, very amusing that thread, especially in light of todays results. What nasty cynics we were...


----------



## itisaboutthebike (6 Oct 2008)

All the skeletons are coming (well falling) out of the closet.

Millar must be well p*ssed off at being beaten by a doper. Ironic tho.......

5 CSC riders............Riise' new Saxo Bank sponser must be sh*tting themselves.............my money is on Cancellara at least, plus the Shmuck brothers......and maybe Sastre ?

I tried but couldn't find any of the websites where names were mentioned.


----------



## maurice (6 Oct 2008)

Is anyone going to take a punt at the CSC riders under suspicion?

[edit]Ah, you just did!


----------



## Chuffy (6 Oct 2008)

itisaboutthebike said:


> All the skeletons are coming (well falling) out of the closet.
> 
> Millar must be well p*ssed off at being beaten by a doper. Ironic tho.......
> 
> ...


Cycling News has the details that have been released so far.

I'd be surprised if it was Cancellara. He seems to be one of the few riders that everyone likes and wants to see win. That would feel like more of a kick in the nuts than Schumacher, who virtually no-one believed in. Still, we don't know yet what the other tests have thrown up.


----------



## itisaboutthebike (6 Oct 2008)

Some Eurozone newspapers reportedly names the 14 riders but I couldn't find in on any websites eg Bild etc


----------



## itisaboutthebike (6 Oct 2008)

CSC Team for the Tour.........from thier website. For those that need reminding

Fabian Cancellara (Swi)
Carlos Sastre (Spa)
Andy Schleck (Lux)
Fränk Schleck (Lux)
Nicki Sørensen (Den)
Jens Voigt (Ger)
Stuart O’Grady (Aus)
Kurt-Asle Arvesen (Nor) 
Volodymir Gustov (Ukr)


----------



## maurice (6 Oct 2008)

I was thinking Cancellara, by the really strong day he had leading the peleton in the Alps for a while. But then he wasn't so good in the TT's.

I wouldn't have thought the Schlecks would risk it, but then again it was a one year window where last year's winner was out of the way and no dominant force, might've seen it as their best chance to take the win.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Oct 2008)

You're assuming that Noodley's list is definitive. Schumacher and Piepoli are pretty much no-brainers. The rest of the list is kind of in 'what a bloke down the pub told me' limbo unless someone can actually find a source for it.


----------



## itisaboutthebike (6 Oct 2008)

> was thinking Cancellara, by the really strong day he had leading the peleton



Yeah I could smell him in Nottingham..........


----------



## mondobongo (6 Oct 2008)

Just been looking at the Antwerp Gazette even they are speculating/sticking pins in warts. Just listing Teams riders and stating pick 5 from or 2 from.
Guardian story on another thread alluded to much more info at the Antwerp Gazette.


----------



## MichaelM (6 Oct 2008)

Oh go on then...

I thought it was a bit too good on the day that Jens Voight set the pace for the early climbs on one of the mountain stages(of the Tour). I was thinking the commentators phrases.. _unbelievable riding_... may well prove to be true.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Oct 2008)

MichaelM said:


> Oh go on then...
> 
> I thought it was a bit too good on the day that Jens Voight set the pace for the early climbs on one of the mountain stages(of the Tour). I was thinking the commentators phrases.. _unbelievable riding_... may well prove to be true.



Which is the french press justification for suggesting chemical enhancement for Team GB


----------



## rich p (7 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Which is the french press justification for suggesting chemical enhancement for Team GB



I don't recall us having a go at the French press about that though?

The other point is that because of us Cyclecchatters, the French labs and the UCI are at last finding our suspects guilty! Hurrah!!

If we were flinging accusations around and nobody ever got caught you might just have a case for burying your head in the sand.


----------



## rich p (7 Oct 2008)

Is anyone fingering Sastre on the rumour mill?


----------



## mondobongo (7 Oct 2008)

Not seen any speculation from the media online about him directly, plenty of people thinking it though judging by the prominence and variation of the search prompts when I started typing Sastre into the Google on my toolbar.


----------



## Noodley (7 Oct 2008)

OK, I can't get access at work to the sites as they are Belgian and Swiss and are blocked, but the riders named a while back when I first posted were IIRC Schleck, Cancellara, O'Grady and Sastre.


----------



## itisaboutthebike (7 Oct 2008)

Tell me what they were and I'll see if i can get on.

Mmmm - Sastre - I would have thought he'd be the first to be outed as he's the biggest fish............but who knows in this game.


----------



## Noodley (7 Oct 2008)

itisaboutthebike said:


> Tell me what they were and I'll see if i can get on.
> 
> Mmmm - Sastre - I would have thought he'd be the first to be outed as he's the biggest fish............but who knows in this game.



try tagesanzeiger.ch I think, I'm sure there was a Canadian site as well...


----------



## itisaboutthebike (7 Oct 2008)

Wouldn't it be ironic if Kirchin was also found to be positive..........Millar robbed of the YJ............


----------



## itisaboutthebike (7 Oct 2008)

Yes that site mentions Sastre, Cancellara, O'Grady, and Frank Schmuck


----------



## Chuffy (7 Oct 2008)

itisaboutthebike said:


> Yes that site mentions Sastre, Cancellara, O'Grady, and Frank Schmuck


Oh very dear...if it turns out to be true that is. We'll just have to wait for confirmation of the other tests.


----------



## Noodley (8 Oct 2008)

30 cyclists already contacted? 

http://www.velonews.com/article/84103/bodry-more-revelations-expected


----------



## Noodley (8 Oct 2008)

And it does not like Schleck managed to convince those fellow countrymen of his:

http://www.velonews.com/article/84097/luxembourg-officials-expand-schleck-query


----------



## Chuffy (8 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> 30 cyclists already contacted?
> 
> http://www.velonews.com/article/84103/bodry-more-revelations-expected


Ok, so who's hiding under the duvet and not answering their phone? 
Come on Noodles, you've normally got a list for every occasion!


----------



## mondobongo (9 Oct 2008)

User76 said:


> I think it would be great if the drug cheat Millar just pissed off out of cycling altogether. Ban him for life they should have, missed an opportunity



Just Millar then Mags? There is far worse boys out there than him.


----------



## itisaboutthebike (9 Oct 2008)

Yeah Rockhard Verwonk springs to mind.........spent a year denying it (in the courts) and then confessed.


----------



## Noodley (9 Oct 2008)

<whisper this quietly. shhhh> There are rumours starting growing <whisper this quietly. shhh>

<not witch hunting> I could say, but I'd better not <not witch hunting>

Team Columbia rider rumours.....


----------



## Chuffy (9 Oct 2008)

Is it bad to hope that, if it's any of the TC riders that it's Big George?


----------



## Keith Oates (9 Oct 2008)

What's he done to upset you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Chuffy (9 Oct 2008)

Keith Oates said:


> What's he done to upset you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Oh it's nothing personal, he seems like a perfectly nice chap and all that, it's just that it would be amusing to see another key ex-USP/Disco rider nailed.

Other than that I'm just crossing fingers that it's not Cav (assuming that the story is true).


----------



## yello (9 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> I'm just crossing fingers that it's not Cav (assuming that the story is true).



I very much doubt it would be. Cav is a one-trick pony. It's a helluva trick mind but none-the-less. Anyone that saw him struggling his way up the merest of inclines (by professional standards) will realise that the lad doesn't juice.


----------



## Chuffy (9 Oct 2008)

yello said:


> I very much doubt it would be. Cav is a one-trick pony. It's a helluva trick mind but none-the-less. Anyone that saw him struggling his way up the merest of inclines (by professional standards) will realise that the lad doesn't juice.


I agree entirely with that, but even so I'd be wary of being too complacent.


----------



## rich p (9 Oct 2008)

Unfortunately as has been pointed out elsewhere, a life ban would not stand up in human rights law. I read somewhere that the 4 year ban was dropped in the USA some years ago as the cost of a losing litigation would have bankrupted the sports authorities.


----------



## Chuffy (9 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> Unfortunately as has been pointed out elsewhere, a life ban would not stand up in human rights law. I read somewhere that the 4 year ban was dropped in the USA some years ago as the cost of a losing litigation would have bankrupted the sports authorities.


How do the IOC get round that then? If the Olympics can ban athletes for life, why not have de-facto life bans from ASO run events?


----------



## Chuffy (9 Oct 2008)

User76 said:


> Well, if thats seriously the case, lets knock all this drug testing on the head! Honestly, whats the point? If all + tests are going to be challenged in law then it's too expensive to carry on. We may as well invest in better bikes and let them fill their boots (or veins) with whatever they want
> 
> I'm off to the chemist


Is there a huge problem with cyclists winning legal appeals against their bans? I'm sure Mr Landis would be interested if there was. Not to mention Mr Hamilton and Mr Rasmussen et al....

ASO have shown that they are willing and able to stop teams from competing in their events, eg Astana. Surely it's not too great a step to say that if a team contains a convicted doper then that team will not be welcome. That would reduce the value of ex-dopers massively, preventing teams from re-signing them after the ban from their home federation expires and be a de-facto life ban, at the highest level of the sport at least.


----------



## rich p (9 Oct 2008)

Do the IOC issue life bans? They can't ban anyone from running, say, only from running in their games.


----------



## rich p (9 Oct 2008)

I see that WADA are proposing 4 year bans from Jan 09, so it's possible I was talking out of my arse.


----------



## Chuffy (9 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> Do the IOC issue life bans? They can't ban anyone from running, say, only from running in their games.


Er, wasn't that the point that I was making? 
Athletes caught doping in any competition are banned from the Olympics for life. That's why Millar wasn't in Beijing. My point was that if the IOC can ban people from their event then why can't the organisers of the Grand Tours do the same?


----------



## Chuffy (9 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> I see that WADA are proposing 4 year bans from Jan 09, so it's possible I was talking out of my arse.


Barely ten years ago the riders in the Festina case were hit with bans measured in a handful of months. Those bans were subsequently commuted to allow then to ride in the following years Tour. Now we have an generally accepted 2 year standard (unless your home federation is in Kazakstan). Moving to 4 year bans would be both a logical progression and quite close to a life ban, given the brevity of athletic careers.


----------



## andy_wrx (9 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Athletes caught doping in any competition are banned from the Olympics for life. That's why Millar wasn't in Beijing.



No, I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

It's not the IOC who are banning these athletes for life, it's the BOA.
British athletes are banned for life, those from other countries can take part again after their 2 years or whatever ban they get expires.
Remember the Dwayne Chambers court case before the Olympics ? It was BOA he took to court, not IOC.

Chambers (tw*t that he is ) did have a point that it's unfair that British athletes are banned and other nationalities aren't, because their Olympic associations have different rules.
The Khazak authorities for instance only gave Vino one year and there was talk of him appearing in Beijing...


----------



## rich p (9 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Er, wasn't that the point that I was making?
> Athletes caught doping in any competition are banned from the Olympics for life. That's why Millar wasn't in Beijing. My point was that if the IOC can ban people from their event then why can't the organisers of the Grand Tours do the same?



the point I was making that individal event organisers can ban riders from their competitions but that doesn't stop them from running elsewhere - hence the restraint of trade, human rights stuff doesn't come into play. Landis can ride mtb events, Hamilton can ride non ASO events etc. It would require a uniform ban by all cycling organisers for it to be effective and,as I understand, if the UCI were to ban a rider for life then HR would be invoked as a disproportionate punishment. But I'm sure someone who knows what they're talking about will be along later!


----------



## Noodley (9 Oct 2008)

It seems to have gone a bit quiet, (apart from me starting rumours ) which IMO means either:

a) there is nobody else tested positive.
or
 there is a positive from at least one big name and they are making damned sure that the samples are tested and re-tested every which way to make sure it sticks.


----------



## Chuffy (9 Oct 2008)

andy_wrx said:


> No, I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
> 
> It's not the IOC who are banning these athletes for life, it's the BOA.
> British athletes are banned for life, those from other countries can take part again after their 2 years or whatever ban they get expires.
> ...


Ah. My mistake then. I assumed the Olympic lifetime ban was a standard thing. Shows how much interest I take in athletics. 

Noodles - Don't say it's all over. I thought the fun was only just starting!


----------



## Noodley (9 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Noodles - Don't say it's all over. I thought the fun was only just starting!



I could not find the 'rainy sarcasm' smiley to put after option a)


----------



## Chuffy (9 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> I could not find the 'rainy sarcasm' smiley to put after option a)


I'll have




on standby then.


----------



## Noodley (9 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> I'll have
> 
> 
> 
> on standby then.



<Jaws> I think you'll need a bigger fan <Jaws>


----------



## Noodley (12 Oct 2008)

Damsgaard has stated he has serum samples taken early in the year:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/oct08/oct11news

Will they be sent?


----------



## Noodley (13 Oct 2008)

Blatant copying of a thread on bikeradar started by afx, but too big a story not to have a link:

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2008/10/6/629482/more-doping-news-from-ital


----------



## Crackle (13 Oct 2008)

_"PG: I don't know how to say it. Fanini is right but he needs to understand that cycling has always been like this. A kid who wants to take to the road relying only on his strength can, if he goes well, arrive seventh or eighth. As long as he is brave."_

That's a grim assessment but surely not to this extent though. EPO changed the game completely.


----------



## Noodley (13 Oct 2008)

The next doper caught is another Gerolsteiner rider, and 3rd place in the Tour....

Kohl:

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2008/20081013_184539_kohl-a-triche-lui-aussi_Dev.html


----------



## rich p (13 Oct 2008)

Well who'd have thought it!


----------



## Noodley (13 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> I know there was a report in Belgian media which mentions the teams that 'may' have riders whose samples are being re-tested.
> 
> And since you lot are obviously crap at guessing the teams/riders named are:
> AG2R: Valjavec plus one other rider
> ...



We're getting there.

So that's Gerolsteiner, what will be the next team? My money is on AG2R, even if they are French, then Columbia then CSC. 

There will be so many lycra clad arses being clenched....


----------



## Cathryn (13 Oct 2008)

Oh my word. He flippin won the KOM!


----------



## Noodley (13 Oct 2008)

Cathryn said:


> Oh my word. He flippin won the KOM!



Not any more he didn't! 

But yes, he did.

He joins a long line of doped Tour climbers....


----------



## rich p (13 Oct 2008)

Do you think they're saving CSC for the grand finale?

I almost find myself wanting more positives to come out when I know I should want cycling to be proved clean(ish). Strange attitude


----------



## Noodley (13 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> Do you think they're saving CSC for the grand finale?



Yes. I did mention this a while back


----------



## rich p (13 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> Yes. I did mention this a while back



I know you did

I just wanted to give you the opportunity to say so again

What I was sort of trying to say is, do you think they've got the results already and are deliberately drip feeding them for some reason?


----------



## Noodley (13 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> What I was sort of trying to say is, do you think they've got the results already and are deliberately drip feeding them for some reason?



I reckon they read my post and thought it would be a great idea!


----------



## Cathryn (13 Oct 2008)

Who's KOM now then? Can't remember who came second.


----------



## Skip Madness (13 Oct 2008)

I am not remotely surprised by Kohl's positive - I found it hard to get excited about his Tour ride and was quietly hoping he would drop off the podium all the way through because something was clearly up. To be honest, I found his situation very similar to that of Emanuele Sella. Both were aggressive riders who would usually put in a strong showing on one mountain stage but would never hang in with the big GC riders over the course of the race, and would usually try to pick up mountain points Virenque-style in long breaks on medium mountain stages. Then this year they both turned into GC contenders overnight. It is not nice to feel vindicated about something like this, because I believe that it is possible to do great things which tear up the form book and are - that word again - unbelievable. But in the present climate it is hard not to be doubtful every time someone transforms themselves in the manner of Sella and Kohl.


----------



## rich p (13 Oct 2008)

Cathryn said:


> Who's KOM now then? Can't remember who came second.



sastre........until.........


----------



## Skip Madness (13 Oct 2008)

Cathryn said:


> Who's KOM now then? Can't remember who came second.


Carlos Sastre and Fränk Schleck tied on 80 points, but I think Sastre's victory at Alpe d'Huez sends it his way.

Edit: Beaten to it.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> Do you think they're saving CSC for the grand finale?
> 
> *I almost find myself wanting more positives to come out when I know I should want cycling to be proved clean(ish). Strange attitude*


I know what you mean. Sadly I think it's going to take a few more earthquakes of Festina/Peurto proportions before we get to that stage. Frankly, the more heads on spikes, the better as far as I'm concerned. Might just start scaring off the decreasing proportion who think they can get away with it.


----------



## maurice (13 Oct 2008)

Kohl was third overall too, on the podium.


----------



## Skip Madness (13 Oct 2008)

Oh well, this means the podium (at the moment ) is Sastre-Evans-Menchov, which is the reverse of what I predicted but at least I got the right three. Every cloud...


----------



## Chuffy (13 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> What I was sort of trying to say is, do you think they've got the results already and are deliberately drip feeding them for some reason?


Do you think they (as in, The Authorities) are simply turning the screw very, very slowly so as to ram home the point that they are serious? I mean, this must be agonising for anyone with a murky conscience...

Poor poppets.


----------



## rich p (13 Oct 2008)

I'm not sure but it makes for compulsive website checking. I've been on to cyclingnews.com every 10 minutes for a week


----------



## Chuffy (13 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> I'm not sure but it makes for compulsive website checking. I've been on to cyclingnews.com every 10 minutes for a week


It's all part of the circus. Not sure that's a good thing really, but hey, let's enjoy the show...


----------



## Noodley (13 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> I'm not sure but it makes for compulsive website checking. I've been on to cyclingnews.com every 10 minutes for a week



Get thee to some proper sites  

I bet cyclingnews don't even have the Kohl story yet 


(edit - they do, but ages after everyone else)


----------



## Noodley (13 Oct 2008)

So, looking ahead, using my witch finder powers: 

AG2R will be next: Valjavec and possibly Efimkin


----------



## mondobongo (13 Oct 2008)

I think a certain Australian CSC boy will be twitching after those days of pulling hard on the front. I am hoping we will not have a repeat of 2006 when the winner tested positive.

Is this the pin being pulled on the grenade that Pro Cycling needs? Or have their been too many leaves turned over and their is no hope.


----------



## Skip Madness (13 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> So, looking ahead, using my witch finder powers:
> 
> AG2R will be next: Valjavec and possibly Efimkin


I was thinking earlier on that the other rider besides Valjavec for Ag2r would probably be Christophe Moreau given the circumstances his leaving the Tour, no?


----------



## John the Monkey (13 Oct 2008)

mondobongo said:


> Is this the pin being pulled on the grenade that Pro Cycling needs? Or have their been too many leaves turned over and their is no hope.


Interesting question, isn't it?

I had the feeling that this tour was a corner being turned - maybe it is, but we're taking it slower than we'd all thought, or maybe nothing's ever going to change. I dunno. As I think I said earlier in the thread, every time one of these buggers is caught it feels like I've been cheated as a spectator, somehow.


----------



## John Ponting (13 Oct 2008)

I've totally lost track now of who is/was where.

Any chance somebody could produce a matrix of, say, the podium for each stage and overall AS WAS and AS IS SO FAR? And maybe the "podiums" for each of the jersey competitions ?


This may be the start


----------



## Chuffy (13 Oct 2008)

Interesting John. 
Can Schleck.F be ruled offside just yet? We might have to wait until he's been properly grilled...


----------



## John Ponting (13 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Interesting John.
> Can Schleck.F be ruled offside just yet? We might have to wait until he's been properly grilled...



my bad. I am quite confused.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Oct 2008)

John Ponting said:


> my bad. I am quite confused.


He is a bit smelly though...


----------



## Skip Madness (14 Oct 2008)

John Ponting said:


> I've totally lost track now of who is/was where.
> 
> Any chance somebody could produce a matrix of, say, the podium for each stage and overall AS WAS and AS IS SO FAR? And maybe the "podiums" for each of the jersey competitions ?


I literally had nothing better to do. If you like I will update it as the results come through:

*Pre-drugs tests:*--------*|Post-drugs tests:*



*Stage 01:*---------------*|Stage 01:*
*1.Alejandro Valverde*----*|1.Alejandro Valverde*
*2.Philippe Gilbert*------*|2.Philippe Gilbert*
*3.Jérôme Pineau*---------*|3.Jérôme Pineau*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Alejandro Valverde*------*|Alejandro Valverde*



 *Stage 02:*---------------*|Stage 02*:
*1.Thor Hushovd*----------*|1.Thor Hushovd*
*2.Kim Kirchen*-----------*|2.Kim Kirchen*
*3.Gerald Ciolek*---------*|3.Gerald Ciolek*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Alejandro Valverde*------*|Alejandro Valverde*



*Stage 03:*---------------*|Stage 03*:
*1.Samuel Dumoulin*-------*|1.Samuel Dumoulin*
*2.Will Frischkorn*-------*|2.**Will Frischkorn*
*3.Romain Feillu*---------*|3.Romain Feillu*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Romain Feillu*-----------*|Romain Feillu*



*Stage 04:*---------------*|Stage 04*:
*1.**Stefan Schumacher**-*----*|1.Kim Kirchen*
*2.Kim Kirchen*-----------*|2.David Millar*
*3.David Millar*----------*|3.Cadel Evans*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Stefan Schumacher*-------*|Kim Kirchen*



*Stage 05:*---------------*|Stage 05*:
*1.Mark Cavendish*--------*|1.Mark Cavendish*
*2.Óscar Freire*----------*|2.Óscar Freire*
*3.Erik Zabel*------------*|3.Erik Zabel*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Stefan Schumacher*-------*|Kim Kirchen*



*Stage 06:*---------------*|Stage 06*:
*1.Riccardo Riccò*--------*|1.Alejandro Valverde*
*2.Alejandro Valverde*----*|2.Cadel Evans*
*3.Cadel Evans*-----------*|3.Fränk Schleck*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Kim Kirchen*-------------*|Kim Kirchen*



*Stage 07:*---------------*|Stage 07*:
*1.Luis Leon Sánchez*-----*|1.Luis Leon Sánchez*
*2.Stefan Schumacher*-----*|2.Filippo Pozzato*
*3.Filippo Pozzato*-------*|3.Kim Kirchen*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Kim Kirchen*-------------*|Kim Kirchen*



*Stage 08:*---------------*|Stage 08*:
*1.Mark Cavendish*--------*|1.Mark Cavendish*
*2.Gerald Ciolek*---------*|2.Gerald Ciolek*
*3.Jimmy Casper*----------*|3.Jimmy Casper*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Kim Kirchen*-------------*|Kim Kirchen*



*Stage 09:*---------------*|Stage 09:*
*1.Riccardo Riccò*--------*|1.Vladimir Efimkin*
*2.Vladimir Efimkin*------*|2.Cyril Dessel*
*3.Cyril Dessel*----------*|3.Christian Knees**
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Kim Kirchen*-------------*|Kim Kirchen*



*Stage 10:*---------------*|Stage 10*:
*1.Leonardo Piepoli*------*|1.Juan José Cobo*
*2.Juan José Cobo*--------*|2.Fränk Schleck*
*3.Fränk Schleck*---------*|3.Vladimir Efimkin**
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Cadel Evans*-------------*|Cadel Evans*



*Stage 11:*---------------*|Stage 11*:
*1.Kurt-Asle Arvesen*-----*|1.Kurt-Asle Arvesen*
*2.Martin Elmiger*--------*|2.Martin Elmiger*
*3.Alessandro Ballan*-----*|3.Alessandro Ballan*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Cadel Evans*-------------*|Cadel Evans*



*Stage 12:*---------------*|Stage 12*:
*1.Mark Cavendish*--------*|1.Mark Cavendish*
*2.Sébastien Chavanel*----*|2.Sébastien Chavanel*
*3.Gert Steegmans*--------*|3.Gert Steegmans*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Cadel Evans*-------------*|Cadel Evans*



*Stage 13:*---------------*|Stage 13:*
*1.Mark Cavendish*--------*|1.Mark Cavendish*
*2.Robbie McEwen*---------*|2.Robbie McEwen*
*3.Romain Feillu*---------*|3.Romain Feillu*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Cadel Evans*-------------*|Cadel Evans*



*Stage 14:*---------------*|Stage 14:*
*1.Óscar Freire*----------*|1.Óscar Freire*
*2.Leonardo Duque*--------*|2.Leonardo Duque*
*3.Erik Zabel*------------*|3.Erik Zabel*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Cadel Evans*-------------*|Cadel Evans*



*Stage 15:*---------------*|Stage 15:*
*1.Simon Gerrans*---------*|1.Simon Gerrans*
*2.Egoi Martínez*---------*|2.E**goi Martínez*
*3.Danny Pate*------------*|3.Danny Pate*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Fränk Schleck*-----------*|Fränk Schleck*



*Stage 16:*---------------*|Stage 16:*
*1.Cyril Dessel*----------*|1.Cyril Dessel*
*2.Sandy Casar*-----------*|2.Sandy Casar*
*3.David Arroyo*----------*|3.David Arroyo*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Fränk Schleck*-----------*|Fränk Schleck*



*Stage 17:*---------------*|Stage 17:*
*1.Carlos Sastre*---------*|1.Carlos Sastre*
*2.Samuel Sánchez*--------*|2.Samuel Sánchez*
*3.Andy Schleck*----------*|3.Andy Schleck*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Carlos Sastre*-----------*|Carlos Sastre*



*Stage 18:*---------------*|Stage 18:*
*1.Marcus Burghardt*------*|1.Marcus Burghardt*
*2.Carlos Barredo*--------*|2.Carlos Barredo*
*3.Romain Feillu*---------*|3.Romain Feillu*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Carlos Sastre*-----------*|Carlos Sastre*



*Stage 19:*---------------*|Stage 19:*
*1.Sylvain Chavanel*------*|1.Sylvain Chavanel*
*2.Jérémy Roy*------------*|2.Jérémy Roy*
*3.Gerald Ciolek*---------*|3.Gerald Ciolek*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Carlos Sastre*-----------*|Carlos Sastre*



*Stage 20:*---------------*|Stage 20:*
*1.Stefan Schumacher*-----*|1.Fabian Cancellara*
*2.Fabian Cancellara*-----*|2.Kim Kirchen*
*3.Kim Kirchen*-----------*|3.Christian Vande Velde*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Carlos Sastre*-----------*|Carlos Sastre*



*Stage 21:*---------------*|Stage 21:*
*1.Gert Steegmans*--------*|1.Gert Steegmans*
*2.Gerald Ciolek*---------*|2.Gerald Ciolek*
*3.Óscar Freire*----------*|3.Óscar Freire*
------------------------*|*
*Yellow jersey:*----------*|Yellow jersey:*
*Carlos Sastre*-----------*|Carlos Sastre



GC:*---------------------*|GC:
1.Carlos Sastre*---------*|1.Carlos Sastre
2.Cadel Evans*-----------*|2.Cadel Evans
3.Bernhard Kohl*---------*|3.Denis Menchov



**Points:*-----------------*|Points:
1.Óscar Freire*----------*|1.Óscar Freire
2.Thor Hushovd*----------*|2.Thor Hushovd
2.Erik Zabel*------------*|3.Erik Zabel


*
*Mountains:*--------------*|Mountains:
1.Bernhard Kohl*---------*|1.Carlos Sastre
2.Carlos Sastre*---------*|2.Fränk Schleck
2.Fränk Schleck*---------*|3.Thomas Voeckler



Young:*------------------*|Young:
1.Andy Schleck*----------*|1.Andy Schleck
2.Roman Kreuziger*-------*|2.Roman Kreuziger
3.Vincenzo Nibali*-------*|3.Vincenzo Nibali

*The (*) is to say that on Stage 9 Christian Knees finished 5th but moves up two places because Dmitriy Fofonov was 4th, and on Stage 10 Vladimir Efimkin also finished 5th but moves up to 3rd because of the disqualification of 4th-placed Bernhard Kohl.


Edit: New threads now, we can follow it all there instead.


----------



## Chuffy (14 Oct 2008)

you sad git Nice work!


----------



## Noodley (14 Oct 2008)

Skip Madness said:


> I was thinking earlier on that the other rider besides Valjavec for Ag2r would probably be Christophe Moreau given the circumstances his leaving the Tour, no?



Mmmm. Moreau was riding for Agritubel and not AG2R, hence I was thinking Efimkin as a possible due to his finishes behind Ricco and Piepoli in the mountain stages...I suppose Moreau (or Dessel if it was an AG2R rider for that matter) would have been as good a witch hunt target.


----------



## Noodley (14 Oct 2008)

Anyway, enough of this "it's all over' nonsense. 

Frankie Boy still paid lots of Euros to Mr Fuentes, and he's still got a lot of explaining to do; like, why were you stupid enough to use a bank when Fuentes takes cash!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (14 Oct 2008)

Moreau is a shoe-in.

Here's one for the mix, from the point of view of "unbelievable" rides...

Voigt. I hope more than any other rider I'm wrong about that, but other than Ricco, Schumacher and Sastre's TT (and in hindsight Kohl!!), Voigt stood out for me as performing far better than expectations. He's one of my favourite riders, please God noooooooooooooo...

Oh and there's that lad from the Isle of... Och never mind.


----------



## Noodley (14 Oct 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Moreau is a shoe-in.



But he's never been caught...oh, wait a minute.


----------



## andy_wrx (14 Oct 2008)

Skip Madness said:


> I was thinking earlier on that the other rider besides Valjavec for Ag2r would probably be Christophe Moreau given the circumstances his leaving the Tour, no?





Noodley said:


> Mmmm. I had thought of Moreau but thought it would possibly be Efimkin due to his finishes behind Ricco and Piepoli in the mountain stages...I suppose Moreau (or Dessel for that matter) would have been as good a witch hunt target.





Tetedelacourse said:


> Moreau is a shoe-in.





Noodley said:


> But he's never been caught...oh, wait a minute.



Slight problem with this Moreau/AG2r bit - he rode this year for Agritubel !


----------



## Noodley (14 Oct 2008)

andy_wrx said:


> Slight problem with this Moreau/AG2r bit - he rode this year for Agritubel !



Yes, I realised that just as I posted my last reply. I have just gone and amended my reply


----------



## andy_wrx (14 Oct 2008)

But he did climb off in very suspicious circumstances, almost like he was expecting the vampires waiting at the end of the stage and didn't want to be asked...


----------



## Noodley (14 Oct 2008)

andy_wrx said:


> But he did climb off in very suspicious circumstances, almost like he was expecting the vampires waiting at the end of the stage and didn't want to be asked...



yes, very. I did think earlier when his name was posted 'of course how could I have missed him', then it dawned on me why - he did not ride for them!  My witch hunting logic of Efimkin seemed to make sense last night and was thrown off kilter by Moreau's name being mentioned.


----------



## maurice (14 Oct 2008)

andy_wrx said:


> But he did climb off in very suspicious circumstances, almost like he was expecting the vampires waiting at the end of the stage and didn't want to be asked...



There was something very iffy about that.


----------



## Skip Madness (15 Oct 2008)

Ah of course - I don't know why I still think of Moreau in Ag2r colours. Less a case of 2+2=5 and more of 1+2=4. But as everyone else is saying, his departure was odd to say the very least.

As for being a sad git, well I am fortunately a sad git with copy and paste buttons - were it not for those even I would have headed for my beer and porn collection out for fresh air and a nice evening stroll.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (15 Oct 2008)

Skip Madness said:


> Ah of course - I don't know why I still think of Moreau in Ag2r colours. Less a case of 2+2=5 and more of 1+2=4. But as everyone else is saying, his departure was odd to say the very least.
> 
> As for being a sad git, well I am fortunately a sad git with copy and paste buttons - were it not for those even I would have headed for my beer and porn collection out for fresh air and a nice evening stroll.



Skip you keep at it. We (sometimes) need facts to back up our wild assertions.

Got any decent porn walks you can recommend?


----------



## Noodley (15 Oct 2008)

I was wondering, has skip taken into account time bonuses


----------



## Chuffy (15 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> I was wondering, has skip taken into account time bonuses


I was wondering, has Noodley taken into account the fact that there weren't any time bonuses this year? 

Noodles, my faith in you as an all-knowing guru is crumbling like a HobNob that's been dunked for too long...


----------



## Jitendrakumar (15 Oct 2008)

*just do it*

Hi

This is very informative forum and this is related to biking.
Those who are looking for new bike they can get some knowleage from here.

jitendra kumar

_______________________________________________________________




Capture One Auto Transport


----------



## Chuffy (15 Oct 2008)

Jitendrakumar said:


> Hi
> 
> This is very informative forum and this is related to biking.
> Those who are looking for new bike they can get some knowleage from here.
> ...


Indeed they can Jitendra, welcome to the forum.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (15 Oct 2008)

Ha ha, yes hello Jitendra 

Oi, why have none of you informed moi of the lengthening of bans from 2 years to 4? Apparently that is, if google is translating L'Equipe properly.

Do you think 4 years would be more of a deterrent? I suppose it depends on whether the dopers think they can avoid detection or not. But 4 years would surely signal the end of a career. Even for someone like Ricco who is young - that amount of time out of the pro-peloton would surely kill your career, non?

Also, I see that Kohl acknowledged that he doped. pff, have these people got no shame? The tide must be turning... eh, again.


----------



## Noodley (15 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> I was wondering, has Noodley taken into account the fact that there weren't any time bonuses this year?
> 
> Noodles, my faith in you as an all-knowing guru is crumbling like a HobNob that's been dunked for too long...



I know nothing. 

<and I was aware there were no time bonuses, just thought I'd be a bit naughty...life is no fun anymore since I have no positive tests to look forward to. >


----------



## MichaelM (15 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> ...life is no fun anymore since I have no positive tests to look forward to. >



There's always next years Tour


----------



## Noodley (15 Oct 2008)

MichaelM said:


> There's always next years Tour



There's always the next race! <and the Giro if they bothered with proper testing...>


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Oct 2008)

yeah you must have to be spectacularly stoopid to get caught at the Giro.

Crivvens, they practically invented EPO


----------



## Chuffy (16 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> <and I was aware there were no time bonuses, just thought I'd be a bit naughty...life is no fun anymore since I have no positive tests to look forward to. >


Yeah, but I knew that you knew.
(damn, where's that sarcasm smiley?)


Four years is being bandied about, it's not a done deal yet. But yes, surely a 4 year ban would finish you off.

At least Kohl has 'fessed up instead of doing the usual 'shocked and dismayed, there must be an error in the testing' routine. I guess the dopers still fall into two camps, those who weaken, dope and then have it on their conscience and those who are willing to cheat with no scruples or moral hang-ups at all. Not that it should make any difference when it comes to bans etc.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Yeah, but I knew that you knew.
> (damn, where's that sarcasm smiley?)
> 
> 
> ...



true, true. (barney macgrew? Cuthbert, dibble and Grubb?)


----------



## kennykool (16 Oct 2008)

4 Years would be long enough but why don't they go the whole hog and ban folks for life...it just makes sense! 

A life ban would definately stop anyone doping!

Chuffy - Pantani got caught at the '99 Giro....you saying he was Stoopit? ha ha
Beg your pardon Chuffy.....Tete...you saying Pantani was Stoopit? Oops!


----------



## rich p (16 Oct 2008)

kennykool said:


> 4 Years would be long enough but why don't they go the whole hog and ban folks for life...it just makes sense!
> 
> A life ban would definately stop anyone doping!
> 
> ...


----------



## andy_wrx (16 Oct 2008)

Say what you like about Pantani, but at least he's not making lots of noise about making a comeback


----------



## mondobongo (16 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> To thicken your blood to porridge and then waste all your money on cocaine to die a lonely death in a hotel room doesn't strike me as the work of a genius



Pantani was a flawed genius, he was in the midst of some dark demon days and really should have been being looked after instead of just being cast adrift.


----------



## mondobongo (16 Oct 2008)

andy_wrx said:


> Say what you like about Pantani, but at least he's not making lots of noise about making a comeback



I was always told not to speak ill of the dead and certainly not with something as cheap and throwaway as that.


----------



## kennykool (16 Oct 2008)

Agree Mondobongo...Just read Pantani's Biography. The guys was disturbed and seemed to have all the wrong people around him!

In fairness tho - he seemed to live a pretty good life if you ask me!

I was amazed that the Cocaine was never found during his testing!


----------



## rich p (16 Oct 2008)

mondobongo said:


> Pantani was a flawed genius, he was in the midst of some dark demon days and really should have been being looked after instead of just being cast adrift.



In what way was he a genius? He only won because he was chock full of EPO


----------



## mondobongo (16 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> In what way was he a genius? He only won because he was chock full of EPO



So if we pumped you full of EPO and entered you for a race you would win Rich. Its not as straightforward as that.

Despite being on the sauce you still need to have that tactical nous, raw ability and desire to win imo. In other words you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

Pantani was pretty special on a bike and even though I know he was at it I still enjoy watching him ride.

I place him in the flawed genius category along with Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain which is a category of my own making, these people had self destruct tendencies and someone should have been looking after them and they were'nt. Hence they wind up dead.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Oct 2008)

Far from being "cast adrift" he was placed into treatment several times and personally blew his own chances of a healthy life, both on and off the bike. 

To say he was cast adrift would, I expect, be more insulting to the countless health professionals who tried to intervene and salvage his life than a remark made in jest about someone who is dead.

Even despite his addictions, which we could argue all day long about whose fault they were, I wouldn't describe him as a "genius". Do you know how he got caught? Because he was doped to the nines from the moment he turned professional that's how! He was even afforded special treatment from the dopage but still screwed it up!

Brain of Rimini he was not.


----------



## Chuffy (16 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> In what way was he a genius? He only won because he was chock full of EPO


He's become part of cycling's mythology. Which means that we gloss over the naughty reality and get all dewy eyed about him instead.

Kenny - Which biography? I've read the Rendell biog (which is very good) and to be honest Pantani comes across as being a throughly precious tit. Yes, he had more charisma than some of his less fragile rivals, but dear god he was full of himself.

Mondlybongly - He had help. There were people trying to get him off the coke. But ultimately, like any drug addict, he was the only person who could sort himself out. He had more money, resources and support than most addicts. I just don't buy this 'poor Marco' stuff.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Oct 2008)

A great rider he certainly was. In fact that was cited as part of the problem at the beginning of his spiral downwards - even coked up to the eyeballs and hungover he could wipe the floor with the majority of the rest of the pro peloton and therefore was kept in the saddle longer than was healthy for his mind (arguably).

I think we should pump Rich full of EPO and see if his posting rate increases. Regardless of whether it does or not, he'll always be known as a poster of some pedigree. Some posts will be undermined by the drug use though


----------



## kennykool (16 Oct 2008)

Chuffy - it was the Rendell biog. Great read. Lots of evidence to show that Pantani was "at it".

I only caught the tail end of Pantanis days as it was the 98 Tour that caught my attention when there was the sit down protest in which Pantani was the ring leader.

Yeah he was full of himself but come on. If you've got a bunch of "yes men" around you telling you how wonderful you are I'm sure we'd all turn out the same....arrogant! I certainly would!

Agree that he was given penty of chances to get himself sorted and he never took them. Drug addicts seldom do....unless they want to sort themselves out.


----------



## rich p (16 Oct 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> I think we should pump Rich full of EPO and see if his posting rate increases. Regardless of whether it does or not, he'll always be known as a poster of some pedigree. Some posts will be undermined by the drug use though



 Priceless


----------



## rich p (16 Oct 2008)

mondobongo said:


> So if we pumped you full of EPO and entered you for a race you would win Rich. Its not as straightforward as that.
> .



Who knows, just as we'll never know whether Pantani would have won on a level playing field. That's the problem with dopers, they make clean riders look second rate. How galling must that be for riders like Boardman. 
I lack sympathy for the drug cheats of the past who have got cycling to where it currently is whether they looked cute with an earring and a headscarf or not.


----------



## Chuffy (16 Oct 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> I think we should pump Rich full of EPO and see if his posting rate increases. Regardless of whether it does or not, he'll always be known as a poster of some pedigree. Some posts will be undermined by the drug use though


I think that Skip Madness should go through the whole of Race and mark up the posts that were drug assisted.


Monders - You quoted Hendrix, Cobain etc. That, to me, is part of the problem. The likes of Pantani are romanticised as tragic outsiders, beautiful and doomed. That's a nice easy way of glossing over the reality, which is usually spoiled and indulged stars with more money and ego than sense.


----------



## mondobongo (16 Oct 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Monders - You quoted Hendrix, Cobain etc. That, to me, is part of the problem. The likes of Pantani are romanticised as tragic outsiders, beautiful and doomed. That's a nice easy way of glossing over the reality, which is usually spoiled and indulged stars with more money and ego than sense.



Chif Chaf I see were you are coming from, truth be known we don't know how we would behave if we were suddenly a big big star with lots of cash and people hanging on our every word. 

I do hold the view though that in some cases these big stars are asetts and as such should be looked after just a little bit better than they sometimes are.

Rich

It was hardly a level playing field in 1998 and yes they must take some responsibility for were cycling is today. But a much bigger slice of that responsibility must be taken by the Governing Bodies who were Ostrich like for years. If they had stood up and been counted this could have been sorted years ago.
I think it was a crying shame that Boadman never got more attention because he was a clean rider who stayed clean in what was a very dirty peloton.


----------



## Chuffy (16 Oct 2008)

mondobongo said:


> Chif Chaf I see were you are coming from, truth be known we don't know how we would behave if we were suddenly a big big star with lots of cash and people hanging on our every word.
> 
> I do hold the view though that in some cases these big stars are asetts and as such should be looked after just a little bit better than they sometimes are.


But the problem is how you do this 'looking after'. You can't 'look after' a wilful adult who is hellbent of doing just what the hell they please. Especially if they have a huge ego and piles of cash. You can put support structures in at a lower level, to educate and support youngsters coming into the sport. Would I be right in thinking that many football clubs will do this for very young players coming into the game? That will help, but if someone goes off the rails like Pantani (or George Best, or Paul Gascoigne, come think of it) there's precious little that anyone can do.


----------



## Noodley (16 Oct 2008)

mondobongo said:


> Despite being on the sauce you still need to have that tactical nous, raw ability and desire to win imo. In other words you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.



Despite being on the sauce you still need to have a team to ride behind, a legal and PR team, and bully everyone else. Oops, it's Pantani we're speaking about, sorry got confused...:?:


----------



## andy_wrx (16 Oct 2008)

Now, now Noodley, I was told off for similar sentiments.


----------



## Noodley (16 Oct 2008)

andy_wrx said:


> Now, now Noodley, I was told off for similar sentiments.



I got confused and started speaking about LA not Pantani. 

Pantani's biography by Rendell is one of the best cycling books IMO, if not THE best.


----------



## rich p (17 Oct 2008)

2 questions :-

What's Frank Schleck's current status? Is he going to ride again this year or is he suspended pro tem?

Are we assuming that there were more guilty of CERA dopage but the results were inconclusive or failed some WADA standard?


----------



## mondobongo (17 Oct 2008)

Schleck remains suspended pending further investigation by the Authorities, Luxembourg Authorities were not happy with his excuses and are to investigate further. 

I think they may have targetted a few more riders whose blood passed scrutiny on the re-test. They will no doubt resume watching them next season.


----------



## Noodley (17 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> Are we assuming that there were more guilty of CERA dopage but the results were inconclusive or failed some WADA standard?



I am, not sure about the rest of you!


----------



## John Ponting (17 Oct 2008)

rich p said:


> 2 questions :-
> 
> What's Frank Schleck's current status? Is he going to ride again this year or is he suspended pro tem?
> 
> *Are we assuming* that there were more guilty of CERA dopage but the results were inconclusive or failed some WADA standard?



*Yes we are* but ... if "the results were inconclusive or failed some WADA standard" then they were not guilty.
Wouldn't want to be them next season, they'll be tested more than the Jamaican athletics team.


----------



## Noodley (17 Oct 2008)

At a loose end earlier today I was wondering how Schleck may have got involved with all this. I started to think about whether he really is Amigo of Basso...then I wondered what Basso would have said to Frank...then I started to hear mandolins and the voice of Joe Dolce and it all became clear:

What's-a-matter Frank, hey, you gotta no respect, hey
What-a-you think you you do, hey, why you ride so bad
I-a can make you glad, hey, you wanna win a race? hey
Go to Fuentes' place..


----------



## rich p (17 Oct 2008)

Okay, I'll say it.

Shadduppa ya face.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (20 Oct 2008)

Noodley said:


> At a loose end earlier today I was wondering how Schleck may have got involved with all this. I started to think about whether he really is Amigo of Basso...then I wondered what Basso would have said to Frank...then I started to hear mandolins and the voice of Joe Dolce and it all became clear:
> 
> What's-a-matter Frank, hey, you gotta no respect, hey
> What-a-you think you you do, hey, why you ride so bad
> ...


----------



## Noodley (10 Dec 2008)

so, there is no case to answer:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/dec08/dec10news

No attempt.

D'ya think Frankie boy would give me a few grand?


----------



## Dave5N (11 Dec 2008)

I lnow where I went wrong now with my racing career.

I should have sent eight grand to a gynaecologist for a training plan I wouldn't receive.


----------



## rich p (11 Dec 2008)

If he paid by credit card he may be able to claim the money back for the non-existant syringes training programme. 
The authorities should really put a stop to these scams where Spanish quacks take hard earned euros off gullible young Luxemburgers for the so-called 'Dr Fuentes Fully Patented Elixir of Life'


----------



## girofan (12 Dec 2008)

As there is no case to answer according to the Luxembourg Federation are the UCI going to help poor Frank to get his money back?
In all probability it will be like getting blood out of a stone!!


----------



## andy_wrx (13 Dec 2008)

Probably easier to put blood into a Kazakh ?


----------

