# Ricco Suffers Kidney Failure After Transfusing His Own Blood



## Smokin Joe (8 Feb 2011)

Jesus H, this one went seriously wrong -

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...blood-transfusion-caused-hospitalisation.html


----------



## raindog (8 Feb 2011)

You couldn't invent this stuff could you?
Back from a 20 month ban and the season barely under way......
I think he might have a screw loose that one.


----------



## Svendo (8 Feb 2011)

<sarcasm> But he's only leveling the playing field as he's not had two years of race fitness innit! </sarcasm>


----------



## yello (8 Feb 2011)

Sounds like he should consider himself lucky to not have lost his life. I hope that's more important to him than winning bike races.


----------



## Fletch456 (8 Feb 2011)

I'm in a tiredness induced irritable kind of mood today so my reaction was - what a complete d**khead! Though it may have been that on a more normal day.


----------



## rich p (8 Feb 2011)

I don't wish him serious damage but good riddance to the cheating little weasel.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (8 Feb 2011)

I saw this on a news site earlier and as per anything cycle related the comments quickly turned into a whole heap of nasty abuse. 
The guys a moron but I hope he doesn't sustain damage worse than a lifetime ban. It's gotta be easier to train to be good than do this to yourself hasn't it?


----------



## frank9755 (8 Feb 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> The guys a moron but I hope he doesn't sustain damage worse than a lifetime ban. It's gotta be easier to train to be good than do this to yourself hasn't it?



I'd say his technical skills in avoiding infection had been shown up. 
I don't expect it's the first time he's done it or that he is the only one who does it so, to be competitive it probably isn't 'train as hard as you can _or _blood dope' but 'train _and _blood dope'


----------



## Keith Oates (9 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> I don't wish him serious damage but good riddance to the cheating little weasel.



I agree with that statement Rich, I've never liked the man even before he was caught taking drugs. He was casting aspersions on other riders during the Giro (forget which one) a few years ago and then more recently openly saying some nasty things about his girlfriend (I don't know if she still is). He is one rider I will not miss from the peleton!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Feb 2011)

I don't like the guy at all, but I hope he pulls through and learns something from this.

The one thing of wider interest here is that it does appear to have been entirely personal and very DIY - outside of the team, and without medical supervision, even of the dodgy kind. Does this suggest that his team, Vaccansoleil, and perhaps teams in general are no longer involved with their riders' doping, and that organised doping through that route at least, may be a thing of the past?.


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Feb 2011)

yello said:


> Sounds like he should consider himself lucky to not have lost his life. I hope that's more important to him than winning bike races.



It's hideous. Obviously there are risks with the other forms of doping, but transfusing like this is appallingly dangerous- and I find it hard to feel anything other than pity for someone who felt they "had" to do this to themselves.


----------



## Haitch (9 Feb 2011)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Does this suggest that his team, Vaccansoleil, and perhaps teams in general are no longer involved with their riders' doping, and that organised doping through that route at least, may be a thing of the past?.




To cast aspersions (and quote this morning's paper), Ricco's team manager at Saunier Duval in 2008 (the year he tested positive for cera) was Mauro Gianetti. Gianetti spent ten days in hospital in 1998 after a blood transfusion went wrong.


----------



## iAmiAdam (9 Feb 2011)

Proof that bans dont work, lifetime bans are the only way to go.


----------



## montage (9 Feb 2011)

iAmiAdam said:


> Proof that bans dont work, lifetime bans are the only way to go.



David Millar - proof that lifetime bans are not necessarily the way to go


----------



## ColinJ (9 Feb 2011)

montage said:


> David Millar - proof that lifetime bans are not necessarily the way to go


Riccò - proof that lifetime bans, a spell in prison and/or psychiatric help for a second offence are definitely the way to go!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Feb 2011)

ColinJ said:


> Riccò - proof that lifetime bans, a spell in prison and/or psychiatric help for a second offence are definitely the way to go!



Ricco does have very particular issues, one of which is that he just isn't very bright. Unfortunately he's also thoroughly dislikable.


----------



## Smokin Joe (9 Feb 2011)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Ricco does have very particular issues, one of which is that he just isn't very bright. Unfortunately he's also thoroughly dislikable.


There are probably many in the peloton who take the same risks. That's the trouble with doping, the top riders in the richest teams have access to the best medical back-up, the best products and the lab conditions to safely administer them. They can take enough of an illegal substance to have an effect on performance while not being detected and not damaging their health in the short term (you know who I'm talking about).

The trouble starts further down the food chain where the lesser lights have to make do and mend with whatever is available just to compete. They are the ones who get caught and mess their bodies and their minds up. It's no coincidence how many ex team-mates of a certain prominent rider (you know who I'm talking about) have tested positive after moving to lesser teams.


----------



## Noodley (9 Feb 2011)

Ricco was/is just another rider looking to get famous/get out of a shoot life; he had the technical back-up for a while then lost it and tried to go it alone...


----------



## John the Monkey (10 Feb 2011)

Daniel Friebe has a good piece about this on Cyclingnews;



> At the same time, though, part of me can't help wondering whether some of them [the other riders] quite liked having Riccò around. He was, after all, the perfect pariah. Was it not - you tell me - easy to demonize a rider with a haematocrit higher than his IQ and blessed with even less in the way of self-awareness? _Of course_ a rider like that would cheat. _Of course_ he wouldn't have cleaned up his act.


----------



## rich p (10 Feb 2011)

_Christophe Bassons, the former Festina rider, eloquently explained last week that the temptation to dope always arises from a void or insecurity, and it was always clear with Riccò that attention and success were more addictive drugs than anything stored in his freezer. Perhaps more importantly, they were an alternative - his only one - to mediocrity_.


I'm not sure that this represents a credible reason to dope. The rest of us manage to struggle through life in a slough of mediocrity. Not being famous is a punishment most of us cope with.


----------



## yello (10 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> Not being famous is a punishment most of us cope with.




Speak for yourself. I've never recovered from having my letter to the editor ignored for publication....

I don't think Bassons meant to suggest that everybody felt a need for fame and attention, just that certain personality types do. 

Tbh, I didn't realise Rico was either thick or obnoxious. I just remember him being seemingly rocket fuelled. But I reckon there are some clever and amiable dopers out there too. Doping cuts across all boundaries and unites cyclists in a common cause.


----------



## John the Monkey (10 Feb 2011)

yello said:


> But I reckon there are some clever and amiable dopers out there too. Doping cuts across all boundaries and unites cyclists in a common cause.



Well, he only intended to dope, but Basso is surely a case in point - he seems popular with fellow riders and a lot of fans. Plenty of folk seemed to be arguing for Valverde duiring his farcical pre-suspension season. Di Luca continues to be popular enough to get a ride when he returns from suspension, for reasons that baffle me.


----------



## ColinJ (10 Feb 2011)

yello said:


> Tbh, I didn't realise Rico was either thick or obnoxious.


How about walking out on his girlfriend, the mother of his son, when she failed a doping test?

[quote name = "CyclingNews.com"]"I am disappointed with my girlfriend and there can be no reconciliation until Vania is shown to be innocent of the allegations that were raised," said Riccò, according to Italian website Tuttobiciweb.com.[/quote]
Slightly rich coming from a convicted doper!


----------



## oldroadman (10 Feb 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> There are probably many in the peloton who take the same risks. *That's the trouble with doping, the top riders in the richest teams have access to the best medical back-up, the best products and the lab conditions to safely administer them. They can take enough of an illegal substance to have an effect on performance while not being detected and not damaging their health in the short term* (you know who I'm talking about).
> 
> The trouble starts further down the food chain where the lesser lights have to make do and mend with whatever is available just to compete. They are the ones who get caught and mess their bodies and their minds up. It's no coincidence how many ex team-mates of a certain prominent rider (you know who I'm talking about) have tested positive after moving to lesser teams.




A fairly sweeping and unfortunate generalisation which unless you can prove facts is speculation. Albeit a fair suspicion, but I think the peloton is cleaner than it's been for a very long time nowadays. Unlikely riders just can't ride away on climbs or pace their leaders whilst appearing to be in no difficulty at all as used to happen.
Ricco, as an example, though, is simply dim and daft (and probably technically inept on his way to self destruction), and I agree with anyone who says that a second offence should be a life ban - these people should not be welcome in the sport.


----------



## Padbeat (10 Feb 2011)

Good old Cav, cuts to the chase, as usual ... 


> I hope he does recover well, but you know I really hope he becomes somebody's bitch in prison.


As condemnation goes, I don't think it comes much more clear-cut than that.


----------



## rich p (10 Feb 2011)

Padbeat said:


> Good old Cav, cuts to the chase, as usual ...
> 
> As condemnation goes, I don't think it comes much more clear-cut than that.



brilliant!


----------



## Keith Oates (11 Feb 2011)

Padbeat said:


> Good old Cav, cuts to the chase, as usual ...
> 
> As condemnation goes, I don't think it comes much more clear-cut than that.


Like it


----------



## gb155 (11 Feb 2011)

Padbeat said:


> Good old Cav, cuts to the chase, as usual ...
> 
> As condemnation goes, I don't think it comes much more clear-cut than that.



Lov our boy Cav


----------



## GrasB (11 Feb 2011)

Padbeat said:


> Good old Cav, cuts to the chase, as usual ...
> 
> As condemnation goes, I don't think it comes much more clear-cut than that.


You know I think Cav needs to stop holding those punches, he'd be much more entertaining if he said exactly what he thought...


----------



## HLaB (11 Feb 2011)

Padbeat said:


> Good old Cav, cuts to the chase, as usual ...
> 
> As condemnation goes, I don't think it comes much more clear-cut than that.



I've just watched that brilliant  I hope he recovers but I also hope he becomes somebody's b1tch in prison


----------



## MartinC (11 Feb 2011)

Padbeat said:


> Good old Cav, cuts to the chase, as usual ...
> 
> As condemnation goes, I don't think it comes much more clear-cut than that.




Entertaining, but a tad sanctimonious. Ricco is a serial cheat and should be punished. Cavendish has himself been sanctioned for cheating. I know Ricco's offences are tainted with the moral panic that surrounds drugs but Cav's offence is the same as an illegal tackle in rugby - it can leave a fellow sportsman dead, disabled or out of the game for a while. People seem to be making nice (in the old sense of the word) distinctions about types of cheating and nationality.

I appreciate that this post won't be popular but people should look at the whole picture not just cherry pick bits that reinforce their indignation.


----------



## Padbeat (11 Feb 2011)

MartinC said:


> Entertaining, but a tad sanctimonious. Ricco is a serial cheat and should be punished. Cavendish has himself been sanctioned for cheating. I know Ricco's offences are tainted with the moral panic that surrounds drugs but Cav's offence is the same as an illegal tackle in rugby - it can leave a fellow sportsman dead, disabled or out of the game for a while. People seem to be making nice (in the old sense of the word) distinctions about types of cheating and nationality.
> 
> I appreciate that this post won't be popular but people should look at the whole picture not just cherry pick bits that reinforce their indignation.



Woah there, big guy! Are you referring to the irregular sprinting from the last Tour (or was it the previous one)? I think that the distinction between deliberately and premeditatedly taking banned substances and transfusions and on the other hand pushing just a little bit too hard (possibly - it was a marginal call IIRC) is not a nice distinction.

It's screamingly obvious. There is no equivalence between them. I'd be stretching to even call it cheating. If it were football, Cav's offence would garner a yellow card, and the pundits would be debating the decision in the post-match analysis.

And as to sanctimonious, I don't think that Cav would argue that he is whiter than white when it comes to the sprint, but that's not how the sprint works, is it? None of the top sprinters are or ever were meek, retiring, shy types on the bike.


----------



## MartinC (11 Feb 2011)

Exactly Padbeat. There's cheating that you've decided really is cheating and then, apparently,there's cheating that you've decided doesn't count. Cheating is obtaining an advantage by breaking the rules of the game you're in. Believing someone only cheated a bit is a 'nice' distinction, did Bertie only cheat a bit?

If you want to draw moral distinctions between the two cases we're comparing here then on one hand you have someone doing something which many find distasteful and only endangers himself and in the other it puts other competitors at risk. Both are obtaining an advantage by breaking the rules.

To some extent I'm playing the devil's advocate here but the distinction that many make between what's "part of the game" and what's not seems to depend very much on the prejudices they hold.


----------



## oldroadman (11 Feb 2011)

MartinC said:


> Exactly Padbeat. There's cheating that you've decided really is cheating and then, apparently,there's cheating that you've decided doesn't count. Cheating is obtaining an advantage by breaking the rules of the game you're in. Believing someone only cheated a bit is a 'nice' distinction, did Bertie only cheat a bit?
> 
> If you want to draw moral distinctions between the two cases we're comparing here then on one hand you have someone doing something which many find distasteful and only endangers himself and in the other it puts other competitors at risk. Both are obtaining an advantage by breaking the rules.
> 
> To some extent I'm playing the devil's advocate here but the distinction that many make between what's "part of the game" and what's not seems to depend very much on the prejudices they hold.



The last couple of posts must have been made by someone who has never experienced top level races, finishing sprints, or even the last 10km where all the scrapping for position goes on! And generally what goes around comes around, so to equate anything like that with deliberately manipulating your blood, or chemically enhancing your capabilities, is like comparing scrumping an apple with murder. I know what I want done with cheats, and in a rough ride knew how to do the job, look after myself, and realise that it's part of the game, just like hard hits are part of rugby.


----------



## John the Monkey (11 Feb 2011)

HLaB said:


> I've just watched that brilliant  I hope he recovers but I also hope he becomes somebody's b1tch in prison



Well, it's ok to hate Ricco, see?

Didn't hear much of this kind of thing about ol' bloodbags durng his farcical pre-suspension season, and we're not hearing much of it about Di Luca. To be fair, it's not just Cav making with the hyperbole though.


----------



## MartinC (11 Feb 2011)

oldroadman said:


> The last couple of posts must have been made by someone who has never experienced top level races, finishing sprints, or even the last 10km where all the scrapping for position goes on! And generally what goes around comes around, so to equate anything like that with deliberately manipulating your blood, or chemically enhancing your capabilities, is like comparing scrumping an apple with murder. I know what I want done with cheats, and in a rough ride knew how to do the job, look after myself, and realise that it's part of the game, just like hard hits are part of rugby.



Yes, there's all sorts of maneuvering to obtain advantage that goes on and it's part of the contest. Some of it's legal and some of it's not.

Am I talking about sprinting or preparation? Who knows? What's the moral difference? Cheating is cheating - it's when you cross the line from legal to illegal, it's often arbitrary and sometimes you get away with it and sometimes you don't. 

Rugby is the same - some big hits are part of the game and some are illegally delivered with a malicious intent to put someone out of the game. In between there's a big grey area where the game is played and officialdom arbitrates. 

If we can pick and choose for ourselves which methods of cheating are alright and which aren't then feigning moral outrage when somebody else makes a different choice is a bit precious. Presumably Ricco cheated because he thought he "knew how to do the job" and "realised it was all part of the job". He was wrong and should be punished.


----------



## rich p (11 Feb 2011)

Are you trolling Martin?

Are you seriously equating someone who doesn't quite keep a straight line in a bunch sprint, probably through carelessness, with someone who systematically blood dopes and pays dodgy medics large amounts of money?


----------



## MartinC (11 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> Are you trolling Martin?
> 
> Are you seriously equating someone who doesn't quite keep a straight line in a bunch sprint, probably through carelessness, with someone who systematically blood dopes and pays dodgy medics large amounts of money?



No I'm not. There, clearly is a difference in the two offences, one's planned for a start. What I'm challenging is the knee jerk reaction to anything related to drugs. There is a moral relativism at play. It's a bit like the speeding motorist - "speeding isn't really criminal, but what other people do is really bad" etc. etc.

Cycling is a highly technical sport and most of the advantage in competition comes from the way you prepare so this is where people will bend and break the rules to win. So you should test for it and catch them. But all the hype we can do without. Ricco will be punished for what he's done and it may even involve prison - pretty heavy stuff for sport. The gratuitous celebration by the mob of what may happen is the stuff of public executions and witch burning - it's not very not very edifying and does the sport no good.


----------



## rich p (11 Feb 2011)

The celebration, as you call it, is nothing less than pleasure that another drug cheat has been caught. Just as I was pleased that Basso, Bertie, Vino, Ullrich etc got nicked. 

How you mix Cav up in this is the bit I don't understand. The fact that Ricco is disliked by the peloton as much as the tifosi means that schadenfreude is an understandable reaction. It's a red herring though - another cheat has got his come-uppance.


----------



## rich p (11 Feb 2011)

While I'm here, I think that the peloton, Cav, cancellara who have spoken out about Ricco and doping is a posiitive move for the sport. It's about time the omerta was broken and pro cyclists did resent the cheats.
One of Armstrong's biggest failings was not condemning the cheats. There may, of course, been ulterior motive at play though.


----------



## John the Monkey (11 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> While I'm here, I think that the peloton, Cav, cancellara who have spoken out about Ricco and doping is a posiitive move for the sport. It's about time the omerta was broken and pro cyclists did resent the cheats.



I'd agree, if it was consistent. I don't hear him shooting his mouth off about the return of Di Luca, or bewailing Liquigas' breaking of the Pro Tour Team agreement on Basso's return (granted, that's a while back). I hope it *is* the beginning of a change, for all that though.


----------



## Smokin Joe (12 Feb 2011)

To equate the bumping and barging that goes on in the heat of a sprint with doping is ridiculous. Anyone who has raced will tell you that their is a fair bit of contact in the peloton as riders jockey for position, and not just in the sprint. All the top sprinters from every era, Kelly, Basso, Maertins etc were involved in crashes that were of their own making, it goes with the territory and no one does it deliberately because they are just as likely as anyone else to get hurt. If you're not prepared to get in the mix you won't get anywhere and should stick to time trials.

Doping is a premeditated and systematic attempt to cynically cheat and is in a different category.


----------



## oldroadman (12 Feb 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> To equate the bumping and barging that goes on in the heat of a sprint with doping is ridiculous. Anyone who has raced will tell you that their is a fair bit of contact in the peloton as riders jockey for position, and not just in the sprint. All the top sprinters from every era, Kelly, Basso, Maertins etc were involved in crashes that were of their own making, it goes with the territory and no one does it deliberately because they are just as likely as anyone else to get hurt. If you're not prepared to get in the mix you won't get anywhere and should stick to time trials.
> 
> Doping is a premeditated and systematic attempt to cynically cheat and is in a different category.



Absolutely right.


----------



## peelywally (12 Feb 2011)

vampire , anyone got van helsings number ?


----------



## Happiness Stan (13 Feb 2011)

Once a dickhead, always a dickhead.


----------



## MartinC (15 Feb 2011)

Right, I've been away for a long weekend. Let me pick my way throught the hyperbolic convolutions that followed my post abot Cav's comments on Ricco. People seem detremined to go off one one - that seems to be part of the problem whenever drugs/doping get mentioned.

My post reflected my disappointment at Cav's comments - they were inapproprriate and crass. I'm disappointed because they show him in a bad light - he's a talented rider and an engaging personality but's he's got an unfortunate tendency to come across as the whinging pom which I thought he was growing out of.

He's a world class rider and thus represents his country and his sport whenever he speaks in public. Other riders can condemn doping without indulging themselves in vindictive and smug comments. Cheap shots always make the giver look cheap.

Apart from being an inappropriate reaction it also comes across as sanctimoniuos because:

He's shown that he's not averse to bending the rules himself. For those of you determined to conflate my comments about the drugs/sprinting offences - the only way that the two are similar is that they're both against the rules. So although the offences may differ significantly in magnitude, disregarding one so that you can have a go at someone else invites the accusation of double standards.

He comes from the nation that gave cycle sport Tommy Simpson and an albatross round it's next ever since. This wont be lost on many outside the UK.

As far as I know no-one has made similar comments about people close to him, and I hope it stays that way too.


----------



## mangaman (15 Feb 2011)

MartinC said:


> He comes from the nation that gave cycle sport Tommy Simpson and an albatross round it's next ever since. This wont be lost on many outside the UK.




Are you seriously suggesting that the UK is seen as nation of dopers because of Tommy Simpson??

I think the French, Spanish, Germans, US, Belgians, Dutch, Kazhaks, Columbians etc don't have to look far for loads of doped up riders.

Why does the UK have an albatross round it's neck??


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Feb 2011)

Of course it's crass. Cav is Mr Crass. He shoots his mouth off on occasions, and often says things that other riders won't say but they are probably thinking. 

And the point about sprinting is that it's about split-seconds and all kinds of stuff goes on - and whether something is daring or illegal often comes down to the varying and subjective opinions of race commissaires - and they will generally be against race rules, that is they are not thought to be against the whole sport, hence there will be a minor penalty applied and, the next day, they carry on. 

It's not about careful premeditated activities sometimes over years involving conspiracies of dirty lab scientists, theft of experimental drugs in order to gain illicit advantage, in other words what the French call 'sporting fraud' - which is BTW a recognised criminal offence outside of the sport's own rules in many countries.The sport's governing bodies don't recognise these things as comparable, the law doesn't recognise them as comparable - because they are not comparable. 

BTW, Tom Simpson died 40 years ago, and what 'many outside the UK' will know very well is that it was a time when drug use was almost universal in the peloton and accepted amongst riders.


----------



## yello (15 Feb 2011)

Happiness Stan said:


> Once a dickhead, always a dickhead.



Who? Cav? 

I kind of agree with Martin, Cav's comments were a bit ott. Sadly, it's what we've come to expect from him. Way he is, part of what makes him who he is.


----------



## Padbeat (15 Feb 2011)

MartinC said:


> ... the hyperbolic convolutions that followed my post abot Cav's comments on Ricco...


The only hyperbolic posts I saw were the ones from you. I thought the rest were fairly reasoned and argued comments on your lack of proportion


> My post reflected my disappointment at Cav's comments - they were inapproprriate and crass. <snip!> ...he's got an unfortunate tendency to come across as the whinging pom which I thought he was growing out of.


Well fair enough, I can sort of see your point, but I think we all lost that point when you drew parallels between aggressive sprinting on the hairy edge of the rules and drugs cheating.


> (1)He's a world class rider (2)and thus represents his country and his sport whenever he speaks in public. (3)Other riders can condemn doping without indulging themselves in vindictive and smug comments. (4)Cheap shots always make the giver look cheap.


(1) Agreed
(2) I think that's debatable. He chose to be a bike rider, not an ambassador. If people want to hold him up as a representative of a country that speaks it's mind, plays reasonably fairly and gives it's genuine opinion, fair enough, but he only represents his country in his national colours.
(3) And occasionally give an opinion which sounds like their own rather than a press release, or is so mealy-mouthed that they might be planning second careers as politicians. But only occasionally.
(4) Disagree. I think it showed clearly his genuine feelings on the matter. And does Ricco deserve a critical analysis or should he be dismissed out of hand? 


> <snip>(5)He's shown that he's not averse to bending the rules himself. (6)For those of you determined to conflate my comments about the drugs/sprinting offences - the only way that the two are similar is that they're both against the rules. (7)So although the offences may differ significantly *outrageously* <FTFY>in magnitude, disregarding one so that you can have a go at someone else invites the accusation of double standards.
> 
> (8)He comes from the nation that gave cycle sport Tommy Simpson and an albatross round it's next ever since. This wont be lost on many outside the UK.


(5) Again I ask to which incident you refer? Deviating from the line? Dangerous sprinting? I think the 'opposite ends of the scale' argument from FM covers my point more than adequately.
(6) erm ... I'm fairly sure that the first person to conflate the two points was you. Everyone else was responding to that!
(7) No, not really. It's more that it allowing one to prevent you stating an opinion on the other would end up with the whole peleton gagged. An analogy - If a Prop Forward has conceeded a free kick two seasons ago for interference, should he not be allowed to comment on someone else's cynical use of a faked blood substitution to win a game?
(8) I think that that was so long ago, to such a relatively minor figure in the Tour (from a European perspective) and in such a different atmosphere that it barely registers. Do the French give a damn that Jaques Anquetil supercharged his way to victory?


----------



## MartinC (16 Feb 2011)

Oh for goodness sake. I made the point that I thought Cav's comment was a sheap shot and also tried to illustrate why others might think that it was more than just an issue of taste. Cue lots of nit picking, meretricious, hysterical, selective, interpretive, ad hominem, straw man, double standards and invalid extension type arguments.

Cav's comment was crass and tasteless and most people will dismiss it as just normal British yobbishness. Which is a shame for everyone involved. Just move on - there are now even more pressing issues for the more excitable amongst us.


----------



## Smokin Joe (16 Feb 2011)

MartinC said:


> Oh for goodness sake. I made the point that I thought Cav's comment was a sheap shot and also tried to illustrate why others might think that it was more than just an issue of taste. *Cue lots of nit picking, meretricious, hysterical, selective, interpretive, ad hominem, straw man, double standards and invalid extension type arguments.*


Er, no.

A lot of people disagreed with you and are entitled to respond to your posts.


----------



## Padbeat (16 Feb 2011)

+1


----------



## MartinC (16 Feb 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> Er, no.
> 
> A lot of people disagreed with you and are entitled to respond to your posts.




Er, no. I posted that I thought Cav's comments were ill advised. I don't recall anyone posting that they disagree with this. Most of the responses to my post seem to have focussed on being outraged at the great leaps of inference the posters have taken from some of the peripheral points in it. I would have been far more sensible for me not to have responded to them. 

You're doing it again (and so am I!). I haven't said or implied that no-ones entitled to respond - merely that I didn't think some of the responses made much sense.

It's what Scott Adams called Proximity - there are just some subjects that he wouldn't touch in a Dilbert cartoon, not for any rational reason but because they were too close to issues that people got so excited about he would just be drowned in the howls of imagined outrage.


----------



## BigSteev (20 Feb 2011)

In better news, Vaconsoleil have kicked the cheating scumbag off of their team.


----------



## mangaman (20 Feb 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> Er, no.
> 
> A lot of people disagreed with you and are entitled to respond to your posts.



Exactly.

You come across as someone who thinks they are a moral arbiter.

Everyone else seems to disagree with you - maybe you just ought to have the humility to agree with Cavendish, who I believe knows infinitely more about cycling than you?

(nothing personal - just you haven't won multiplle stage race finishes and Milan San-Remo - Cav may not be univerally liked in the Peleton, but he is one of the very best riders around. I'm sure every DS would sign him in an instant.)

Without being rude, I suspect he probably knows more than you of the goings on in the inner circle of the Peleton.

Cavendish has made himself pretty clear.

Generally I'm sick of the Landis / Hamilton / Botero / Heras / Di Lucca et al, "the dog ate my homework" excuse for testing positive.

(I picked those names randomly - I could have continued without troubling cyclechat's lawyers with hundreds of names)

A superstar in the Peloton (Cav) openly dissing his colleagues is great, I believe. It makes a change.

I can't understand why you disagree with Cav's opinion of Ricco. He wishes him all the best in recovery, then slags him off.

As for the people equating Cav's agresssive sprinting to Ricco's doping - I'm a bit speeechless! 

I wonder if you've watched a sprint anwhere?

Especially a pro-sprint in a grand tour - frankly it's a physical sport (with the arms as well as the legs.)

Frankly to equate competing to to the max. in the normal finish to a bike race (a sprint) to Ricco's multiple doping convictions - seems to me offensive and ignorant.


----------



## MartinC (21 Feb 2011)

Managman, everyone's entitled to their opinion. There's been a lot of people disagreeing with things I haven't said though.

Like you I'd view Cav 'dissing' Ricco positively - it's the way he's done it that's a problem. It's a shame that he's turned down an opportunity to make an effective rebuttal for an attempt at some offensive schoolboy humour.

All I said was that Cav's comment was inappropriate and reflected badly on him. Most of your post is arguing against a point I haven't made.

"equating Cav's agresssive sprinting to Ricco's doping". I'm not aware that anyone's done that. I made the point that if, rather than making a reasoned criticism of another's behaviour, you chose to go for a cheap shot then you invite the criticism that you're not perfect yourself and you lose the impact your comments could've had. Obviously it was too subtle a point for the atmosphere of this thread.


----------



## fozzy (22 Feb 2011)

i know what your trying to say martinc, don't think your actual point is being understood [no offence intended, calm down]. also just wanted to say to mangaman, again no offense but, what are you saying peoples opinions here are not worth the same as a pro riders? that we should agree with someone due to them being in a proffession that we are not? whatever the job may be? because if this is your point, i'd have no view worth listening to on 99.99999999999999999999999999% of jobs out there as i only do 2.


----------



## Padbeat (23 Feb 2011)

MartinC said:


> Entertaining, but a tad sanctimonious. *Ricco is a serial cheat and should be punished. Cavendish has himself been sanctioned for cheating.* I know Ricco's offences are tainted with the moral panic that surrounds drugs but Cav's offence is the same as an illegal tackle in rugby - it can leave a fellow sportsman dead, disabled or out of the game for a while. People seem to be making nice (in the old sense of the word) distinctions about types of cheating and nationality.
> 
> *I appreciate that this post won't be popular* but people should look at the whole picture not just cherry pick bits that reinforce their indignation.



You seem to be equating one with the other there, don't you? Or at least drawing parallels between them. I think Cav reacted from the gut and spoke his mind in an entirely characteristic way. He could have said the same thing much more politely but it's clear that he's disgusted with Ricco, and that's fair enough.

And you're right, it wasn't. So why are you surprised when others take umbrage at what appears to be a deliberately inflammatory post?


----------



## BJH (26 Feb 2011)

Having read through this thread I am seriously struggling to see any relevance between Mark Cavendish and a cheating drug taking multiple offender who will be no loss to cycling.Reality is that they have history and don't get on, so Cav was never going to be the person who gave Ricco an easy ride.
How they could ever be compared on any level is ridiculous. 
Some time ago, I posted on the site of a well known cyclist and asked him why he didn't rage against drug cheats on the basis that if someone cheated me out of anything in my work, I would be screaming the roof down. No response apart from the standard type of denial.
The reason the press have asked people like to Cav to comment is that they know he's clean and he expresses the type of anger you should naturally expect of a clean rider.
Maybe it's reading to much by David Walsh and Paul Kimmage, but I find the other riders reaction to be the best clue about them. Bradley Wiggins was very strong on comments about having been forced to struggle on major climbs being ridden by cheats at ridiculous speeds and was clear on what should be done about them. Look at the comments riders make who have been beaten by cheats, its the biggest clue you will ever get.
On the riders site I mentioned above, I note he has been named again and I also note he has not responded the way I would expect a normal person to do.
This for me is like the Michael Jackson case. He paid money to a kid and his family who made accusations about him. The reasoning behind this was to avoid the terrible publicity. My reaction at the time was that I would lose my house and everything I own to take that case to court if I had been him. Likewise, if someone cheated me at my work and forced me to work twice as hard, the minimum they would get back would be an absolute clear message and preferably a smack in the face.
On that basis, I welcome strong comments, it shows the rider cares and offers the best clue about how clean they are.


----------



## Smokin Joe (26 Feb 2011)

Good post, BJH.


----------



## raindog (12 Mar 2011)

got some bottle that Ricco

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ricco-reveals-he-will-never-race-again
"Italian denies blood doping and criticises the world of cycling"


----------



## Keith Oates (13 Mar 2011)

From the report in Cycling news he says 

<“I’ve got more friends outside the sport than people can imagine. I’ve got my 
family and a son. I’m going to look after them. I’m tired and I don’t like the 
cycling world any more. It’s better to have a basic job and earn 1000 Euro a 
month than, there are less things to worry about.”>

I wonder if his sons mother is included in the family comment after what he said about her when she was tested positive for drugs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------

