Open letter from Dr Michele Ferrari

[jpembroke]

Seems to contain a thinly veiled accusation of doping against Lemond:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/open-letter-from-dr-michele-ferrari

It's gonna kick off right and proper

 

[yello]

I find this an interesting choice of words....

Sure, doping has always been rooted in the world of sports and cycling in particular; from my part, I have always tried to dissuade, proposing legal and efficient alternatives: training, nutrition, altitude.

That, to me, implies he wasn't always successful at dissuading. Given he acknowledges the doping problem, I wonder if he is prepared to name those he failed to dissuade and suggest where they may have gone?

Edit: Yes, I too reckon it is going to kick off; the cracks and divisions starting to appear. I reckon this is ramping up behind the scenes.

 

[jpembroke]

and this quote:

"But what Greg does not know, or pretends not to know, is that one of such “confidants” actually clearly mentions his name and that of his doctor in relation to doping events."

When this ship sinks there's going to be a lot of people attempting to take a lot of people down with them.

 

[zacklaws]

I see that Greg Lemond, in a posting in Cycling news, dated 26 July 2010, seems to have a "pop" at Contador now

"One thing is for sure - Alberto Contador is very talented and I am happy to see some data that indicates his victory could be the result of natural ability".

The way I read that is, Lemond by using the words "could be" instead of "is" suggests that he thinks Contador might have been doping.

Or is it just the English language, that can be easily misinterpreted one again, bring back Moriniho

 

[Chuffy]

I see that Greg Lemond, in a posting in Cycling news, dated 26 July 2010, seems to have a "pop" at Contador now

"One thing is for sure - Alberto Contador is very talented and I am happy to see some data that indicates his victory could be the result of natural ability".

The way I read that is, Lemond by using the words "could be" instead of "is" suggests that he thinks Contador might have been doping.

Or is it just the English language, that can be easily misinterpreted one again, bring back Moriniho

Lemond questioned Bertie's performance last year on the grounds that it appeared to be above and beyond what was possible without assistance. I read his blog as a sigh of relief that the data gathered by some sports scientists seems to suggest that this years Tour has been, substantially, clean.

I'm not sure about Ferrari's letter and claims. I suspect that there is a lot stirring under the surface and lest we forget, Ferrari is linked very strongly to the current Federal investigation into US Postal. Personally I'd trust him as far as I could throw him.

 

[wafflycat]

I'm not sure about Ferrari's letter and claims. I suspect that there is a lot stirring under the surface and lest we forget, Ferrari is linked very strongly to the current Federal investigation into US Postal. Personally I'd trust him as far as I could throw him.

I wouldn't trust him even half of that!

 

[zimzum42]

I am sure that LeMond and all the riders of that era, Delgado, Indurain, Chiapuuci, etc etc, all of them doped.

It doesn't detract from their achievement or my enjoyment of it one little bit

But things hae changed and now they want to get rid of doping, and that's a good thing.

But that Contador and the likes still ride like monsters on the big climbs and so on does not for me mean that they have to be doping. It seems there is a group of people that think anyone who is winning ro climbing faster than the main peloton must be doping. This is not at all necessarily the case.

Look at athletics. They had all their scandals about doping and now they have loads of testing etc. Yes, they still have people who try to dope, but then you also get guys like Usain Bolt who are getting amazing results and are testing clean.

I'm happy to assume LeMond et al were doping, it seems everyone was back then, but I don't think Schleck and so on are, or at least I'm willing to believe they aren't until I see a positive test from one of them. Nor do I believe there is a conspiracy of silence or anything in pro-cycling, there are too many people involved.

 

[Chuffy]

Positive tests aren't the whole story. We know that only too well. Part of Lemond's beef is that measured performance (VO2 max, wattage, climbing speed etc) isn't taken into account. If you know these things then you can, in theory, see if a rider is riding beyond their 'natural' ability. That's why he was so shocked when the riders in 91 (iirc) were dropping him on climbs, even though he was riding at the same measurable level as the previous year.

Don't confuse 'conspiracy' with 'culture'. The culture in cycling is to stay quiet and to squash anyone who bucks the trend (Kimmage, Bassons, Simeoni et al). That's not quite the same as a conspiracy.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Lemond questioned Bertie's performance last year on the grounds that it appeared to be above and beyond what was possible without assistance. I read his blog as a sigh of relief that the data gathered by some sports scientists seems to suggest that this years Tour has been, substantially, clean.

Yup. I thought that the way Contador struggled this year suggested he was rather less 'well-prepared'. Don't forget that the Schlecks have had suspicions around them too, although that's all they are. But the performances this year do seem to have been somewhat more consistent with a decline in the more obvious forms of doping.

 

[zimzum42]

Positive tests aren't the whole story. We know that only too well. Part of Lemond's beef is that measured performance (VO2 max, wattage, climbing speed etc) isn't taken into account. If you know these things then you can, in theory, see if a rider is riding beyond their 'natural' ability. That's why he was so shocked when the riders in 91 (iirc) were dropping him on climbs, even though he was riding at the same measurable level as the previous year.

Don't confuse 'conspiracy' with 'culture'. The culture in cycling is to stay quiet and to squash anyone who bucks the trend (Kimmage, Bassons, Simeoni et al). That's not quite the same as a conspiracy.

I get what you are saying about culture, but was really referring to those with the ideas that the UCI or whoever are all in on covering up tests and so on

But at the end of the day I just enjoy watching these guys race and am not too bothered about all the fussing behind the scenes...

 

[Chuffy]

I get what you are saying about culture, but was really referring to those with the ideas that the UCI or whoever are all in on covering up tests and so on

But at the end of the day I just enjoy watching these guys race and am not too bothered about all the fussing behind the scenes...

Fairy snuff, although there is a history of the authorities manipulating things to suit (can't recall exactly who, but one of the UCI top brass confessed that the testing regime in the late 60s/70's was a sham).

I enjoy watching too and the doping/not doping hoo-hah adds spice. Having said that, I feel sorry for the guys who are riding clean and being stitched up royally by the cheating bsatrsds.

 

[Globalti]

Nor do I believe there is a conspiracy of silence or anything in pro-cycling, there are too many people involved.

As Chuffy writes above, it's not a conspiracy, it's the culture of silence. It works perfectly well if nobody interferes and everybody involved has as much to lose. This includes people like journalists who benefit from the sport, although it was Paul Kimmage who called it the Omerta. This is the conspiracy of silence that surrounds the Mafia.

If the sport was really clean this year, surely all the times and speeds would be reduced by about 10% compared with previous "unclean" years?

 

[Globalti]

Having said that, I feel sorry for the guys who are riding clean and being stitched up royally by the cheating bsatrsds.

If you read Kimmage's book Rough Ride you will understand that everybody in the sport cheats at this level. The whole point of his story was that he was under increasing pressure to use drugs just to keep up with the peloton.

 

[dan_bo]

Yup. I thought that the way Contador struggled this year suggested he was rather less 'well-prepared'. Don't forget that the Schlecks have had suspicions around them too, although that's all they are. But the performances this year do seem to have been somewhat more consistent with a decline in the more obvious forms of doping.

Do you mean by that that they were all F***ed by the third week?

 

[Hont]

Can't really trust Ferrari I don't think. After all he was the one who said that EPO was no worse than Orange Juice.

Lemond was being careful in his words about Contador, because he came out and said everything looked a lot cleaner during the 2006 tour - and we know what happened then - leaving Lemond looking silly.

@Globalti - it was slower this year. The lead group was reported as climbing the Tourmalet 12 minutes slower than Ullrich and Armstrong in 2003. See the site that Lemond references in his blog. Rough Ride was written 20 years ago. I've no doubt that some of it still rings true, but the culture (certainly in many teams) has changed somewhat.

@zimzum42 - I don't think that athletics is a good example to quote. The testing is nothing like as organized as cycling and we know that cyclists - even with the blood passport - can evade positive tests. I don't believe for one second that Bolt is not using drugs.