Tripleshot Cycling

Marco Pinotti has some interesting thoughts on Armstrong, Diluca, Simoni, doping, and the UCI that he shared with Daniel Friebe of Cyclingnews.com. It's a good read.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/mar ... -of-reason

R

Thanks for that Ryan. A ray of hope if there are more guys like that.

The Armstrong propaganda bit made me gag tho. Doesn't he realize that 'good works' are how crooks cover their tracks? Of course Lance isn't going to turn down a cancer photo op. That was just plain naive on Pinotti's part.

Lister Farrar wrote:...Doesn't he realize that 'good works' are how crooks cover their tracks? Of course Lance isn't going to turn down a cancer photo op. That was just plain naive on Pinotti's part.

Or it is smart business practise on Pinotti's part. I think he's spot on about the fact that harping on what Lance 'may' have done (1999 aside) in the absence of definitive proof is just too little too late and maybe more harm than good for the sport as a whole. Maybe hunting Lance is no more than just UCI apologetics and not a pursuit of the 'truth' after all if they're as complicit as Landis says they are. I feel inclined to agree.

R

RyanC wrote:

Lister Farrar wrote:...Doesn't he realize that 'good works' are how crooks cover their tracks? Of course Lance isn't going to turn down a cancer photo op. That was just plain naive on Pinotti's part.

Or it is smart business practise on Pinotti's part. I think he's spot on about the fact that riders will do what they have to and harping on what Lance 'may' have done (1999 aside) in the absence of definitive proof is just too little too late and maybe more harm than good for the sport as a whole. Maybe hunting Lance is no more than just UCI apologetics and not a pursuit of the 'truth' after all if they're as complicit as Landis says they are. I feel inclined to agree.

R

If it's "smart business" then he's not much of a leader in this problem. 'Naive' is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

More harm than 30 dead guys from EPO? I disagree.

It's the US government hunting Lance for fraud of the US taxpayer. They don't have any jurisdiction over the UCI. They gotta hunt who they have jurisdiction over. But I'm betting lots of dubious stuff about the UCI will come out when this goes to trial.

Lister Farrar wrote:If it's "smart business" then he's not much of a leader in this problem. 'Naive' is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Agreed

Lister Farrar wrote:More harm than 30 dead guys from EPO? I disagree.

How many guys died as a result of head injuries before the UCI deemed it necessary to enforce helmet use? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pr ... ing_a_race
These are not compelling arguments because it is clear pro cyclists are expected to choose their own standards and they often do. We have seen examples that show pros will refuse to race under conditions they believe are too dangerous. Look for this to occur in this year's Giro again
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/04/ ... %99_170127 The UCI is not just incompetent and superfluous, they're often derelict.

Lister Farrar wrote:It's the US government hunting Lance for fraud of the US taxpayer. They don't have any jurisdiction over the UCI. They gotta hunt who they have jurisdiction over.

Yeah, and of course that's about money, not truth or safety. The image of cycling gets dragged through the mud regardless because the media and the general public don't distinguish these facts.

Lister Farrar wrote:But I'm betting lots of dubious stuff about the UCI will come out when this goes to trial.

+1

R

RyanC wrote:How many guys died as a result of head injuries before the UCI deemed it necessary to enforce helmet use? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pr ... ing_a_race

Not all of those who died from injuries would have been helped with a helmet. Casartelli for example. Not that I argue that's acceptable; it's just less unacceptable to me than looking the other way while young guys were dying in their sleep from thickened blood.

These are not compelling arguments because it is clear pro cyclists are expected to choose their own standards and they often do. We have seen examples that show pros will refuse to race under conditions they believe are too dangerous. Look for this to occur in this year's Giro again
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/04/ ... %99_170127 The UCI is not just incompetent and superfluous, they're often derelict.

Funny how the riders protest when it's about course design, which might be dangerous, but they keep their mouths shut when it's about dangerous doping practices. Hmmm. Wonder why.

Lister Farrar wrote:It's the US government hunting Lance for fraud of the US taxpayer. They don't have any jurisdiction over the UCI. They gotta hunt who they have jurisdiction over.

Yeah, and of course that's about money, not truth or safety. The image of cycling gets dragged through the mud regardless because the media and the general public don't distinguish these facts.

Only because government can only prosecute what's illegal. Doping isn't illegal in the US like it is in many European countries now. Fraud is. I predict though, the Bonds, Clemons and Armstrong trials will show that doping should be illegal. So in a very real a way, Nowitzky is going after truth and safety.

Cycling deserves every bit of mud it gets dragged through. Let me correct that; the jokers in power now, pros and parasites both, deserve it. Cycling does not.

It's often said other sports are just as bad. I disagree. In 1992 I had a tour of the Spanish doping lab as part of a Canadian sport administration delegation. I asked what were the worst sports for doping from their view. They didn't know what sport i was from. They said, with no equivocation or hesitation, "Body building and cycling." Not track, not soccer, not tennis. And body building is not really a sport, in my opinion. WADA was created because of cycling and the Festina crisis. Not soccer, not track, not tennis. And few other sports are affected so directly by oxygen vector doping. A soccer player still has to have incredible skill, but you can get second in the Tour not knowing how to shift gear or attack when you have a two on one advantage. (apologies to Andy Schleck.)

Well said, all, Lister. CCA and UCI really need you, you know this is self evident, right?

Pinotti may not be a leader in the bolder sense of the word but when I read his words and listen to David Millar and Jonathan Vaughters, I feel more optimistic about the only change I see that can redirect the sport for the better, the desire of the riders to ride on a level playing field and not risk everything for that winning margin (although frankly on any given interurban sprint I begin to see this as human nature...).

The sad thing, or one of the things I find disheartening, is that there's always a new trick ('gene doping', for example) to stay ahead of detection and, failing the change I mentioned above in rider mindset, it is logically impossible to use enforcement as the primary method of deterring riders from using 'illegal' methodology when the drivers of the behaviour don't change.

Here's another couple of interesting articles, by the way:
http://www.learntheheart.com/Epo2.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121221.htm
Ryan

RyanC wrote:CCA and UCI really need you, you know this is self evident, right?

I dunno about that. Wayne Pomario is quite mad at me for posting his message about not believing Landis. I have limited opportunities there!

Pinotti may not be a leader in the bolder sense of the word but when I read his words and listen to David Millar and Jonathan Vaughters, I feel more optimistic about the only change I see that can redirect the sport for the better, the desire of the riders to ride on a level playing field and not risk everything for that winning margin (although frankly on any given interurban sprint I begin to see this as human nature...).

My cynicism aside, Pinotti is a breath of fresh air, as are Millar and Vaughters. But they all still have to dance like hell; Miller about only doping for 2003, Vaughters about his own doping which he has not been able to openly admit, and Pinotti falling for Lance's PR. I like Kabush's and Sydor's plainer positions myself. (Doper's Suck wear for Geoff (and I note, Adam de Vos), and a squeaky clean reputation for Alison, especially among doper team mates who ridiculed her for not doping.)

The sad thing, or one of the things I find disheartening, is that there's always a new trick ('gene doping', for example) to stay ahead of detection and, failing the change I mentioned above in rider mindset, it is logically impossible to use enforcement as the primary method of deterring riders from using 'illegal' methodology when the drivers of the behaviour don't change.

There's room for optimism. As your articles point out, they're already doing the research for detecting gene doping http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Science-Medi ... ne-Doping/. EPO detection research didn't start until it was in use for ten years. Just the existence of WADA, funded by IOC and government; that's huge. The passport has created the important precedent that we can demand blood and urine from athletes whenever and wherever. 10 years ago pro cyclists were still arguing whether doping controls of any kind interfered with their right to work. Plus there's the retroactive testing (IE where up to 8 years later you can be busted when a new test comes out.). I feel much better that we're not leading youngsters down the road those 30 dead guys got conned into. Just have to put a few big shot cheaters in jail to make sure everyone knows.

Here's another couple of interesting articles, by the way:
http://www.learntheheart.com/Epo2.pdf

I note they refer to screening, which the passport facilitates.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121221.htm
Ryan

The gene tests are ready!

Lister Farrar wrote: a squeaky clean reputation for Alison, especially among doper team mates who ridiculed her for not doping.

which team mates? I've had a couple talks with Kiara (Bisaro, my wifes best friend) about doping on the canadian pro womens MTB team while she was riding world cup, which was much of the same time period as Alison. She said that wasn't the culture in pro womens MTB, she didn't think there was ever any pressure, and told me she would have been very surprised to learn that anybody on the Canadian womens team DID dope.

Josh.E wrote:

Lister Farrar wrote: a squeaky clean reputation for Alison, especially among doper team mates who ridiculed her for not doping.

which team mates? I've had a couple talks with Kiara (Bisaro, my wifes best friend) about doping on the canadian pro womens MTB team while she was riding world cup, which was much of the same time period as Alison. She said that wasn't the culture in pro womens MTB, she didn't think there was ever any pressure, and told me she would have been very surprised to learn that anybody on the Canadian womens team DID dope.

Her pro team mates. Not Canadian women.

Interesting,
Kiara also told me if she had to guess, she wouldn't have thought that any of the other pro women were doping regularly during her time riding pro either. She said anything was possible, but couldn't picture anyone doing it from what she knew of them personally, and she would have been pretty dissappointed to learn it.
She knows Alison quite well, as they were regular roommates. I'm surprised she hasn't heard her stories of being ridiculed by teammates.

She didn't mention names to me. But Annabella Stropparo was a team mate on Cannondale and was busted for doping. Not sure if Margarita Fullana was ever a team mate but she was busted too. So women's mtb was far from immune.

Then there are all the guys on her teams...One team mate had the same doc as Genevieve Jeanson, who said he supplied a Canadian rider "with seven international medals" when he was charged and lost his medical license. Rasmussen rode for Volkswagen Trek around the time Alison did. Chris Sheppard rode for Rocky, not sure if the same time as Alison, but around that time. I'm sure there would be no shortage of dopers if we searched the positive lists and the team rosters. Never mind the ones that didn't get caught.

The big difference is they all keep quiet, Alison speaks up. That says a lot for me.

You think Rasmussen is a doper? I thought he was just a guy who was bad with reporting his whereabouts, and who liked to collect centrifuges.

Maybe it's a matter of different eras of the sport for womens MTB? Alison being in there in the 90's and early 2000's, while Kiara rode her first world championships in 2001, and raced world cup until 2008.

Fullana and Stropparo were both busted just after Kiara's era, 2009 and 2010. Even tho Fullana claims to have made the usual Millar-time "one time only error", I strongly doubt she's really in the 'didn't inhale' camp. She is Spanish after all.

Pezzo was busted for nandrolone in 1997 (not a Sydor team mate) , after winning the Olympics in 1996; (Sydor was second). So it was going on then. (Tho' she got off claiming it was in the meat; nothing new under the sun, eh?)

Not sure why Kiara didn't know about it. For every positive there were 20 using and getting away with it, if we believe Floyd's account.

Josh.E wrote:Interesting,

She knows Alison quite well, as they were regular roommates. I'm surprised she hasn't heard her stories of being ridiculed by teammates.

Alison and I are both readers on the cyclingnews.com clinic forum. I'd be surprised if she had talked much about it with team mates given the prevalence before, the attitude of early team mates who thought her 'unprofessional', and the possible involvement of national team coaches even here with dopers. I think her desire to speak up is still just starting.

gotta love the internet. I googled "Pezzo coach" and got 'Paolo Rosola'. Googled Rosola and got...you got it Ferrari. Rosola was a directeur sportif at Gewiss Balan, and guess who was the team doctor. Ferrari. Lance's doc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewiss-Ballan

second item: "systematic doping"

Probably means nothing...

Lister Farrar wrote: Not sure why Kiara didn't know about it. For every positive there were 20 using and getting away with it, if we believe Floyd's account.

I wonder if 20 using for every 1 caught is true in all types and categories of pro cycling, or if that's just the cynical view based on what is well known about men's road?

Kiara likes to assume the best in people (major personality flaw ). Maybe she just didn't want to know what others were doing, as she wouldn't be able to reconcile it with her own values.

Josh.E wrote: I wonder if 20 using for every 1 caught is true in all types and categories of pro cycling, or if that's just the cynical view based on what is well known about men's road?

Probably not enough of them paid well enough to afford former Gewiss coaches and Ferrari as doctors.

Kiara likes to assume the best in people (major personality flaw ). Maybe she just didn't want to know what others were doing, as she wouldn't be able to reconcile it with her own values.

I dunno. Assuming the worst has it's own problems. Spend to much time googling pro riders and finding yet more bad news.

And if she didn't have that attitude, we wouldn't be able to point to her as an example of how you can do it clean.