no winner for 1998 tour? how far back is far enough? - VeloNation - Cycling Forums, Bicycle Forums, Community Forums

Login

Home

News

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search

Forums > Road > The Dark Side

no winner for 1998 tour? how far back is far enough?

Last Post 07/31/2013 06:52 PM by Justin jmdirt. 54 Replies.

Sort:

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 4

Author

Messages

CERV

Posts:151

07/23/2013 10:45 PM
how far back does cycling need to dig into it's doping past before it becomes counterproductive? http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15077/Jalabert-Pantani-Ullrich-and-Zabel-alleged-to-be-on-French-senates-doping-report.aspx

mondonico

Posts:158

07/23/2013 11:09 PM
I guess it depends on how or what one defines as productive?

BikeCzar

Posts:53

07/23/2013 11:16 PM
There is a winner for every Tour. I watched.

laurentja

Posts:122

07/24/2013 12:28 AM
I thought McQuaid apologized to the Pantani family and swore the results would not be stripped...? Read that a week or so ago.

Berzin

Posts:76

07/24/2013 02:05 AM
Cerv-going back and retesting samples is only counter productive to the liars and BS artists who dope, lie about it, are found out, and are then outraged that their past is being dug up. If these riders would stop with all their lying, this wouldn't be an issue. As for your question "how far back is enough?" Not far back enough will be enough. I am more interested in who doped and when then throw my hands up and say, "well, they were ALL doing it, so it's a wash." That isn't good enough. The public needs details, and we will never get them from the cyclists themselves. If these riders want to continue deceiving the public, they deserve to be outed. Liars like Jalabert and Zabel, who claim to have either doped only once or twice, or didn't know and never asked what all those needles were for, need to be exposed not only as dopers but as liars.

CERV

Posts:151

07/24/2013 02:59 AM
So Berzin, Merckx? Anquetil? Coppi? ...Contador? why does the public 'need' these details exactly ?

Yo Mike

Posts:338

07/24/2013 06:06 AM
The past is the past, but it of course informs the present and the future. The future is what is at stake, and if the -7 fanclub will remember, the likes of America's only legitimate TdF winner was concerned about his own son navigating the perils of pro cycling's culture of doping. Athletes should not be pressured to dope, and should not be allowed to dope. Start a doped cycling union if you want. Oh, wait.....the Masters, right? Perhaps Cycling needs to get on the couch with the likes of Oprah, have a good cry, fess up, and rid itself of the doping culture and corrupt, self-interested officials like McQuaid.

Entheo

Posts:317

07/24/2013 07:35 AM
the UCI and the organizers have made a mess of this, as usual, and per usual it just keeps dragging on. as impressive as the TdF awards ceremony was, it was more than a little hypocritical to have indurain, merckx and hinault up there knowing at least two of them were likely juiced as well. armstrong was offered amnesty by USADA but refused, so no tears for him. others have made mea culpas (e.g. ullrich) and they'll live with the asterisk by their results. cookson's on the right track with redemption thru admission - let's document the past and move on. we know that mcquaid is going to resist every step of the way, hence the continued chinese water torture. i think it has to start with a change in leadership at the UCI, like Yo Mike says.

stronz

Posts:447

07/24/2013 09:48 AM
I was going to post my opinion that it is indeed counterproductive to exhume the past riders figuratively and test their samples. But I realized it is only counterproductive to those who are afraid of the truth and want to perpetuate the happy and entirely fake world of bogus performances that their "heroes" recorded in the good old days of dont ask and dont tell. Is that really the best we can do? The very important good that uncovering the cheaters for what they were/are is that it hopefully puts the fear of G-D in riders today that their palmares will be wiped clean if they are found 10 yrs from now to have engaged in the "new" doping of 2013. The truely destructive and counterproductive road is the path which keeps all the dark secrets of the past cloaked and glorified. Most outsiders - which makes up 99.9% of the world -- assume that all pro cyclists are dirty. Plain and simple. The result is that when a rider like Froome lays down an amazing performance, he is automatically be assumed to be a doper by virtually the entire world (myself included.) By uncovering each and every doper we will come out clean. Ultimately.

jrt1045

Posts:363

07/24/2013 10:34 AM
No free passes Until all these "reformed" dopers move on from the sport, this is a valid topic as far as I'm concerned. Barnie as a DS, Hincapie leading u23 devo team rides, CVV getting softball interviews, Millar treated as a sort of Saint, Levi showing up where he isn't wanted, Livingston "coaching"? I could go on. Think of the questions and the never-ending pursuit as a sort of light that forces the roaches to scurry from the dark corners of cycling

jmdirt

Posts:775

07/24/2013 10:48 AM
I agree with stronz. Digging up the past is productive because it sends the message that you can ride but you can't hide. There isn't a test for NGFS today but in five or ten years there will be. How do they decide who's name to removed from the record books? It doesn't matter to me if they finally come clean or if the are nice guys or arsholes, they doped to get their results. Remove them all or don't remove any. Cerv, I don't need details but making things public for a while might help with public perception. I assume that most of the stories would read much like TH's book.

jookey

Posts:200

07/24/2013 10:53 AM
"The Senate ordered that no results would be stripped as a result of their report: "Nobody will face sanctions. We aren’t policemen. We aren’t magistrates. We haven’t noted absolute lies but put-offs and self-censorship," they said." They could not strip the titles, then an American would be the 1998 champ. The hypocracy... Strip all or none. I'm in the camp of the former. There should be no statute of limitations. That will maybe deter the rider who is contemplating cheating today. Entheo, 2 of 3 juiced? I'd say all three.

Orange Crush

Posts:4499

07/24/2013 11:49 AM
44 out of the 60 samples from that 1998 Tour tested positive. Think about it for a second. Riding around in that 1998 Tour would be like walking around in 1998 downtown Santa Cruz. You know about the same percentage of people you come across are potsmokers and therefore criminals by the strict letter of the law. Catching and naming historical dopers is about as effective as a deterrent as putting people caught with baggies of weed behind bars and hoping the "problem" will be solved. The only thing its effective at is draining government coffers, we know, we've been there. Sure, the UCI is not the prettiest bunch but blaming them for doping is like blaming the police for drugs and crime. Instead I'd put the blame first on the sporters, their coaches, their doctors, the pharmaceutical industry that sells the myth that all these potions are needed and good for us, and the criminal circuit that all so effective at bringing all these goodies into the black market. Sounds like a big problem don't it, maybe the UCI cannot be expected to solve it. WADA as a dope fighting organization is about as likely to produce results as a eunuch is to produce children, they are a powerless bunch that can only make themselves seem halfway relevant by continuing their single-minded focus on cycling. I will continue to ask the question why is it that three tennis players are associated with -7's doctor and all we'll ever hear from the ITF is "I know you didn't mean to but don't do it again". WADA's Howmann made some half-ass remark about it whether tennis was in fact meaning to catch dopers but that's as far as their power reaches. Of course WADA are being kept weak by the powers that be cause the show must go on. Of course they will never catch Hinault because we all know what happened with his piss. As far as the problem of doping in cycling goes, it seems to me the problem is simple and staring us right in the face. Get rid of LeTour. Sure, doping will be going on in other events, but all the major hubrus is always around that one event. Good riddance, it's been going downhill ever since the Hinault/Lemond/Fignon era anyways.

Cosmic Kid

Posts:4209

07/24/2013 11:58 AM
Posted By Michael Carbajal on 07/24/2013 10:53 AM "The Senate ordered that no results would be stripped as a result of their report: "Nobody will face sanctions. We aren’t policemen. We aren’t magistrates. We haven’t noted absolute lies but put-offs and self-censorship," they said." They could not strip the titles, then an American would be the 1998 champ. The hypocracy... Strip all or none. I'm in the camp of the former. There should be no statute of limitations. That will maybe deter the rider who is contemplating cheating today. Entheo, 2 of 3 juiced? I'd say all three. ??? Julich has admitted to doping and his samples from '98 are listed as being "suspicious." Can we leave nationalism out of this discussion? It kinda reads like the playbook from -7. As I have said multiple times, the results from the past need to be certified, noted with an asterisk and anyone coming forward is granted amnesty. Any future infractions (including by a rider on a tema in whch they have a management role) leads to an immediate lifetime suspension.

Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!

Orange Crush

Posts:4499

07/24/2013 12:21 PM
Hooray, we have 18 out of the 44 named: De positieve epogevallen in de Tour van '98 volgens Sporza: Andrea Tafi (Ita), Mario Cipollini (Ita), Bo Hamburger (Den), Udo Bölts (Dui), Marco Pantani (Ita), Jan Ullrich (Dui), Erik Zabel (Dui), Abraham Olano (Spa), Nicola Minali (Ita), Fabio Sacchi (Ita), Marcos Serrano (Spa), Manuel Beltran (Spa), Jens Heppner (Dui), Jeroen Blijlevens (Ned), Kevin Livingstone (VSt), Laurent Desbiens (Fra), Laurent Jalabert (Fra) en Jacky Durand (Fra).