collapse


riding too slowly

  • Neo Pro
  • Posts: 290
  • Liked: 289
Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
« Reply #120 on: April 04, 2018, 11:14 »
Ilaria Rinald   So I have got that as young girl, she is good on a bike.  Somewhere she bumps into dodgy characters who tell her, don't worry they are all doing it. Should have walked away but she didn't.  Then she gets caught out at one of the random tests that the system conducts trying to pretend it is "anti-doping".  Does all the same stuff Froome and Brad have been doing - I was poorly, it was for my sore feet/bad chest, sprained wrist ...  but does not get let off becasue she is nobody famous with a top gun legal team.  Does her time.  Comes back but sees that the scene does not pay  - just 400 Euro a month - what the hell this is not fair - what is going on here.  And ends up knocking around with the crowd that see Linas Rumsas also die in their midst.  Live the dream................

Well, I hope those fawning, spinelss journalists that keep on facilitating the lie, read this and reflect. I hope those fawning, spineless administrators that can't sort out a honest protocol for testing and announcement of AAFs, read this and reflect. 

It does not take much of a leap, to see some young girl starts doing exactly what she sees some of the stars of the sport doing.  Just refelct how cr!p, how completely cr*p was it, that we have first hand testimony that Van Morsel's Doctor doped her and, first hand testimony from a rider that the testers would not test Van Morsel at races, the Dutch Fed had ensured she was to be excluded from such protocols.  Instead of catching the real villains of the piece they catch flotsam like Rinaldi.  Stuff silent bans for Longo.  Stuff BC spending public money hiring in a top legal gun for Lizzie Armistead to get her off what should have been a clear ban.  If the idiot could not be arsed to challenge the protocol when she legally could, then she deserved what was coming. And stuff her wiping her twitter account and coming up with some BS story about a poorly relative when she was booking bands for her post Rio wedding party.  And stuff all her lies about not racing but training for Rio.  And stuff her team lying and backing up the lies to make the lie more convincing. Stuff silent bans for Armistead.  Armitstead, Wiggins, Froome Sir Dave Brailsford, Simon Cope - who could not be bothered to organise a camp for the British Women but could courier a package across borders and fiddle his travel expenses at the same time, Doctor Freeman, Shane Sutton and the lot of them.  A whole gaggle coming up with the same tale of sudden amnesia.  Well stuff the lot of them - they all know that knight of the realm - Sir Bradley Wiggins is sunk if any of them tell so we are treated to their pantomime performance.

And no - there is nothing in the public domain to indicate Marianne Vos ever doped.  There is nothing in the public domian to indicate that Marianne Vos ever had a silent ban.  But hell, that is one heck of a long time to be off with a broken rib and then what was it, a hamstring and since then, the whole racehorse to donkey reverse transformation that we saw with Andy Schleck when brother Frank got busted. And no, there is no evidence to indicate that the Dutch Federation is staffed by people with any more spine than Cookson and the crew of ex pros he recruited that run/ran British Cycling.

And I might not be so upset about her death and the hypocrisy that brought her to that point but during her cycling career the same numpties that faciliate it, don't give her a living wage.  As a female she did not count.  Over at the clinic I can see them arguing that "workers rights", those of someone in employment - a failure of an employer to follow process - will trump the fact that Froome was juiced and his con exposed and stealing from his fellow workers.  Yes I am sure that is what his legal guns will use and they will get him off.  OK so how does that work for female cyclists?  They don't get a wage ergo they just don't count.  Oh but when it comes to paying the price, paying the ultimate price, then it is the same.  What does that produce ?  The same lifeless body as Pantani ?

Ilaria Rinaldi - I will shed a tear for you.  You doped - that was wrong.  You took other wrong decisions. 

How are UKAD getting on with their Linda McCartney investigation?  They have first hand testimony from multiple witnesses that doping was rife there.  Ex team member Jonny Clay  - that was a magnificent transformation at the end of your career.   And riding with Brad to Olympic glory in the tp - wow what a star.  I am glad BC re-organised last week and in the new structure there was no place for a guy who only 10 months before had been appointed to the elite 4 man sub groub of the board of directors that was put in place to oversee BC move out of crisis.  Clay - long term team-mate of Sutton.  Rode with Brad.  Team mate of Cope.

Ilaria Rinaldi - I will shed a tear for you.  You doped - that was wrong. You were found on a floor limp and lifeless.  Jonny Clay got to walk away into retirement with a 6 figure payout of public money. 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-5565823/MPs-question-cycling-chiefs-Jonny-Clay-huge-pay-off.html

Sutton to Parliament - have you ever encountered any PEDs in your long career in cycling ?   No Never.   

Who the hell employed Sutton and the gang - yes Cookson - I am looking at you.  Were those tarnished medals worth any of this ?  What should you have spent your time doing when you were boss at the UCI ?  You did tell us that within 12 months of coming to office you would have a miniumum wage in place for the girls.  You didn't do that.  You did do a lot of selfies.

  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 29, 2018, 10:23 by riding too slowly »

    riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 290
    • Liked: 289
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #121 on: July 28, 2018, 20:13 »
    OK time for me to spend some time talking to myself about the dark thoughts I never used to have.

    As one of the key suspects in the Stade 4 documentary - Roglic rode himself onto and then off the podium at the Tour this week, and as Team Wiggle closed up shop, I cast my mind to what could be going on at the women's circuit. 

    That win in the ITT by Van Vleuten certainly raises eyebrows.  2 min 28 back to second place in 46 mins !  And then look at the gaps that follow, all tiny.  I set an arbitary figure of 30 between places and searched for gaps beyond that.  I had to get back to the final 4 riders out of 14 before I saw a gap of 30 seconds.  These gaps appeared in riders who lost 22 minutes to the winner, ie were doing about 66 metres for every 100 that Van Vleuten did.  Elite cycling is not a normal distribution. 

    So with e-bikes everywhere now, what are the deterents for the women's peloton?  The much vaunted X-ray trailer is on a three week road trip around France testing 7 bikes every day.  Oblivious to factual documentaries with video evidence that the iPad no more than a useless PR gimmick, the UCI is still employing people to wave iPads around.  Lapartient has told us it would be a disaster for cycling if a top rider was caught with a motor in his bike so I think we can assume that those 7 bikes were not chosen at random, but in a sort of  "Barfield-Lite" telegraphing of which bikes would be tested was being sent to DS in advance. 

    What motor testing was at the Giro for the women ?  If it was iPads then ok - lip service.  If it was nothing then it is like the wild west - lawless.  That is where we were 20 years ago with the Festina tour. Soigneurs were driving vans full of EPO around becasue riders wanted to max out on it, because there was no test.  Why stop when the race organisers and UCI were not looking for EPO and the only threat was if some random French Police guy stopped you as you crossed a border.  Next to zero chance of that !  So they all doped.

    Now I am not suggesting the women's peloton are all on e-bikes, the incentive for the majority is negligable - they are not going to win anything and no-one is paying anything much and that is one hell of a step to take to move up from 112th position to 43rd. All those logistics of getting the motor into the bike and making sure the bike is available at the right time and place.  This is not a one person operation or something to ask the (doctor-EPO)mechanic-motor to do, as he is doing it all the time and has a briefcase full of motors you can clip onto your bike for the day needed.  No it obviously does not work like that. 

    But a single rider 2 28 up when virtually the whole of the rest of the field are at gaps of seconds is not a natural spread.

    OK so let's park that up.  Perhaps Lucas can tell us what checks for motors were in place at the women's Giro. 

    Topic two  - what the heck was Vos doing.  8 min 93 down in that ITT  43rd place.  She tried in a couple of bunch sprints but did not win and then got a single stage win from a 3 up group.  Now that is the profile of a clean rider.  But then she promptly does not start the day after her stage win.  This isn't a happy bunny, this is an individual, a rider who is hurting, hurting real bad.  So bad that getting what she could get from the race, she then ran off home.   We don't know what is going on but it is not natural behaviour.

    There are now a number of episodes relating to Marianne Vos that appear to be beyond explanation.  The broken rib, the pulled muscle and all sorts of other stuff.  but hey this is women's sport and women's sport as the OP stated, get's a magic pass.  Telling porkies and passing off the most extra-ordinary facts with some cock&bull story that does not pass first muster, is all part of the scene.


    We know for a fact that darling dearest Lizzy Wizzy told the most awesome porkers whilst she was waiting to go to all the pain of travelling to CAS for what - 20 minutes of introduction and nearly an attempt at starting to hear the evidence before the Tribunal Panel Member selected by our bulwark - UKAD - Yes our man over there looking after the interests of all clean atheltes as we know UKAD do - thought enough time had passed to be decent and he could now throw in the towel and tell the other two panel members that he did not support the UKAD claim and they could all wrap it all up right then and spend a few minutes filling in their expense claims before meeting in the bar prior to lunch.  Well blow me down with a feather, if it hadn't been for that nasty guy telling all the world about Lizzy telling porkies about leaving the Giro and missing the GB National Championships becasue she was training specifically for Rio, Lizzy could have been back at home at Monaco sharing tales with her bestest mate Tiff - you know the one who when she broke up with boyfriend Richie Porte, suddenly got enough money to get herself a flat.  So generous of LRP that to his ex.  Well Lizzy could have shared thoughts with BFFL(I kid you not - it is in her book) Tiff about which magazine deal to have at her wedding for "Gold Medalist of Rio marries fellow delightful pro Deignan".   We know all of that gets by the press becasue, well, the press are not looking.

    So Marianne continues to do strange stuff and no one bats an eyelid.  And back to our girl of the moment - AVV.  Well 20 years on from Festina - one of the fall outs from that was the ceasation of Dutch team TVM as their involvement in doping became public.  Oh yes, Miss Van Vleuten started her career with the good Marianne over at DBS.  Yes DBS with its senior director then, who is still with Marianne now - Jeroen Blijlevens.  Yes the guy who never doped.  They guy who when Dutch Cycling ran an inquiry into Doping - not quite "truth and reconcilliation" but "truth"  told the Dutch Cycling authorities, just like the good national coach for British cycling told Parliament when asked the same question - no I have never seen any PEDS and I have never used them.  Well Jeroen, that was a bit of a turn up, someone asking for those results of the 1998 samples to be made public.  It rather blew a hole in that "I never dun anything guv - honest" stuff. 

    But it did allow Jeoen to show quite how much he despises the fans of the sport and use the nice cliche "I only doped then - afterwards I rode without dope".  Yes like so many other dopers - your career highs followed that time of doping.  If only you had known - doping slows you down and you would ride better without it, like Froome's mentor Julrich having all his best results after that one time some nasty men encouraged him to use dope, Jeroen you could have had other years like your stella, career toping 1999. 

    I think you will have worked out what I think.  L'equipe is currently running a story saying Cookson at the UCI arranged for two French rider's positives to be brushed under the carpet. I think in the women's peloton a few riders know that they are too big to fall.  The silent ban, the wierd punishment - Jennie Longo riding 30 mins ahead of the peloton each day at the Tour Fem in the 90's when she was meant to be "having time out trying for a baby" - well it sounds sort of convincing doesn't it.  Will we ever find out the truth?  Well Longo has waltzed off into the sunset.  So here's looking to you girls - A VV, Vos, Armistead and Bronzini.  I think you know the game.  The guys at the top of the sport - eunuchs.

    Back home in Holland Femke is asking - why me ?   

    Well darling, you see if something somewhere needs to be described as clean, something else, that virtually no one cares about, needs to be shown to be dirty.  We need something to make people think that anti-doping works.  Femke - nobody cares about you, look your family nick parrots, your brother did epo, its best you don't hang around cycling.   Women's sport is about nice people, not people like you.   
  • ReplyReply

  • LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 10999
    • Liked: 6880
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #122 on: July 28, 2018, 22:48 »
    Perhaps Lucas can tell us what checks for motors were in place at the women's Giro. 
    I did not see anyone check bikes for motors (iPads or otherwise), but then I didn't actively look for it as I was more than busy interviewing people etc. I also didn't hear anyone say that there were categorically no checks for motors.

    Topic two  - what the heck was Vos doing.  8 min 93 down in that ITT  43rd place.  She tried in a couple of bunch sprints but did not win and then got a single stage win from a 3 up group.  Now that is the profile of a clean rider.  But then she promptly does not start the day after her stage win.  This isn't a happy bunny, this is an individual, a rider who is hurting, hurting real bad.  So bad that getting what she could get from the race, she then ran off home.   We don't know what is going on but it is not natural behaviour.
    What makes you say she is hurting real bad, and that this isn't natural behaviour? Losing nine minutes in the mountain TT makes perfect sense if she had earmarked the next day for a possible stage win.
    According to what people told me (and the world), after that stage win, she was ill the morning of the Zoncolan stage. Why would she put herself through the suffering of riding up that, just to finish 50th or so (or even worse), instead of taking a couple of days off and get that illness out of her system?
    Of course you could say that the illness itself was only an excuse - but then you're into territory where you don't believe anything some people say, just because they say it.
  • ReplyReply
  • Cyclingnews Women's WorldTour Correspondent
    2017 0711|CYCLING PR Manager; 2016 Stölting Content Editor
    Views presented are my own. RIP Keith & Sean

    Drummer Boy

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 2118
    • Liked: 2375
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #123 on: July 28, 2018, 23:25 »
    As one of the key suspects in the Stade 4 documentary - Roglic rode himself onto and then off the podium at the Tour this week

    Wrong sub-forum, I know, but...he was?
  • ReplyReply

  • riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 290
    • Liked: 289
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #124 on: July 29, 2018, 10:11 »
    I did not see anyone check bikes for motors (iPads or otherwise), but then I didn't actively look for it as I was more than busy interviewing people etc. I also didn't hear anyone say that there were categorically no checks for motors.
    What makes you say she is hurting real bad, and that this isn't natural behaviour? Losing nine minutes in the mountain TT makes perfect sense if she had earmarked the next day for a possible stage win.
    According to what people told me (and the world), after that stage win, she was ill the morning of the Zoncolan stage. Why would she put herself through the suffering of riding up that, just to finish 50th or so (or even worse), instead of taking a couple of days off and get that illness out of her system?
    Of course you could say that the illness itself was only an excuse - but then you're into territory where you don't believe anything some people say, just because they say it.

    Lukas - I admire where you are and wish I was with you.  Your answer was in the next part you wrote.  She's got all she was going to get and a serial winner, not being able to win is a hell of place to be. 

    I am the arch skeptic, I love cycle road racing but  I have been turned into a skeptic by the cynical way the DS, riders and specialist media treat the fans.  We are treated like fodder, expected to back the sport and thus reward the sponsors, regadless of what drivel they come up with to excuse the doping.

    Look back at my posts about silent bans. I felt they existed, but I couldn't point to a single one and say - yeaah for a fact rider A had a silent ban from January 2003 to December 2004 from Nat Fed B.  I just could not see any rational explanation for what I observed and in some cases what I observed was what I heard as hearsay.  When in 2016 Lizzi was coming out with what we now know are a pack of lies and lies that were supported by her team managment who must have known why she was gone, I did not have a single thought that she was lying and was on a silent ban. 

    I, the arch skeptic, the single pesrson on this forum arguing that silent bans existed, did not think that Lizzi was on a silent ban.  I believed her excuses.  They did not make any sense and seemed to not tally with how a ratioinal person would behave, but I did not think she was on a silent ban waiting to go to CAS.  Lying is second nature to these people.  It is so easy because, in the mind of those telling us the lies, we the fans, do not count.   

    I understand it is so easy from ardent fans who follow cycling long term, who understand the male peloton dopes, to give the women a free pass.  That dichotomy is why this thread was started.  A good number of the women riders understand that and take full advantage of it.  They know their lies will not be subject to any scrutiny - there is not a female version of digger holding the riders, management and press to account. 

    Vos clearing off after her stage win would be exactly what she would want to do.  There are no more chances for a win, why put herself through the misery of watching an ex team mate win ?  And my point was - how weird was that TT win.  There are performances we are seeing that are very difficult to explain.  I asked the question about motor checks.  If they are not done then it is the wild west.  It was in 1998.
  • ReplyReply

  • LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 10999
    • Liked: 6880
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #125 on: July 29, 2018, 13:15 »
    And my point was - how weird was that TT win.  There are performances we are seeing that are very difficult to explain.  I asked the question about motor checks.  If they are not done then it is the wild west.  It was in 1998.
    Someting else came to my mind about the mountain TT: Van Vleuten was the only one, in the whole peloton, who used a TT bike. That could explain some of the gap. Add to it that she's the ITT #rainbow and based herself on Teide for half of June to train.

    This doesn't mean that I am 100% convinced she doesn't have a motor and doesn't dope.
    I simply don't know, one way or the other.
    But seeing how she demolished the competition also on the final two stages, the 'official' explanations of how she won the Giro make sense to me.
    In addition, she was so visibly joyful and over the moon in Cividale. I know, that in itself doesn't have to mean anything - good people cheat, too. But if I had just cheated my way to winning the only women's Grand Tour, I'd have that nagging thought in the back of my head all the time that stopped me from thoroughly enjoying it.
    Maybe I'm just too honest to be a pro cyclist. ;)
  • ReplyReply

  • riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 290
    • Liked: 289
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #126 on: August 02, 2018, 09:23 »
    One of the few things going for women's cycling was the lack of money meant not too many dopers hung around after their careers.  The Saturn team run in the late 90's early turn of the century was a time when male and female dopers mixed and it was this women's team that clearly wrote on the wall "you can only win in this sport if you dope".  The test for EPO was not present and with the likes of Levi Leiphiemer, Chris Horner, Michael Barry and a pile of other male dopers in Saturn were matched by the female riders Anna Wilson,Petra Rossner & Dede Barry, it was one unholy mess.  Ino Yono Tuetenberger joined this snake pit of a team 2001 and was an excellent fit as her career took off.  She and Dede then both moved to Telekom.

    This is like having a Zabel, who has yet to be exposed as a doper, as your mentor - just like Cav

    For Tuetenberg I always looked at her and thought she was the poster girl for "dope hard, dope often".  In La Petite Reine there is a scene were, during a stage race, Jeanson enters another room in the hotel where other riders are staying and there is a drug fuelled, lesbian party going on with syringes all over the place and I think of Teutenberg and ex East German doper Petra Rosner with a few other Italian riders thrown in the mix.  It is a shocking scene and is there to sort of illuminate the point Floyd made - how could anything I do devalue cycling - it is a pile of steaming sh*t.   The scene has Jeanson witnessing one of the riders high on social drugs injecting herself with PEDs.  When I saw it I had a vision of that was a Team Saturn room.

    when Rossner retired I remember thinking that was one of the most serious dopers gone but it was just like the baton was passed to fellow countryman Teutenberg.  "Why don't use dope ?" The controls on the women's circuit at the time were really lax. 

    So why would she come back ?  Well obviously it is the increased money in the sport.  This is why I was asking about motor testing in the women's peloton, if only the barest minimum of PED testing is being conducted on the women's peloton  and virtually no motor testing or just using those pathetic iPads then it truly is the wild west, exactly as it was for the men in the mid to late 90s.   Remember we had even Lizzie Armitstead moaning before her exposure in 2016 that so many of her rivals for Rio were not on a blood passport tracking system. 

    No, this is the most serious bad news.  In the lawless town in the west, the cowboy in the black hat who was last seen 5 years ago has just ridden back into town.  This is the female equivalent of Riis or Vino returning to the sport.

    Bad, bad news.  What the hell are Trek doing ?
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: August 03, 2018, 08:54 by riding too slowly »

    riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 290
    • Liked: 289
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #127 on: August 02, 2018, 09:36 »
    Sh1t it gets worse.  I saw prior to Rio 2016 that doper Dede Barry was part of USA Cycling's selection and management panel for the USA women's road team.  Then I see in that Trek presser the following:

    "Teutenberg stepped away from the world of competitive cycling for a year to give herself space and time to refind her passion. She returned in 2015 in a temporary directing role with USA Cycling, guiding the junior women’s and men’s program in Europe, and is currently co-directing the women’s Rally Cycling Team in the USA."

    OK so that was some sort of mash up between old team mates Barry and Tuetenberg of the same sort that Sutton would do with Cav, Thomas and more lately Armitstead where you get them to Europe with one of your old team-mates who doped really seriously and knows how to groom the right riders and pee off the riders who have some morals. 

    Loving this bit "With over 200 victories to her name and one of the most decorated and renowned woman cyclists in history,"

    Now fixed "With over 200 victories to her name and one of the most decorated and renowned dopers in the history of women's cycling".    There, that has a better ring of authenticity about it.
  • ReplyReply

  • riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 290
    • Liked: 289
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #128 on: August 02, 2018, 10:04 »
    OK so that was not so quick of me.  Lizzie Armitstead, the girl who wrote in her book that had not been out for 12 months that she would never have a baby and then try and return to cycling,  is riding with Trek so the girl who had the silent ban is teaming up with prolific doper Teutenberg.   Wow, just wow wow wow.

    Women's cycling is entering a nose dive.
  • ReplyReply

  • riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 290
    • Liked: 289
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #129 on: August 02, 2018, 17:51 »
    It is like a dopers' fest convention.  It is as easy to spot the dopers as when Sutton first got into trouble.

    https://twitter.com/lizziedeignan/status/1024985543044722688

    One of the most doped up riders the peloton has ever seen.
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 7984
    • Liked: 6611
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #130 on: August 02, 2018, 19:33 »
     
    I understand it is so easy from ardent fans who follow cycling long term, who understand the male peloton dopes, to give the women a free pass.  That dichotomy is why this thread was started.  A good number of the women riders understand that and take full advantage of it.  They know their lies will not be subject to any scrutiny - there is not a female version of digger holding the riders, management and press to account. 

    I don't want to speak on behalf of others but, for me at least, it's not that I give the women riders a free pass, it's has more to do with ignorance about the history, names and rumours to comment. And this proves your point.

    Stuff didn't used to stick in the mind until fairly recently because the coverage was all but non-existent. I look back now and I think the first televised women's race I remember seeing for any decent length of time was as recently as the Florence Worlds.

    What do we ever read or hear about it? From this distance, Jeanson's plight or positives like Bastianelli's or Calle's, they look like a bunch of unrelated blips across an otherwise fairly empty timeline and, far from alerting us, these events are followed by such a lack of scrutinising interest.

    Everyone's responsible for that situation in a way, I guess, but the women's scene is that much more compact and presumably the omertà is that much stronger, as well as the opportunities for unofficial controls of the sort you mention above. It doesn't get out except in rare or extreme circumstances.

    Some folks have contacted me privately about why I don't "do" women on the website but what can I tell them? Either there are hardly any incidents (probably inaccurate) or else there are often hardly any sources to substantiate them (proven fact). Nobody would never presume to suggest that doping started or stopped with Armstrong but there are enough sources out there to richly prove it, a seemingly endless timeline of activity. But what happens when the Deignan story drops? What conclusions can you draw with certainty?

    One measure, one marker that will emphasise the popularity and sustainability of women's cycling, that it's truly "here to stay" in our perceptions, is that we'll get to hear about more positive tests, disqualifications and open secrets. I can hear Lukas sharpening his pencil... :D
  • ReplyReply
  • Cycling is a Europe thing only and I only watch from Omloop on cause I am cool and sh*t
    RIP Craig1985 / Craig Walsh
    RIP KeithJamesMc / Keith McMahon / Larry Sarni

    riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 290
    • Liked: 289
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #131 on: August 02, 2018, 21:35 »
    L'Arri, I really apreciated your reply.  That gave me a view to a different perspective, which I well understand.  We know on the men's side that we join the dots, more of the line is missing than present. 

    La Petite Reine is a film everyone who has an interest in doping in cycling should watch.  The dodgy doctor, the inept parents, the abusive coach, the rider who has no compass.  It is a compelling tale.
  • ReplyReply

  • riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 290
    • Liked: 289
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #132 on: August 14, 2018, 09:15 »
    OK so we know one of the problems with sport is the paucity of journalists.  The Tom Fordyces of this world whose fandom traits mean they are incapable of any sort of perspective on their subject.  Cycling Weekly are on an ever spiralling circulation path, down at around 22,000 per week when not so long ago they were 50% more and up at over twice that and more, before the internet.  So they are now striking out into territory new to them - women's cycling.  Instead of lipservice they have a dedicated female writer on their staff. 

    So will this shape up any different to Fotheringham or Fordyce or will it be the same sort of pap they generate ?

    Here is the first on the Lizzie comeback https://subscription.cyclingweekly.com/news/lizzie-deignan-concerned-future-career-trek-team-offer-391019#EIse6RqAwhbrIJPF.99

    OK so we have Tuetenberg referenced and this poor little ingenue is not going to know about the fearsome doping reputation of Tuetenberg by word of mouth.  Perhaps a modicum of common sense might be - lots of wins- a sport renowned for doping - lots of doping going on - perhaps treat with a little caution.  But what the hell, the author is no better or worse than Fotheringham and the like and all that common sense stuff is waltzed by as if it didn't exist.  OK we can cut a pass on that, it is the same old......

    But let's get to women's matters, something that should chime bells in every female of child-bearing age in relation to sport - having a baby.  So this is the big deal when talking to Lizzie.  Now at least we should get something of substance.  What do we get ?

    Lizzie “It wasn’t something I ever considered before, becoming a mum while being a cyclist or the potential of returning to professional sport as a mother."   And so it goes on.  Lizzie just does a complete 180.

    It very much was something she considered and in her book she comes out with a whole section with some very definite opinions on it.  Becasue remember Lizzie in the book, before it had to be re-written to explain her missed tests, Lizzie was the "good" control freak, the person who managed every little detail of her whole life, and this is why she was such a sports star, such a winner, becasue she had both "marginal gains" and "control".  Like booking her band for her wedding and making sure she wipped every bit of evidence off her twitter account and any tweets that were incriminating before she hit the "sob-story" button, "Phil's dad was so poorly , I just couldn't think".  Yes you could darling and you did. The only thing that screwed over your whitewash was the screen shot the booking agent took of your tweet.  Without that your deception would have been complete.

    Anyway in the book there is a whole section saying that the "queen of control" was going to finish her career and then have kids and no way could she bring up a child and race that would be so bad, she would be a bad mother if she did that.  The "queen of cycling" was going to be the "queen of mothers" and devote herself to her children. 

    So you would think that the single female journalists in cycling in the UK would read the book of the number one female UK rider and be up on what she had committed herself to before. 

    So we see here the confidence Lizzie has in just flippping it 180 and jumping on the Serena bandwagon.  She knows she will not be challenged such is the paucity of the journalism.  In fact it is not journalism but rather just a means of promulgating the press releases from the stars of the sport to promote the latest version of their images - without question or analysis.

    I really think that women's cycling is at a cross roads.  The likes of Teutenberg returning, the total lack of analysis and any sort of retrospective analysis by the journalists who have been around long enough to witness US Postal and Sky, because they have no interest in women's cycling and the fact that those who will write about it, are new to the sport and have just bought into the myth is bad news.  It does mean that far more so than for the men, the current field of play for the women is so much more open for foul play, not only doping but silent bans and bought finishes.  Who is to know that rider xx took a dive in the last seconds of the 9th to get up in the next, stagger around for a bit and then deliver the knockout in the last 20 seconds ?  No one suspects because no one knows how the race should unfold based on historic comparative performances of the riders on the parcours available.  No expert analysis exists, only cheerleading and nonsense.

    It is classic commecial sporting opportunity.  And yes I am talking about La Course.  On the line.  How could she do that ?  Wow - women's racing is the best cycle racing ever.  Loads better than the men.  Did you see that?

    Did anyone read anything along those lines recently?  Van Vleuten wins the Giro leaving just a trail of scorched earth in her wake.  How many column cms of press coverage did that dominant performance garner ?  Van Vleuten catches rival metres before the finish and wins, gets loads more.  It works.  They fall for it every time. 

    So back to Lizzie................

    Imagine if Lizzie, reigining World Champion (how wierd was that race she won ?) and silver in London, had won at Rio.  What would it have done to sponsorship money coming into the sport ?  And remember at that stage we were pre "fancy-bears" and "jiffygate" so it would have gone crazy.  English speaking media, sponsorship and interest would have all wanted to dive in.  A chance to tick the "we have gender equity in sponsorship"  box on the corporate sport marketing plans.   Now when we get to hang out and do selfies on the training camps with the male riders we have a ready excuse when those feminist crazies ask us what we are doing for the sport  for the people who actually buy our product - the women.

    No it could well have been a complete game changer for women's cycling and with people like Gilmore influencial amongst key riders and teams and highly likely to know a number of the dark secrets of the Italians (Bronzini and co were on her team, she just had to know) and Dutch, maybe a "fixed Lizzie win in Rio" was a compact that had been "signed up to" by all likely to influence the result.  It was going to be good for them all. 

    I am already smelling a rat about the World Champs in Yorkshire 2019.
      Is this a 2nd chance for fixed win like Rio 2016?  OK its not the Olympics but it rebuilds the reputation of the female star who has not had her "twice over the limit of Salbutemol sir - no problem sir, we will just strike that one off your record and put the official WADA stamp at the bottom of the page" moment of redemtion.  And rebuilding her reputation does wonders for everyone else.  "See we are all cleans here, the sisterhood doing it all together.  Its them nasty men who dope.  We is cleans." 

    I think in the period 2012 to 2015 we saw some very weird women's world road race championships.  I think the results were staged/fixed in some way. No cabal would have control of all the riders or even the majority of the riders, but with knowledge of doping and risk of exposure held as the blackmail card, I think 8 or 10 key riders could be controlled and forced into a pact of best communal interest.

    Only the most cynical would dream of inviting a rider like Teutenberg back.  Right now women's cycling appears to be headed to a very dark place. 

    Go on, prove me wrong.  When in the final stages of a climb does a rider drop the rest and get a lead and then blow up and get caught on the line ? In the last decade how many times have we seen that at a stage finish for the men ?

    "And after being on the floor in the previous round................"

  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 11:10 by riding too slowly »

    L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 7984
    • Liked: 6611
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #133 on: August 14, 2018, 09:48 »
    Curious to see how Deignan performs when she returns. It's a long road back.
  • ReplyReply

  • riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 290
    • Liked: 289
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #134 on: September 08, 2018, 11:56 »
    Well we have never seen a break in the omerta so this is about as far as anyone currently on the inside can go in making a public statement -  Van Vleuten is doping too much.

    https://cyclingtips.com/2018/08/the-shecret-pro-van-vleutens-super-july-and-that-wiggle-high5-video/

    “But the latest and greatest news in the racing world is without a doubt Annemiek van Vleuten smashing the Giro Rosa and then preceding to (narrowly) win (but still frankly smash) La Course just a day after completing the gruelling 10-day Giro! Watching her fight all the way to the line at La Course gave me goosebumps … goosebumps made of a mix of “holy sh*t that was epic”, “holy sh*t how did she do that?” and “holy sh*t is that real?”

    “Unfortunately, there’s always that question circulating in the peloton, thanks to the convicted dopers who have made us eternal skeptics. Cheers Lance and co! When someone smashes the rest of us like that, are they clean?

    “I don’t know the answer for sure. “


    Give the somewhat “beige” nature of past posts from the SHEcret pro this is quite a step.  Certainly the collective ill feeling amongst the writer’s circle of friends must have created a strong motive to use her platform over at ellacyclingtips to put something into the public forum, as it would be far easier to have made no reference to such musings and avoid the topic altogether.  When I put that passage into google translate selecting “omerta-speak” to English I get “Van Vleuten’s doping program is way better than anyone else’s and the gap is too big for the punters not to notice.  Step it back girl – let some of the others win”.

    I particularly liked the "narrowly" and "still frankly smash" wording in brackets.  They both mirror what I said upthread - the pro wrestler took two counts on the canvass in the 9th only to get up in the 10th and win.

    OK I am leaving that there with my emboldened section as the key message as I make another SEPARATE point on the SHEcret pro blog before making a third which is what caused me to write today.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: September 08, 2018, 19:00 by riding too slowly »

    riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 290
    • Liked: 289
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #135 on: September 08, 2018, 19:08 »
    Right - phew - it is a long read - sorry.  I developed another part of the SHEcret pro's post and found I needed to explain more and more to get to any level where it made a cohesive narrative and did not look like the ramblings of a lunatic.  Here goes .....

    OK so my next point is a section of text from the SHEcret pro that again mirrors my musings some weeks ago over on the women’s section.

    In the same piece she calls out Rochelle Gilmour and her story on the demise of Team Wiggle as pure BS. 

    “Ok, so straight up: I don’t buy that angle at all. What Rochelle rightly won’t mention was that there was a lot of drama surrounding the team (again) this year. If she wanted to take a step back, why not look for someone else to add to her 14 full time staff members (for 17 riders?!) I think there’s a lot more to it than simply “I want to live a normal life”. Maybe jump in one of the team’s 26 cars and enjoy a holiday somewhere?”


    Again, key is the motivation to record the level of detail she gives here.  Lukas can correct me with the latest info but staff numbers on women's teams is always an issue and it creates an unspoken anger amongst the female riders.  They race and because their races are shorter, they get criticism that they are doing "less of a day’s work” than their male equivalants.  The counter is that whilst, even from neo-pro on the men's circuit, the rider barely has to do little more than train and race with all logistics looked after by non-racing staff, this is an experience that only one or two riders on the women's circuit had the luxury of through to the appearance of the big budget teams Vos rode in or Hitech women's team or more lately Wiggle. 

    Most teams require riders to take it in turns driving the vehicles back from races after they have raced – sometimes a 15 hour journey straight after a race with riders driving in 2 hour sessions.  Luggage has to be shifted and a single mechanic might do the bulk of the maintenance but non-racing riders or riders who packed early get drafted in to clean bikes and be general dogs-bodies.  Back at base, cooking and cleaning are part of a routine for riders after or prior to training  as well as helping out with all manner of other jobs, such as booking hotels and flights.  As in any walk of life, where there is a measure of the communal unspoken-unspecified tasks to be completed.  The competent get more than their fair share of this burden and those who make a mess of it a couple of times, get to do less and management never address the issue.    Therefore for some, the competent, this issue generates a real source of frustration.  Throw in a male manager with a "roving eye" and a pretty little thing who does nothing other than flutter her eyes at the boss, or perhaps more, and there is a powerful cocktail that has no good effect. 

    That section from the SHEcret pro was a real "FU" to Rochelle and Wiggle. 

    Always those on the teams where there might just be one manager, who is perhaps also holding down another part time job and a single mechanic who is "on loan" from a bike shop as duties demand and perhaps just one or two "enthusiasts" who show up on race day to hand up bottles and biddons, cast envious eyes at the likes of the top two teams or Wiggle.   The thought is not "Can I ride for that team" but rather "why can't the money that comes into the sport be more equitably spread around, shouldn't there be so sort of "baseline threshold" that all teams have to pass before being allowed onto the circuit so that riders from the lesser teams are not so disadvantaged before they even get to the start line."   


    When in 2013 people got excited about Cookson possibly taking over the presidency from McQuaid you will recall I was pouring cold water on any idea that he might somehow prove beneficial for the sport.  He made his promises about women's cycling and then selected people like Rochelle to go on his women's commission to oversee “improvements”.

    Well in that big "FU Rochelle" from the SHEcret pro you got exactly what the issue was with putting people like Rochelle in positions of influence.  They suck it all out for themselves and screw over those whose interests they are allegedly looking after. And Cookson is exactly that type of person and selects exactly that type of person to be around him and operate with him.  Which is why in 2013 I was a lone voice advising that Cookson would do no good, he simply happened to be in the right place when UKSport stated handing out sacks of free money to sports that had someone who could put a sentence together with more than 6 words in it confirming that it was a good idea to give them a sack of free money. 


    Again after using google translate I got the following as what the SHEcret pro wrote.  "F*** Y** Rochelle, that is a complete load of BS.  On the women's scene you have the biggest budget and what did you do with it ? Whilst most teams have only 1 full time staff member you had 14.  Whilst most only have 2 cars and a 2nd hand camper you have a fleet (and remember how you poached the vehicle sponsor from another team when the manager was dull enough to put you in charge of managing that contact for his team?) You had the biggest squad of riders and I will admit - you paid them the highest salaries in the peloton and yet despite all of these advantages - still they did not perform. And now, when playing with your "toy" no longer amuses you, you are walking away with some BS excuse that garners you more false praise as one of the "saviours"  of our sport. 

    The reality was that Rochelle was really expert at spotting the position to exploit and the "first layer" analysis by the SHEcret pro whilst good, does not take us to the dark side in the lower layers, it simple describes the symptoms those lower layers created. 

    There were three elements contributing to make the situation she exploited. 

    In 2012/13 as she formed her team we have to remember that BC and Sky were joined with common management in all key positions taking two salaries and all manner of mixed responsibilities.  Cookson and the new to be CEO of BC, Ian Drake, were the only two on the Board of Directors of the holding company for Team Sky with any knowledge of cycling.  The fact that these same two advised and approved the professional and management links at both the Team Sky end of the deal and at the BC end of the deal, at both ends, at the highest level, meant that there was no oversight.

    Drake displayed to the public what those close to the administration of the sport knew for many years prior to his appointment as CEO, in his one TV intereview with Dan Roan of the BBC.  He was mincemeat.  The CEO had no idea that his National Coach was also on the payroll of Team Sky and receiving £200,000 a year for being so, at a time when the links between Sky and BC were all meant to have been severed some years earlier and they were meant to be operating as two totally autonomous operations.  A non-cycling journalists had managed to find out what the CEO of BC was paid to make sure did not happen but did not know.  The reality was that Drake was a patsy used by those around him.  Brailsford Cookson, Sutton and King (outgoing CEO) had put into place an idiot who would not dig up any of their buried secrets, and could be a useful fall guy if ever any of the sh1t started to hit the fan.  That Drake had a nervous breakdown and walked as soon as the Sutton story started to break reinforces the reality.

    So that leaves only a single person capable of any intellectual thought, with experience of cycling, on that BC-SKY upper tier of management - Cookson.

    In Jan 2011 the "Team Sky" gravy train that had been in construction post 2008 Beijing, left the station with so many vested interests having booked their sleeper cabins on this intercontinental leviathan it is easy to understand that it has so many fans around it who cannot see the stark staring obvious.  Of course there were all those towards to the top tier at BC pulling out a 2nd salary, often way bigger than that BC was able to justify from Lottery funding. This was their payback for all their silence.  Cookson doing selfies in his Sky kit, getting his son a job on the payroll were all small beer but point at the feeling on the train.  At another low level, look at 2011 and Simon Cope.  He might be British Women's Road National Coach but f*ck that, if Sutton wanted him to courier out a small jiffy bag for Brad, hell, he was there in a  shot and could screw over the Lottery expense system whilst he was doing so with fictitious hotel claims and train tickets - after all - who was the boss signing off the expenses? 

    But key to all of this was "marginal gains - rounder wheels and fluffed pillows - it all adds up".  This required a complicit and compliant press.  They needed tickets to the deluxe sleeper cabins on the train as well.  And that is exactly what they were given.  Before 2008 there was barely a book about British cyclists released per decade.  Now any old story can be re-hashed and re-wrapped as well as all the new ones and barely a week seems to go by without some new book being released.  Newspaper articles by the score, anyone who knew the language of cycling and could pass themselves off as an "expert" got a very good reward.  Go online and look at the plaudits those three stooges who do the podcast get - Moore Birnie and Friebe get !  Watch a race and then listen to their analysis.  It is like listening to some 13 year olds trying to analyse the economy.  They haven't got a clue.  But they could and can get away with it because their audience know no more.  Their audience is a public, ignorant in understanding but desperate to find out about this magic elixir of success. Beyond any of the specialist press perhaps Matthew Syed in the UK has been supreme in exploiting the ignorance and gullibility of the audience.  If ever you feel low, go and have a look at some of the replies to his twitter feed.  Yes, there really are some very stupid people out there.  The press needed this gravy train to succeed every bit as much as Cookson Brailsford and Sutton.

    Now by August 2012, the train had long since left the station, seemingly picked up speed without hesitation to the script of a super master plan and post the London Olympics it was set fair.  The Tour had been won and not only was there a British winner but with Chris Froome there was a line of succession already in place.  World domination was assured as testified by the Team GB domination on the track cycling events.  All was going well.  Surely this was not another cycling success story built on a web of lies ?  This was Tommy Atkins eventually coming through now all them nasty doping johnny foreigners were sorted out.  Well that's what the press wrote from their cabins on the gravy train.

    Four events aligned to our story then occurred in quick succession and it is Rochelle's ability to spot the trajectory that is key to the SHEcret pro's first layer analysis.

    1 - Sh1T ! The USADA reasoned decision broke in August 2012. It was official, despite Lance's continual denials, successfully upheld in the courts - particularly of the UK, he doped.  This gave voice to the sceptics and presented the press who had given him succour, a problem.  How did they move from "there is no reliable evidence, he never failed a test (believe in the tests - they work), his critics are jealous bitter people" to "we knew all along, believe us, we know more than you".  Suddenly as the public looked around there was a new question that needed an answer - how did Team GB/Sky get to be so good then ?

    2 - More sh1t !  The Track Cycling at London - I will morph two events together because for the critical viewer they both point at the same thing.  The Men’s Team Sprint - the desperate mission for BC management to get their chosen son, Chris Hoy, another gold medal.  A bullying culture maintains itself by having favourites who are not only rewarded but all the others see that they are rewarded.  Wiggins and Hoy are the classics, before them was Boardman. Hindes’ dive in the final and his admission that he dived and that crap commissairing allowed the dive to not be punished, really was dynamite.  A hostile press would have ripped into it.  It was a gold stolen from under the noses of the French team.  For a team trying to portray itself as clean and fair - "if we can't win clean we will not win at all" it really was the exposure of the myth.  This was a team that would not only go up to the line but would deliberately go over the line to get the win.  And to go over the line you needed a fixed jury.  So not only was a myth about the team exploded but also about the way the sport was governed such that its jury at the most important events, was also "bought".   In the individual sprint.  Hoy was history, his only chance of success was that team sprint but what of GBs finest - Kenny.  Kenny was no-where just months before at the World Championships and now - in a matter of months  - he had advanced more than any adult experienced cyclist might expect to advance in a whole career of training in their peak years.  I was astonished at the form shown and was obviously not the only one.  Bauge made a move I am not aware that any athlete was done at any other Olympics in any sport.  The enraged, beaten Olympic finalist went to the victory press conference and started asking some awkward questions.  What the f*ck ?  How did you do that ?   Again a hostile press would have ripped into Kenny and asked some awkward questions.  Then they might have discovered in the vacuum of sane answers a reason how a devious management might exploit a vacuum and that this could occur. Instead the mainstream press looked sideways at the cycling press and the cycling press, looked at the very nice train they were sat on and they decided this was another story, like that of Hindes that they were not going to write about. 

    3  Trivial – oh no its not !   Wendy Houvenaghel left the track and uttered some comments as she went.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/19147279
    Now our fearless specialist cycling press found this was something they could pick up their pens and give full bore to.  As reported, the story could not have been any better for the management if the words of Brasilford, Cookson or Sutton were gilded by that master of spin, the head of winning behaviours at Sky -  Fran Millar herself.  As a consequence, the story, as presented, was trivial and left no lasting impression on the public.  “Wicked, evil, witch Queen Wendy, is not good enough and bold selector and no-nonsense master coach Sutton selects only super team of youngsters to win gold.  Witch Wendy then storms off and as a parting shot makes nasty personal jibes at the lovely group of innocent princesses.”  Well Houvenaghel was totally and universally destroyed by the press and on forums across the cycling world.  To those close to the action the following facts meant darker motives were afoot and the bullying culture had an even darker side.   The 3 young girls who rode that final set a new world record – what’s not to like ?  Well the fact was that with Wendy in the line up in the last few weeks before the games they went even faster.  But the management knew that even without Wendy, the race was won and a new WR would be created.  The management deliberately selected a team that was slower than their best.  Next – management resource given to the women’s TP squad in the cycle 2008 – 2011.  Only public are a few glimpses of how the GB women’s road team was starved of resource.  Why haven’t others spoken out.  On this forum we have debated in the women’s section about the slights made to Cooke and Pooley on the road side in 2011/12.  Of these two, only Cooke has reliably spoken out about the issues but beyond these two there must have been several others similarly disadvantaged.  Why don’t they speak up ?  I have it from an impeccable  source that on the track it was all about the men and Victoria Pendleton of the women getting a lesser, but nonetheless first rate support.  Apparently the women’s TP squad were all but ignored for 3 years and during those three years Houvenaghel was, being the experienced  and more capable individual ( she is qualified as both a doctor and a dentist – a squadron leader in the RAF no less) – organised all the girls training plans and rostas.  And yes – that source also described the relationship as one adult and three fairly unruly adolescents being kept on the straight and narrow by the adult.    Only post those March 2012 World Championships, with things suddenly looking so bleak for Team GB track cycling at London later in the year, did BC management suddenly wake up and take notice and take ownership. 

    From “unwanted child” to “long lost love” in weeks. Sutton and his gang of bullies needed to show who was boss.  If Wendy had no platform to express “My story and how we came to win gold at London 2012”, then so much the better.  Even more cruel for Wendy was the way it was all done.  For London 2012 the rules for medals had been changed.  Instead of golds only going to the riders in the final ride, medals would now be awarded to any rider who rode in any of the two earlier rounds, the qualifier and semi.  With such a clearly dominant squad it would have been easy to give all four riders a run out and get medals for them all.  Surely that would have shown the supreme manager Brailsford and Sutton, as described by Syed and all the creatures of the press on the gravy train, at their magnanimous best.  The reality was this account really signposts to the dark heart of the management of BC during this time.   To those that knew, and a lot did this left BC with a problem.  They knew they had a problem with the female side of the sport.  They had destroyed Houvenaghel completely and destroyed any chance of her story ever becoming public but could they continue to do that ?  Somewhere they would need to turn the issue of how they dealt with women riders, around.  What they did to Houvenaghel was not sustainable in repeat episodes.

    4   The final element also garnered little long term congnisance because of how it was played in the press, in fact it just had one real outlet at the time and a few passing references.   https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/jul/31/lizzie-armitstead-sexism-sportswomen-olympics 
    Now Lizzie is like Wiggins, Hoy & Boardman, one of the chosen ones.  The chosen stay on message.  Somewhere, she was not “minded”  or “briefed” on how to handle questions on this topic.  A quick platitude or non-committal support for women’s issues would have sufficed.  But even though within the sporting press the cycling specialists gave it no oxygen, this account broke out and hit a wider public theme – the adverse way sports administration deals with gender issues.  Suddenly this was an issue in cycling that barely needed to be touched and it would blaze up again.

    And crucially, what that little play from Lizzie did was to open the door everyone at BC management thought had been slammed  shut on one individual, just as effectively as a door had just been slammed shut on Houvenaghel.  It gave credence to the principle character of evil, the prime witch, a position held for over a decade and whose evil persona had all manner of false stories put about her.  Stories that had been burnished, honed and regularly polished with every imagined personal character trait translated to “fact” by Cookson Brailsford and Sutton throughout that decade.  Cooke said BC were sexist and had been doing so throughout that time.  2012 was not her swansong as she had been marginalised for several years by the BC press machine and a specialist media now travelling on the same train, but it was closure on her career.  BC were eventually rid of her.  Now here was a chosen child going off message with “yes they are sexist” that might allow Cooke back in. 

    And Rochelle spotted the weakness and went for it in a flash.  Questions were being asked – where is the Team Sky for women?  Why didn’t Team GB have something to help the women riders ?    Didn’t Team GB have a couple of useful women riders – Pooley and Cooke, where are they now?  It is not that no one dared to ask why the World TT champ  of 2010, a specialist on hilly course, the home rider and 2008 Olympic silver medallist was given a course that particularly played to her rivals strengths and to her weakness, all so there was a flat course for Wiggins.  It was that no one thought to ask.  Pooley, like Cooke didn’t count they were both irrelevant according to the myth.  But where to next with the myth ?  If it stayed static, parked up, anyone could jump in the cab and drive it off.  It needed a narrative.  Rochelle knew that.

    So the three things were a) Lance’s exposure asked all sorts of questions of sporting fairy stories – if it sounds too good to be true – it is probably a lie b) In the public were issues proving that BC/Sky did not go up to the line but crossed it, which if correctly analysed at that moment could probably unravel the fairytale less than 2 years after it started and c)  BC’s problem with the outgoing stock of  elite female riders who, if they co-ordinated their accounts and managed to get them into the public forum could do untold damage to the organisation.  This group needed to be devalued and written out of history.  Underpinning and mutually committed to the promulgation of the lie was a British specialist cycling press. 

    All these parties needed a counter story.  On the men’s side Team Sky could fill the headlines with tales of success and daring do, but on the women’s side and perhaps, as has come to pass, the most likely source of damage to the myth of supreme management capability the world had ever seen – what to do?  BC had shown, even if they attempted to turn their hand to it, they could not run a women’s team, their male coaching staff just were no good at working with women, every coach aspired to work with men and saw it as a sh1t job and used any excuse to get back to working with the boys.  BC needed something set apart from their organisation but which they could claim part glory if it all went well.   

    Rochelle set up her team with the help of British Cycling.  British Cycling were part of the deal, pointing sponsors her way with every bit of vigour in the opposite to four years earlier when they had made sure no sponsors were allowed to get anywhere near Cooke’s team.  They went further.  Brad himself knew he was a chosen child and the crap way the British women were treated.  What better way to assuage his own conscience and scope for those who would criticise him than get a badge “I help women’s cycling”.  That is why he stepped in, not to put his hand in his own pocket, but he did put some of the money from his charity to the team.  Not of course as general expenses, but just to reinforce the omerta, he had his charity pay certain Brit riders on the team a salary to add to the money they had from the Lottery and those sponsors that were team wide such as BP and the like. His “dad” Sutton advised him who to support after all his “dad” knew who could be “trusted”.   A team Wiggle centred on a Brit nucleus and Brit registered, with BC support, sweeping all before them would destroy the criticism that BC did nothing for the British women. 

    But this myth needed to be sold and here again there was a perfect pact.  The specialist cycling journalists did not want to be seen to be asking Sir David Brailsford any difficult questions.  The press knew they had ignored the golden days of the British women in 2008, with Pooley and Cooke taking silver nd gold at Beijing on the road.  They knew they had undersold the exploits of Cooke and Pooley whilst still filling column after column with the comeback of Lance or some other lie.  They wanted that pair buried every bit as much as BC.  What Rochelle virtually invented singlehandedly was their answer.  I didn’t think so until I started researching a few articles of 2012 and 2013 for this piece.  Rochelle invented and then promulgated the story that pre 2012 and Lizzie winning silver, women’s road cycling barely existed.  A few riders gathering together on the odd week-end for the odd race.  “Women’s cycling is growing fast.”  “The women’s professional peloton is getting much stronger”  In place after place and time after time Rochelle spins this narrative.  Year Zero for Women’s professional cycling started in August 2012 – guru Rochelle tells us and she was there so it must be true.

    Of course it suited absolutely everyone on the gravy train.  Any historical criticism is written off – how could you offer parity to the sexes when what existed for the women was so patently nothing but a shadow, not a professional sport ?  Criticism of any “progress” which amounts to tokenism can now be defended as “small first steps as the peloton grows”.  Brailsford uses it to kick down the road any question on forming a women’s Team Sky, with platitudes about watching the growing scene and waiting for the right degree of professionalism to arrive before joining it.  (Professionalism when he is happy for his National Women’s coach to spend his days sitting on a moped pacing Brad rather than doing the day job the public was footing the bill for !)   Cookson can use it to trumpet progress under his watch – the one day La Course  “The inauguration of a first step of a women’s Tour de France” carefully overlooking that during his time as BC rep at the UCI and at one stage head of the Road Commission there, the women’s Tour went from a 16 day stage race to nothing and under his watch BC even turned down two requests by the organiser to have the start in GB.     

    Of course, Rochelle did it all smoothly and covered many bases.  She knew there was a gig for an English speaking ex female pro to do specialist TV commentary.   Anyone else might have blabbed on about the real cycling scene prior to 2012. If Aug 2012 was year zero but you needed a pro who had ridden prior to that, you needed someone who could divert the questions, talk about something else.  In short someone who would lie.  Rochelle got the gig and it suited all around her in the British media that she did so.  It saved them many difficult questions as well.  When the other year the Women’s world road race was run off at a snail’s pace, it needed a voice of authority to lie on the TV commentary.  Rochelle did that superbly, with talk of a “developing peloton” and “growing skill set amongst the elite women riders”.  Nothing about Vos magically being a shadow of what she was after a mysterious 12 months out of the sport or the fact that the Junior world champs of over a decade earlier were run off faster with the elite race being nearly 4km/hr faster. And Cookson needed someone “strong” on his commission to go along with stoolie Tracey Gaudry and make sure it came to the conclusions he needed it to come to.  Who better than someone beholden to his BC for the existence of her team ? 

    In late 2012 Rochelle knew BC/Sky management were in a bind over the way they had treated their female riders  and she played the situation brilliantly to progress her career and wealth.  She did so, not as some ingénue, but as a frequent team-mate of Cooke she must have known exactly how Cooke was sidelined and spun against.  Rochelle did not so much jump on the gravy train but more so jumped into the cab of the train and help drive it. 

    Why was there the problem ?  Well the sport and BC remains endemically sexist.  Whilst on the men’s side there was a never ending stream of raw material from which to select for the omerta.  On the women’s side the circumstances were such that intelligent strong willed individuals were the only ones to survive the crushing misogyny, the rest gave up.  Think – how many people do you know who are qualified doctors, dentists and have held a rank equivalent to squadron leader?  Houvenaghel  and her like were extraordinary people and to destroy them and remove them required extraordinary deviousness and ill will. Cooke and Pooley have both appeared on University challenge.  This is not “chance” evidence.  Now at BC there is a similar feed of female talent to that on the male side and the system will eject the likes of Houvenaghel Cooke and Pooley before they become fixtures.  More compliant and less wilful riders will suffice.   

    Rochelle did not happen on British Cycling by chance.  She knew the problem they had and probably knew the nature of it better than they did, which is why she created  her lasting legacy of the myth of women’s cycling having year zero in August 2012. 

    Separately I might write and analysis of possible reasons why her team failed.  But perhaps not for here.  Right now we are looking at why the SHEcret pro wrote in such scathing terms as she did about Rochelle.  What the SHEcret pro gave us was the top level story; a story that is intriguing because it runs counter to the narrative Rochelle gave us and calls that out as the lie it is.  What I have filled in is the longer term lie and the reason for that lie being created and some of the motives for the position various bodies found themselves in to make telling that lie a convenient exit strategy.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: September 09, 2018, 01:41 by riding too slowly »

    riding too slowly

    • Neo Pro
    • Posts: 290
    • Liked: 289
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #136 on: September 08, 2018, 19:25 »
    Right the final element and why I wrote today.  I will keep this one short and snappy as it is speculation. 

    Vos is resurgent.  How come she has suddenly found her legs ? 

    Well if she was busted and told to lay off the juice she had been a sort-of-ish good girl and not won too much.  Just as the return of Ina Tuetenburg is a red rag to me it will be to any of the pro riders of the time.  If she's back it is the wild west - there are no rules anywhere.  That and AVV going so over the top would drive me to despair.  The symptom is the SHEcret pro calling out AVV and that is a measure of the sense of desperation many in the peloton must be feeling. 


    Now VOS and AVV rode together so it is highly likely theat they both know each other's secrets. Vos would not have had "suspiscions" but more likely know exactly what.  And then seeing tuetenburg rolling over the top of the hill thought, you know what  stuff any "go easy on the juice" deal with Dutch Cycling.  She may well have got wind of some "pass" that AVV has been given somewhere along the track that enables the huge gap between her and the rest of the elite peloton. 

    This is the excuse Vos has used to up her program and go full retard.  [Does anyone not think that G Thomas did not up his program to fill the void created by Froome not being at the Tour ?   How many chances do you get in a career to win the Tour ?  G was fast running out.] 

    I wrote upthread that Tuetenburg coming back was a bad sign.  I think Vos thought somewhat differently.  To her I think she thought it gave her the green light to get back to the good old days.
  • ReplyReply

  • M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1649
    • Liked: 1410
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Women's cycling - Darkside
    « Reply #137 on: September 08, 2018, 19:43 »
    This is true, the amnesia has been surprising with Bastianelli, perhaps because she rode somewhat under the radar and took a few seasons to creep back towards her pre-suspension level.

    I was out of the sport at the time when she rose to prominence - it still amazes me that she's only thirty - and I was only vaguely aware of the case, which was probably one of the last in cycling where different authorities wrestled over jurisdiction.

    But there was this slight sense of unease when I did see her feature prominently. It was quite recently that I finally got around to checking out the story: a positive test for fenfluramine, a stimulant that diminishes appetite. Nothing super tweaky but hardly spotlessly clean either. She blamed her pharmacist at the time but it was, and remains, a banned substance for which the athlete is responsible.

    Fenfluramine. Half of the (in)famous phen-fen combo. An effective weight-loss drug. As you say, hardly spotless, but hardly earth-shattering either.
  • ReplyReply
  • . . .He had the bit between his teeth, and he loiked the taste, mate . . .

     

    * Dark Side Chatbox

    Sorry, this shoutbox does not exist.


    Top
    Back to top