Newsgroup: it.sport.ciclismo
Titolo: Tony Cooke, il padre di una grande campionessa

http://www.veloriders.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=40882&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
Su un forum britannico di ciclismo ho trovato questo intervento del 
padre di Nicole riguardo l'argomento "Would you dope?", ti doperesti?
The ramp for a neo pro is slow and insidious. The pressures are 
enormous. The big picture is lost.
The facets are many. Not least is the mental argument in the head of a 
DS trying to move the sport to a new plain. [I will ignore the corrupt 
DS because that scenario is obvious]. Do I go through the motions of 
telling my riders not to dope or do I actually drive through an 
anti-doping programme with as much vigour and determination as I brought 
to my own training and racing when I was young ? If I do the later, I 
then answer all the questions about using dope myself and must tell them 
that they are going to be tougher and mentally stronger than I was when 
I was in their shoes. I am going to live, for the rest of my life, 
knowing I was pathetic, giving into the pressures I am asking them to 
resist. Now that is something a selection of ex pro riders who doped 
will come to terms with as they develop as human beings. We can all 
empathise with the pressures and the responses of youth. But think of 
the profile of someone who is likely to want to become a DS. I have only 
had conversations of quality with a handful of DS and collectively they 
do not strike me as the type of individuals with egos that will allow 
them to humble themselves in front of their team riders. Consider the 
personality characteristics required to be a DS. I would argue that the 
drug abuse cycle is systemic and that education of the DS via both 
encouragement and punishment routes, is a vital element of achieving 
change.
Big Picture - Why would one do cycle racing ? It is incredibly hard.
To prove oneself ?
Who is stronger ? a) The winner of the World Champs who took dope and 
lives a lie. b) The good journey man, who takes drugs occasionally to 
keep up with the rest but does not juice up to take the big win? c) The 
American lad Nicole came across in Italy. Living a dream. In Europe 
riding for an Italian team and going up the path to glory. He had 
sacrificed his education for his dream. The pressure starts. That was a 
poor result. Can I book you in with the doctor for a health check? 
Everything ok so do you need a little help. The help is help at the 
start but soon "help" is offered. No I don't need that sort of "help". 
Right through to the final page of the book. "Well there it is. I have 
one place on the team. I have two riders for that place. Mr American and 
A N Other. I want you, Mr American, but you cannot compete without 
taking drugs, that is the way of the sport. A N Other takes drugs. What 
is your decision ?" Enough strength of character to go back to the 
States and tell his folks the dream failed and no they will not be 
attending the Champs Elyses on the final day of the Tour to celebrate 
with their son. Well done that lad, I take my hat off to you. d) Let me 
remove the next example from first hand before I get accused of just 
being biased. Charley Mottet. Willy Voets describes his attitude to drug 
abuse to us quite clearly. A rider who gets some big wins but despite 
being the great hope for France in the Tour, he always fails. He carried 
the burden of a Nation, fanatical for the big win and yet resisted. 
Would he have been the greatest of his time ? Of course we cannot know. 
He stuck to his dreams and did not sell his soul. He could not have 
known that years later a customs officer would stop a car and history 
would look on him very differently from the "failure" view taken at the 
end of his career. He made the choice regardless.
What we can be sure about is that this is not a problem without hope. 
There are individuals with enough strength of character to stand firm, 
when those about them have lost resolve, even when we can understand 
those very natural human weaknesses.
But why live the lie ? Cycle recreationally, enjoy the sport. If you 
want to prove yourself being tough and the best by racing, do it, but 
taking drugs. Is that being tough and the best ?
Esasofina. I believe you came from S Africa. I worked there for a couple 
of years. I was astonished when I went in the libraries. They loved 
W.W.II and the role their country played in it. They were obviously so 
proud that when it was darkest, in the early days they stood up, were 
counted and it was obvious which side they were on. They declared 
themselves and committed their country, when they could have bolted for 
cover. They, perhaps uniquely in the Commonwealth or Empire, could have 
declared independence and the UK could have done nothing. Instead the 
showed far more spirit than the USA at the time, and did something. I am 
not saying the War on Drugs in the Tour is like fighting Hitler and the 
concentration camps. What I am saying is that because something is 
endemic or all conquering is not an excuse for no action and forgetting 
the imperative of a moral code. Particularly as that moral code is why 
one does a sport like cycling in the first place. So when Churchill was 
drafting his "we will fight them on the beeches.." speech where was he ? 
He had gone to Paris and was talking with the French government about 
how they were going to fight the campaign in France. How long do you 
think you can hold them up in Paris ? We are not going to defend Paris. 
We do not want Paris harmed. We are going to declare it an open city. 
They did. Churchill flew back and addressed the House of Commons a 
couple of days later. ....this is a war on whose outcome the future of 
mankind rests.... he painted a very gloomy picture, including the 
spectre of Britain being over-run. Paris was not damaged. Many cities in 
the UK were. The South Africans were proud of their folks who flew in 
the Battle of Britain and gave their all elsewhere in that struggle. 
They were proud they understood the nature of the conflict and when 
difficult decisions were required, they made the right call.
Freedom of speech, just one of the benefits. That moral code is vital. 
Comparisons with Tennis and Football are diversions. The skill/endurance 
ratio is completely different. Cycle racing (along with weightlifting 
and wrestling (oh dear what am I saying)) gives the drugs cheats the 
greatest scope.
It is the conflict of the moral code, "why do it if the only way you can 
compete is to cheat ?" that makes it the major story in our papers. 
Where are we going as a society, if we are so sick ? This is a major 
World event in the spotlight of the media and we do not know what we are 
watching. Who is the winner ? Is the Lance story one of the greatest in 
sport or is it a lie ? It is a fantastic mystery that has us all gripped.
There can be no prevarication about the moral code, it is as black and 
white as the example from history above. What we do not want to face up 
to are the responsibilities that come with acceptance of that black and 
white nature. If you need to use drugs to race, you are on the wrong 
side of a clearly defined fence.
Of course Neville Chamberlain had a different view and newsreel footage 
shows the Prime Minister of the day waving his signed piece of paper and 
telling the nation, grateful to be relieved from the burden of the 
consequences otherwise, that this was so. You want people to tell you 
why not to do something ? Yeah, we all need to do drugs, I need to feed 
my children. Rubbish, go and get another job.
I can understand that the footsoldier/journeyman on the ground will not 
see the big picture and we can understand the trap he falls into. He 
needs not to be demonised. Indeed, he a victim and is deserving of our 
help and sympathy. But for those of us one step away, we need to 
understand the nature of the issues.
Neville what did you say about there being no fence just a grey area 
requiring mutual clarification ? When might be cycling's "Finest Hour" ? 
The Libraries in South Africa knew one of their countries and authors 
will be writing about that in centuries to come. Will they be writing 
then, about that day in 1995 when the All Blacks were food poisoned ?
Tony Cooke
***************************
e in un altro topic scrive:
***************************
Put those excellent last two posts together and what do you have ? Yes 
the Giro is the more prestigious race and one would want to win it. Yes 
factually this year a number of females have been caught positive. Now 
tell me, what stops a rider who has tested positive returning to the 
peloton ? A ban and bad publicity. One Rider has tested positive every 
year since 2001. "Innocent until proven guilty" my fine citizens cry. It 
is enshrined in our justice system. OK so her home Federation recognise 
the soft Western justice system and elect to hear the case against her 
in ...........October, after a certain rather important race. Then 
"guilty, bang to rights". And then they punish her. That rider had a 6 
month ban each October for the last 4 years. Last summer, true to form 
she tested positive 3 times.
Publicity. Women's racing barely gets a mention in the results let alone 
the drug takers being purged from the racing scene. As was so eloquently 
put on this board yesterday, Ulrich and Basso have not been convicted of 
anything yet. What has driven them out is the evidence surrounding one 
doctor's records being leaked from an official police investigation, by 
a very effective press campaign. Take away that press campaign and what 
have you got. An external nation's police service presenting to a 
National Federation a dossier of evidence upon which that Federation may 
or may not act at some distant time in the future. What about a nice 6 
month ban running from October to........ "We carried out justice". When 
I challenge UK Sport, under the WADA code, they (and obviously Nicole) 
cannot even get details of the evidence to determine if the punishment 
was appropriate or the mitigating evidence that may be presented to get 
the standard 2 year ban reduced to 6 months. All that can be generated 
is a statement that the disciplinary panel was convened in accordance 
with the WADA code. i.e. they tell us that they had individuals, 
independent of the athlete, on the panel. Thanks, Nicole is comforted. 
So rider X will be racing next March then.
By the way - did I mention, our serial positive tester was a past World 
Road Race Champion. Nicole would have loved to ride the Giro. What was 
in one post yesterday - something about watching one race where there 
were two groups. The first group big ringing it up the mountain and then 
another lot puffing and panting up 20 minutes later.
And you think you were upset that Ullrich, Basso and co destroyed your 
dreams. Think what it is like having that ilk destroy your livelihood 
and your place in the history of the sport. As one sports journalist at 
the BBC, justifying zero coverage of her racing last year, said to 
Nicole when she had won Silver at the Worlds. "It is not as if you did 
anything this year". The truth. I was surprised Nicole did not thump him.
Friday - I was at work and couldn't get there. Nicole was in Yellow in 
the Grande Boucle. She attacked at the foot of the Ventoux. Quickly it 
was a small group and then for 3 km it was just two of them. She 
attacked again and rode 17km alone, up the Ventoux past Tommy's memorial 
in Yellow to go on to take the stage win by 4min 4 sec's, 45km down from 
the summit. A classic photo, a British rider in Yellow on a red hot day 
on the Ventoux riding to a win. Gendarmes and lead car around her, 
director of the race following standing in the car leaning out of the 
sun roof. Classic. Will it be on the cover of Cycling Weekly? Will it be 
in cycling weekly ?
Tony Cooke
-- 
http://modesta.biciticino.ch
Il sito dedicato alla giovane ciclista lituana Modesta Vzesniauskaite

 in cycling weekly ?
Cycling weekly, I used to get that in the early 90's!!
B-


http://www.veloriders.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=40882&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
Big snip...
Do I go through the motions of
telling my riders not to dope or do I actually drive through an
anti-doping programme with as much vigour and determination as I brought
to my own training and racing when I was young ? If I do the later, I
then answer all the questions about using dope myself and must tell them
that they are going to be tougher and mentally stronger than I was when
I was in their shoes. I am going to live, for the rest of my life,
knowing I was pathetic, giving into the pressures I am asking them to
resist.
-----------------------------------------
What is cheating? Is Armstrong cheating if has used technology to gain an
edge? Is cheating just limited to the legalities of what the rules are on
paper? Is it cheating to have an unfair advantage no matter if it's legal or
not? Can you blame someone who has better genes? How about a better trainer,
or a better team? Is it cheating if a team like Discovery or Postal,
combined with Nike and Trek used millions of dollars to give a certain 7
time winner an edge? It that cheating, or is cheating only limited to drug
use? Legal substances are ok? Coffee is ok to a limit until they say
otherwise, and training at altitude is legal, and tents are legal, until
they say it is not. And what about all these doping agencies? What have they
cheated all the riders out of since the days of Gaul, Bartali and Coppi?
In the old days, riders used speed, cocaine, lots of coffee, wine, etc.
There was no such thing as cheating. I have come to understand that cheating
is a word too loosely used in cycling. Tour winners told new riders where
their place was in the peleton, and if they wanted to win, it had to be ok
with the current champion, and have the blessings of the rest of the
peleton. Winning, and who won was not always the meaning of success or that
the riders were endeared to their public. Often riders had to win the hearts
of the public, and once beloved by their public, winning had little to do
with it. The relationship between riders, the owners, sponsors, the press
was one of mutual respect and they were all on the same team. That is to
make the tour the best it could be for the fans, and to continue to make the
tour tradition as rich as possible, since it is like a religion in France
and riders are like singers in a choir, and the press the conductor of the
choir. It's the royal opera being played out over 4 weeks, with the fans
being the biggest part of all!
If we lose the fans, then we lose everything. Should we lose the fans and
the entire sport of cycling just because some doping control experts have
been appointed as Gods over the sport given the power to destroy the lives
of cyclists who have worked their whole lives to become professionals, at
the drop of a hat, at the flash of a magical wand? WADA,  USADA, and all
these doping agencies are (not) Gods, and they should not be treated as
such. They have not just given cycling a black eye, but nearly have
destroyed the sport. The GREAT GULF, the gap between the doping agencies and
the sport as it has been know in Europe since the early years have collided
on what can only be called the biggest train wreck of the century!
I used to think that it was also cut and dry as an America, that there was
winners and losers, clean riders and cheaters, but I have since come to
understand that the problem is much more complex then that. The problem it
seems that you have two camps much like the war in the middle east where
each side is at a complete standoff. On one side, you have the old school of
thinking where riders, owners and the press could trust each other and they
knew the press and would support the riders. Today what you have is not only
mistrust with riders and teams on one side, and anti doping agencies on the
other, but the press is in the middle, and I am afraid they are not only
alienating the riders, but they don't help the doping agencies either with
all the leaks and mis-printed stories. Riders have been stripped of their
status and have been treated as numbers or second class citizens. The
romance has gone out of the tour, and what we have today is total mistrust
and I am afraid the fans have suffered the most.
The doping agencies should of never been given this much power, and these
things should be handled much more discreetly, akin to winners on the front
page, and doping violations on the back page in small print, but I will go
yet another step further. These agencies should be abolished all together! I
think cycling should be given back to the fans and the riders as in the old
days. Let us return to the days where the press is working for all the
elements of the tour from the riders, the teams, the owners and especially
the fans!!
The only fair way to make the playing field level is return things to the
post era, which supplements are legal, and applied by medical experts of the
team doctors. I think it should all be out in the open, and not in the dark
like back alley abortions, when abortion was illegal. I think there would be
fewer deaths overall, and only the really stupid ones would die. The days of
Tommy Simpson are over, EPO is much more controlled now. With all the
advances of hiding EPO, supplements, testosterone, etc. the playing field
will never be clean and those playing fair will always be at a disadvantage.
There will always be a certain amount of riders who feel they need an edge
to win, and making it legal will solve that. Let the riders use what they
want as long as it is not drugs strictly forbidden by the state, and
recreational drugs are not the drugs of choice anyway for riders. Let's
remove the stigma of cheaters, and dopers, and just let them race for the
fans and let the chips fall where they may.
It's not up to the state or the doping agencies to tell the riders what they
want them to do. First and foremost, it should be up to the riders, let them
decide since they are the ones doing all the work. If the majority of the
riders want this to be legal, then let them race, and leave them alone. It
would be much better for sport and the fans, as we know cycling is the only
sport which is singled out unfairly anyway, as we know about all the drugs
in baseball and the other big sports where owners have the money and power
to sweep it all under the table.
If it is made legal, all the heartbreak, bad blood, mistrust and division
between the riders, the press and the doping organizations will disappear.
Imagine that, we as fans could get back to a rich tradition of the tour with
our favorite riders and the press to write great stories, and the culture
could thrive again!! I am afraid if something doesn't change soon with the
doping agencies having so much power to turn cycling on its head at every
turn, then the sport is doomed! :-(
That's my two cents, I don't see any other way, because stage racing
especially in the grand tours is much too hard, and riders will forever
being looking for an edge, and with the doping agencies constantly on the
prowl, its going to be one train wreck after another, after another! It's
certainly not fair for powerful teams to buy up all the best riders and buy
the best equipments and coaches to win just because it's legal, so this
concept of cheating and stigma of doping is very one sided I am afraid.
Let them race, let them decide, let them win! :-)
B-