but does she really think she is helping her peers who are trying to go pro or are currently pros by bitching about things all over the media?

yes…why shouldn’t she recount her experiences?

What I am saying is that someone who has decided to retire from their sport shouldn’t see it as some sort of “green light” to air their sport’s dirty laundry in public. Maybe think of the bigger picture, see the further damage you are doing to your sport and your peers.

Agreed.

I cannot believe anyone is calling Nicole Cooke a has-been. Before this year she was the most successful road cyclist that this country has ever produced. She is a class act and one of the very few women road cyclists successful enough to have any sort of career. She has earned the right to tell people of her experience.

Maybe if you listened more you might hear what she is saying – the bad days are not over and the penalties must be much, much more severe to make any difference.

If any of the assisters who were involved in doping at any level in the ’90’s are still involved in the sport, they should be named, shamed, and kicked out. Hopefully, testimonies like MS Cooke’s will help this process along. IMHO, of course, not that I’ve the slightest thing to do with it other than just having an opinion…

I liked the otherwise unfunny Wiggins’s comment when asked whether or not he’d be watching the interview: “No, I’ll be watching Jeremy Kyle” 😀

why shouldn’t she recount her experiences?

Because for someone who supposedly cares so much about the sport of cycling, she is simply feeding the media hype about doping.

Sometimes it is better to say nothing and let the dust settle for a while.

And if she had a shred of commercial nous, she would be writing all this in a book, not giving the story away for free.

NOBODY wins here with her comments.

“media hype about doping”. Please point me to the hype? As far as I can see the media are reporting the facts as they slowly emerge.

No one who depends on cycling for their living will really say what is going on – just read Lizzie A’s remarkable reasoning about her boyfriend and the now clean male peleton. Same for Cav.

NOBODY wins here with her comments.

staying silent or using the “omerta” is what got cycling into trouble, the more light shined on the darkness the better..

“media hype about doping”. Please point me to the hype? As far as I can see the media are reporting the facts as they slowly emerge.

No one who depends on cycling for their living will really say what is going on – just read Lizzie A’s remarkable reasoning about her boyfriend and the now clean male peleton. Same for Cav.

Not sure how many hundreds of millions of global views of the interview (on TV and online), front page in just about every global newspaper, every cycling website, every news website, social media feeds etc etc etc. I’d say that is media hype.

And of course nobody who works in the cycling industry is going to attack the industry. There are things in my industry and even my organisation that I don’t like or necessarily approve of. I imagine 99.99999999% of the working population have this. What they and I do is maintain a dignified stance and make positive suggestions to those who can do something about it.

Trying to play at MacIntyre but not actually doing anything to fix the “problem” is pretty pointless.

My line is either work with the UCI, British Cycling, WADA and all other agencies to report EVERYTHING you know or pipe down.

Nicole Cooke has had to wait for years before saying anything. If she’d said anything sooner the female peloton would have done a Bassons on her. Then there’s the legal aspect. She knew others were doping but they’d have said she was lying and sued the arse off her if she had denounced them. The Canadian has now admitted doping so she’s fair game but Nicole is still not naming others, even Longo.

When I raced for Britain in the 90s before swapping to French nationality for sporting purposes I had a very strange and very revealing telephone conversation with a British Federation. I’m not prepared to go public because I’m convinced that if I did they’d deny and sue me. It ain’t worth the hassle. The frustrating thing is that if the federation had gone public at the time they’d have no doubt got sued themselves for various breaches of privacy rules. I hope things have improved.

The problem is that it is in everybody’s interest to keep their big mouths shut except for the tiny minority (IMO) of non-doped athletes that are world class without dope.

And if she had a shred of commercial nous, she would be writing all this in a book, not giving the story away for free.

I’d be more inclined to listen to her because she’s not gaining financially. I don’t think it’s a business decision, isn’t the money part of the reason cycling (and other sports) is in this mess?

Or is it that your career hasn’t lived up to your expectations?

she has won pretty much everything its possible for a female cyclist to win.

Nicole Cooke has had to wait for years before saying anything. If she’d said anything sooner the female peloton would have done a Bassons on her. Then there’s the legal aspect. She knew others were doping but they’d have said she was lying and sued the arse off her if she had denounced them. The Canadian has now admitted doping so she’s fair game but Nicole is still not naming others, even Longo.

When I raced for Britain in the 90s before swapping to French nationality for sporting purposes I had a very strange and very revealing telephone conversation with a British Federation. I’m not prepared to go public because I’m convinced that if I did they’d deny and sue me. It ain’t worth the hassle. The frustrating thing is that if the federation had gone public at the time they’d have no doubt got sued themselves for various breaches of privacy rules. I hope things have improved.

The problem is that it is in everybody’s interest to keep their big mouths shut except for the tiny minority (IMO) of non-doped athletes that are world class without dope.

Good input – thanks for this. Nice to see a different perspective rather than just “we have a right to know”.

You’ve obviously spent time competing at national level – from your perspective, do you think she should be looking to contact all the relevant agencies with a dossier of evidence? I’d have thought that was the better way to go about it, rather than the way she has.

Maybe send a dossier of evidence to all agencies, then a press release (and make it her only one) along the lines of “I have retired, I am not convinced everything is still 100% correct, I have sent a dossier to agencies X Y and Z to investigate”.

That way, she forces action but doesn’t air dirty laundry and feed a media frenzy?

What I am saying is that someone who has decided to retire from their sport shouldn’t see it as some sort of “green light” to air their sport’s dirty laundry in public. Maybe think of the bigger picture, see the further damage you are doing to your sport and your peers.

The cyclists saying nothing and keeping the omerta does not seem to have helped cycling any

TO blame a whistleblower for the damage is to shoot the messenger.

How do you know that Nicole Cooke isn’t lieing?
This all may just be an elaborate rouse.

The cyclists saying nothing and keeping the omerta does not seem to have helped cycling any

TO blame a whistleblower for the damage is to shoot the messenger.

But is whistleblowing to the media, and in turn damaging the sport’s reputation further, the right move? See my post above re: sealed dossiers.

Supposing her actions scare off new sponsors for the sport, who fear brand association? Has she acted for the greater benefit or not?

I hope that Nicole has new projects in life she can put her energy into. If she goes beyond a farewell message she risks becoming a Kimmage-like character.

The agencies know. They have access to lots of confidential information and rarely release anything even if legally they can (the French athletics federation is an exception; it publishes every positive test on its website). They know much more though. They see all the results that aren’t quite positive but a clear indication that the athlete is doping. This passport lark is a farce which IMO is used by the majority of national federations like the old East German dope testing programme – it serves only to make sure athletes won’t test positive in competetion or in a random test.

As a example a ****************** federation official mentioned a fairly minor athlete had tested positive and it made the papers. The athlete concerned was extremely annoyed, not because he’d tested positive and been named, but because his fellow club members who were on the national team had also tested positive but had not been named. This is again going back to the 90s but clearly shows that federations are more interested in having winning athletes than clean athletes.

and in turn damaging the sport’s reputation further,

Who says it’s damaging the sport further?

got to the point when Oprah asks him why, after 13 years of lying, he is owning up now. He struggles to answer, the actual answer is because he got caught!

Because… as I mulled it over last night. Basically, it’s been worked out that if he can make out that he’s “changed”, he stands to gain more. “I did it because I was misguided in my determination” sounds a heck of a lot better than “I did it because I’m driven and don’t care who I hurt or what I do to get to my goals”. Add a couple of sorries onto that and you’re set.

But it became fairly apparent that he hasn’t changed – well dur – and he is still the same individual with the same view of the world. It’s just this week’s facade is “repentant Lance”

But is whistleblowing to the media, and in turn damaging the sport’s reputation further, the right move? See my post above re: sealed dossiers.

Supposing her actions scare off new sponsors for the sport, who fear brand association? Has she acted for the greater benefit or not? I accept the point you’re making….but I’d have to answer yes and yes.

For what it’s worth I think sport would be better with zero sponsorship. Money is the problem. The sports I’ve competed in where there has been the least money are the sports where there has been the lowest level of doping. people will still dope for the prestige and doctors will still prescribe to build a faithful client base (see, money again) but talented atheltes will still be competetive, and even win now and then.

I think Nicole was lucky to copete in women’s cycling where there is a lot less money than in the men’s sport. If there had been more money she’d have had to contend with a whole female peloton of dopers not just a few like the Canadian and Longo.

Saw Djokovic on the news….I fear he doth protest too much.

As a example a ****************** federation official mentioned a fairly minor athlete had tested positive and it made the papers. The athlete concerned was extremely annoyed, not because he’d tested positive and been named, but because his fellow club members who were on the national team had also tested positive but had not been named. This is again going back to the 90s but clearly shows that federations are more interested in having winning athletes than clean athletes.

Interesting you should mention this.

Only a fortnight ago or so, there was outcry in my discipline (Enduro) because the French Federation had enforced a 6 month ban on someone for doping but had withheld their name. Didn’t take long to work out who it is likely to be, and that left a feeling that the federation was more interested in a cover up than a proper “ban” as such, even more so as our discipline isn’t UCI sanctioned, so it’s easy to still compete if you have not been named as a doper.

So that then leaves us with the question of who polices the individual federations. The UCI don’t seem particularly well equipped or willing to do this, so the question arises who can.

so the question arises who can

No one can…the truth will always out though.

Djokovic is the player that made a massive turn around, from continually injured also-ran to massive run of losing to no-one…

A law unto themselves. And frankly the UCI isn’t the answer. In France the federations (with the exception of athletics) are anything but transparent (and as alluded above I know at least one British federation is no better). The gendarmes however are great! A few years ago the local bike club scene got raided. Gendarmes throughout SW France knocking on doors at dawn looking for Pot Belge. They dismantled a whole network. Among those prosecuted for dealing was MTB world champion Christophe Dupouey. Sadly he committed suicide shortly after.

Bloody awesome Lance you pr wunderkind!
Here we have a thread about a lying, cheating, drug abuser and it has turned into an attack on Nicole Cooke. a successful clean British cyclist, because she is at last speaking out.

Whatever else Lance has done, he’s certainly spotted that the cycling fraternity will turn upon itself and attack those who have done the least wrong.

I for one have made no attack on Nicole.

Me neither…she’d drop me if I did…

🙂

I don’t think anyone has made an “attack” – more voiced an opinion that maybe she hasn’t taken the best course of action.

No but the arguments moved on from what a despicable shit LaLa is, to whether Cooke is credible when she attacks him.

Every time I see Lance Armstrong on that Oprah interview I jut want to slap his face. That aside I think Nicole Cooke has a right to be peeved off considering how well these cheating cyclist have done, not only by reaching the top of their sport through cheating but also cashing in on there dishonesty. Why should Nicole be attacked for speaking up 🙄 good on her!

And, by her own admission, she has achieved more than she ever wished to, or expected to. Why is she suddenly playing the victim?

She’s on the offensive, now because having retired she can bite the hand that feeds (the drugs). Naming names is more tricky: Where some individuals are already clearly cheats, you can say the truth. For the majority of cheats, without hard evidence you risk losing a law-suit for damaged reputations.

Because for someone who supposedly cares so much about the sport of cycling, she is simply feeding the media hype about doping

I’ve changed my mind on this. Keep feeding it. Find out exactly how dirty it really is; much dirtier than you think.

If she had a shred of commercial nous, she would be writing all this in a book

As she points out, people seem more interested in bad-boy/girl books. And if she were after money she wouldn’t have been a female pro cyclist!

But is whistleblowing to the media, and in turn damaging the sport’s reputation further

Crazy talk. Lance’s career was a total sham that duped the entire sport, while Nicole’s was a paragon of virtue. Lance goes on a chat-show to express crocodile-tears of remorse, and Nicole simply points-up what shits, he and others like him, are…

And you don’t like Nicole’s behaviour.

Funny thing is I liked him right up until the moment about 11 years ago when I read his book – ‘Its not about the bike’ (its about ME!). To write an autobiography that makes you look bad (his horrid egotism was v evident in his book) is pretty damning I think.

I rather assumed he was either clean or his drugs were masked by cancer drugs because it would be impossible to evade the testers for so long and others were being caught every year. So really it comes down to UCI being very ineffective. And LA having an ego the size of a house.

I hope he is bankrupted and goes to prison. As Nicole C said, he stole so much from so many.

He won in a culture of epidemic drug within the peleton so i guess he’s as guilty as the rest of his team mates and fellow competitors. If we need to prosecute LA then we need to do the same for everyone else including TH etc. I’m going to stick my neck out and say LA is as bent as Pat McQuaid. We need to call for his (PMcQ) prosecution as well.

I guess the problem is finding where the buck stops…..as usual the most difficult path is the right one, and that would be reconcilliation.

I cant get my head around all this,Armstrong was a cheat in HIS era, what about all the other cheats,who won the tour 5 times,do they get stripped of there tour so called victories,or is about the fact that what happens in the peloton, stays in the peloton.Cycling has been a dirty sport since the tour began, the only thing that changes, is the sophistication of the type of cheating, and if other sport thinks its not happening in there backyard they better get take a good hard look at themselves,wonder how many 2012 Olympic champions are hoping the freezer breaks down, thus destroying the evidence 😯

He won in a culture of epidemic drug within the peleton

Ashendon’s tests of the 99 samples actually showed a pretty low % of drug taking. It’s amazing that Lance’s lies are still being believed by some.
That year could have been a breakthrough year in the fight against drugs in cycling, but the US postal team smashed that possibility out of the park.

who won the tour 5 times

Big Mig probably was using drugs, but he didn’t make many if any enemies, he is well liked by pretty much everyone. Finding the evidence against him will be much much more difficult, if not impossible.

Decky +1
I dont think anyone beleives LA at the moment. His actual success is kinda immaterial. Whether he won or lost or came second he still cheated like so many others. Great riders like Mig or my hero Sean Kelly all doped or cheated. Still awesome riders and as hard as nails.

Whatever the argument about morality and code of sporting conduct, I can’t get behind the case that he defrauded his sponsors.

While the myth rolled on, and while he did everything he could to make sure it continued to roll, his sponsors made money from his [ill-gotten] success. He cashed in, they cashed in. Everyone cashed in.

Except for the people who entered into professional cycling at that stage who weren’t prepared to sacrifice their bodies and their morals to dope.

I would really like to know who they were. Because if they knew what they were getting into, and they got into it all the same, they are heros.