I have not read the original interview that so upset all of Columbian cycling and forcing him to retire, but clearly there is still a serious problem. The intimidation and threats he describes for speaking out against doping sound a lot like the early 2000’s in the grand tours. And the fact that the governing body in Columbia called him and asked him to retract his statement rather than ask him what they can do to make it better just goes to show how backwards their heads are. Even though UCI performs something like 25% of all drug tests across all WADA sports it’s still dirty. Maybe a culture change from the top, rather than trying to keep it all as quiet as possible would help more than the testing?
Wow, sad interview.
Kinda makes me glad that I didn’t watch the tour and support this totally effed up sport.
The original interview is better - I just read it. A good quote:
“What I want to do is point out that there’s this almost-invisible force at play. That’s because in many teams, the answer to performance issues is doping. And it’s the athlete that puts his body on the line. It’s the athlete that risks being suspended. So on top of everything, the athlete is also the only one who faces the consequences, while the people who encouraged it, the people in the team who led him there and got him these products walk away like they had nothing to do with it. In that sense, the athlete made the decision, and yet he is also exploited.”
Another very interesting quote:
Well, when you talk about that topic, other teams get angry, because they feel like, “hey, if they say they are the only ones doing this , what does that say about us?” But as the saying goes, “if the shoe fits, wear it”. So yes, we were taunted and laughed at. In races in Colombia our best rider could sometimes lose 20 minutes in a stage. In the GC, our best rider would be 30th. Still, many felt that we were accusing them, and on top of that, they’d see that we weren’t getting results, and make fun of us. It wasn’t easy. Of course, we’d then go race abroad and win races, and win stages, which was interesting to say the least.
**The team had trouble in Colombia, but did well abroad. You certainly did in the Vuelta a Mexico. **
That’s right, but let’s think in a broader sense, so that I’m not telling you about me, and what I won. Think back to when I first joined 4-72. Nairo was there, Esteban Chaves, Pantano, it was just an amazing amount of talent, all with internal testing, with a huge focus on clean sport, and strong ethical component to team. A team of guys who, we can see now, are capable of winning big races among the best in the world. And yet, that year in the Vuelta a Colombia the best guy in the team was maybe 18th in the GC. So that data point should serve as your answer. We won nothing, not even top ten.
To make matters worse, when we raced abroad, getting the news out about our wins was nearly impossible. The cycling media wanted to isolate us further. Because the cycling media is driven by money.
Wow, sad interview.
Kinda makes me glad that I didn’t watch the tour and support this totally effed up sport.
Can you explain to me how the Your has anything to do with what is going on in Colombian cycling? Because that is what the claims Villegas is making - that Colombian sport “and specifically cycling” is infested with doping.
There are also quotes where he clearly states that when the team competed abroad, they did well, but struggled in Colombia for results. This would indicate that his claims re: Colombian doping are correct, but that on a wider, international scale, doping is cleaner.
I don’t understand then how the entire sport of cycling is responsible for the sins of Colombian cycling.
I don’t understand then how the entire sport of cycling is responsible for the sins of Colombian cycling.
Of course not.
But the real question is, is the omertà still alive and well in euro cycling?
I don’t understand then how the entire sport of cycling is responsible for the sins of Colombian cycling.
Of course not.
But the real question is, is the omertà still alive and well in euro cycling?
I don’t know…but if you agree that the sport as a whole is not responsible for what is happening in Colombia, I then don’t understand how you can say that you are glad you didn’t watch the Tour or that you are glad you don’t support the “effed up” sport.
Villegas’ claims deal exclusively with the state of cycling (and sport) in Colombia. He was a member of a Colombian domestic team that raced primarily in Colombia. He even notes that when they went abroad, they were competitive.
YMMV, but that indicates to me that, globally, the sport is cleaner than it has been in the past.
At least I hope it is…but I am also pretty sure that doping exists more than many want to admit in triathlon.
I don’t understand then how the entire sport of cycling is responsible for the sins of Colombian cycling.
Of course not.
But the real question is, is the omertà still alive and well in euro cycling?
I don’t know…but if you agree that the sport as a whole is not responsible for what is happening in Colombia, I then don’t understand how you can say that you are glad you didn’t watch the Tour or that you are glad you don’t support the “effed up” sport.
Villegas’ claims deal exclusively with the state of cycling (and sport) in Colombia. He was a member of a Colombian domestic team that raced primarily in Colombia. He even notes that when they went abroad, they were competitive.
YMMV, but that indicates to me that, globally,** the sport is cleaner than it has been in the past**.
At least I hope it is…but I am also pretty sure that doping exists more than many want to admit in triathlon.
It’s cleaner than the past (such as the mid 90’s when >95% of the peloton was on EPO), but doping in cycling isn’t just a Colombian problem.
For example, an Italian rider was busted for a drug that is still in Clinical Trial ffs: http://www.cyclingnews.com/...lating-drug-fg-4592/
Hard to believe he was sourcing it on his own. BTW, that was yesterday.
Who said it was only a Colombian problem? I know I didn’t nor have I ever said cycling was “clean.”
My point, which was quite simple, was that DSW took an article about doping in a specific country and used it as an indictment of the sport on a global scale.
A massive leap in logic, IMO…
I don’t know…but if you agree that the sport as a whole is not responsible for what is happening in Colombia, I then don’t understand how you can say that you are glad you didn’t watch the Tour
While likely true, it is a depressing interview. Not because things are bad “just” in Colombian cycling. Having read many books about euro cycling, I have a very sneaky suspicion that identical things are happening anywhere where the stakes (i.e., the money) are high for cycling (i.e., Europe). Let’s revisit this thread in a few years, I have a feeling that the sport will explode with new scandals in just a short time frame.
For me, it is hard to get into the tour, just like it is hard for me to even watch wwf wrestling. With all of the pharma assistance available and many of the worldwide cycling governing bodies being totally complicit in the whole scheme, the sport has become highly rigged and contrived, not a sport of superb athletes in competition. For me, wwf on wheels is just not that interesting.
Greg @ dsw
… worldwide cycling governing bodies being totally complicit in the whole scheme, the sport has become highly rigged and contrived, not a sport of superb athletes in competition.
remove “cycling” and substitute pretty much any professional sport. And then ask the question “why does professional sport exist”? Personally I don’t believe that it is primarily to be a paragon of “superb athletes in competition”.
… worldwide cycling governing bodies being totally complicit in the whole scheme, the sport has become highly rigged and contrived, not a sport of superb athletes in competition.
remove “cycling” and substitute pretty much any professional sport. And then ask the question “why does professional sport exist”? Personally I don’t believe that it is primarily to be a paragon of “superb athletes in competition”.
Pretty well said. Why does pro sport even exist in these conditions? A good question, but kind of a philosophical one. Hard to know definitively. Why do you think? Bread and circuses?
I don’t know…but if you agree that the sport as a whole is not responsible for what is happening in Colombia, I then don’t understand how you can say that you are glad you didn’t watch the Tour
While likely true, it is a depressing interview. Not because things are bad “just” in Colombian cycling. Having read many books about euro cycling, I have a very sneaky suspicion that identical things are happening anywhere where the stakes (i.e., the money) are high for cycling (i.e., Europe). Let’s revisit this thread in a few years, I have a feeling that the sport will explode with new scandals in just a short time frame.
It may well, I don’t know…but again, Villegas’ own statements indicate that on a larger, global scale, cycling is cleaner than it has been in the past. His team was not close to being competitive on the Colombian domestic scene, but was competing and winning when they traveled abroad. It is also worth noting that he specifically notes Quintana was one of those guys who was finishing well down on the GC domestically, but is clearly one fo the best riders in the world now.
For me, it is hard to get into the tour, just like it is hard for me to even watch wwf wrestling. With all of the pharma assistance available and many of the worldwide cycling governing bodies being totally complicit in the whole scheme, the sport has become highly rigged and contrived, not a sport of superb athletes in competition. For me, wwf on wheels is just not that interesting.
Greg @ dsw
WWE (not F) wrestling is not a competition, it is staged and scripted entertainment. Apples and oranges…if you think cycling and WWE are comparable, that is a massive leap in logic.
The double-standards people use for triathlon and cycling never continue to amaze me.
well my, admittedly cynical, opinion is that pro sports exist because someone has concluded that they can make money from staging them.
WWE (not F) wrestling is not a competition, it is staged and scripted entertainment. Apples and oranges…if you think cycling and WWE are comparable, that is a massive leap in logic.
The double-standards people use for triathlon and cycling never continue to amaze me.
Years ago, I would have agreed with you, that there is little connection between UCI cycling and WWE wrestling. But have you seen this excellent documentary, avail on netflix?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfN3uxk-vRs
Most definitely worth a watch. With this film and Lance’s and Tyler’s and Floyd’s and USPostal’s doping and test history, it is clear that when the racing is not “exciting” enough (in the view of the those who protect the purse strings, of course), governing bodies have a bunch of ways to intervene to keep it “exciting”. Which of course they do, and frequently. With governing bodies ***selectively ***popping athletes and selectively letting others slip by (lots and lots of ways that this is done, for example, governing bodies tip off favored athletes of “surprise” visits by testers), the governing bodies have a potent arsenal at their disposal to alter the course of a race or event. Which, to me, means that pro cycling is indeed becoming more and more staged and scripted entertainment.
No double standard in my view with triathlon. When the stakes are equally high (not often in triathlon, in comparison to pro cycling, but it happen at a few events), I think lots of things happen behind the scenes. Some of them are not pretty.
The “documentary” you link is full of factual inconsistencies, errors, innuendo and suspicion. I would be vary careful about citing it as proof of anything.
They link comments by those being interviewed with wrong stages, events, etc. They take the emotional anguish of a grieving mother and exploit it.
And I say all this as one who was a huge Pantani fan back in the day…in fact, it was after he won a stage in the '97 Tour that I first shaved my head.
If you think professional cycling is “more and more becoming staged and scripted”, you are going to have to find better sources than that film.
Again, i am not defending the sport of cycling per se…just pointing out logical inconsistencies. the sport has much to answer for, and only has itself to blame for its reputation.
Again, i am not defending the sport of cycling per se…just pointing out logical inconsistencies. the sport has much to answer for, and only has itself to blame for its reputation.
Nothing here is claimed as “proof” or “non-proof”. This is all just opinion. We both know that I am far outside the inner circles of these corrupt and bureaucratic machines. But I have read a decent number of books by many different people who were directly inside and participating in these schemes. Do they all corroborate one another 100%? Nope. But do they corroborate one another 95+%? You bet. When one persists and learns, sometimes, a little light emerges. You gotta be able to connect the dots. That’s all I am doing. Connecting the dots based on fact, probability, and cycling’s own incredibly tarnished reputation.
By the way, I think your sig line is great.
Wow, sad interview.
Kinda makes me glad that I didn’t watch the tour and support this totally effed up sport.
Well, you didn’t miss much. A 21 stage race decided after day 5 didn’t provide much drama. Sadly, the big question became is he that much better than everyone else or… ?
And (again sadly) that is cycling’s legacy.
Yeah, but when one of the sources you cite for comparing cycling to the WWE is so far off the mark, it throws your whole position into question. That “documentary” is factually wrong and nothing more than a “conspiracy theory” flick. there is no “dot” to connect there…
Just start with their basic premise - it claims that “they” (i.e. the UCI and powers-that-be) went after Pantani because he was becoming “too powerful” and popular. So to combat that, they sabotaged Pantani and subsequently elevated Armstrong to an even higher status? HUH? How does that even remotely make sense?
If it helps, you can ignore that documentary. No worries.
I didn’t know much about Pantani’s early years. And his enormous (non-doped) talent. And his love for the bike, his incredible climbing ability, and his early innocence. And I didn’t know that he wanted to quit before he even started. And I didn’t know the reason for that. Now I do know. For those reasons, to me, the flick was interesting.
But again, pro cycling’s reputation didn’t come from a vacuum. It didn’t come from one film, one book, or one story. It came from a thousand.
And there is lots of evidence that the UCI “pursues” and, uh, “helps” athletes selectively, very selectively. No doubts about that fact. Does that make for contrived and scripted and fake races? It sure seems that way.