# Interesting take from Talansky



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

Interesting interview with Talansky. As opposed to the usual fan view that the peloton is obliged to prove they're clean he thinks the fans are obliged to presume riders are clean until proven otherwise...

Talansky on Vuelta, Wiggins and calling out Andy Jacques-Maynes


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

roddjbrown said:


> Interesting interview with Talansky. As opposed to the usual fan view that the peloton is obliged to prove they're clean he thinks the fans are obliged to presume riders are clean until proven otherwise...
> 
> Talansky on Vuelta, Wiggins and calling out Andy Jacques-Maynes


reminded me a bit of this commercial. The arguments, for better or worse, are almost identical. 






it sucks coming into the sport after several generations of dopers but pretending everything is swell is really not helping anyone.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

den bakker said:


> reminded me a bit of this commercial. The arguments, for better or worse, are almost identical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep agreed. I get that IF in general the sport is cleaner then it must grate coming in and answering those questions. Equally it's not like coming in decades later, this is a peloton still containing plenty of convicted dopers.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Jacques-Maynes: Talansky took comments out of context

Andy's response

Talansky just sounds clueless of the past. He wants everyone to believe but hard to ignore the 2 of the guys on the podium are convicted dopers


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

I find it funny that he goes on about how he respects Conti and how Alberto is so respected and then tries to feed us this crap "The riders in the peloton are changing. There is no tolerance for doping now. People who do are outcasts. They are looked at differently. When guys come back, it’s not the same."

Which is it then?


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

roddjbrown said:


> Interesting interview with Talansky. As opposed to the usual fan view that the peloton is obliged to prove they're clean he thinks the fans are obliged to presume riders are clean until proven otherwise...
> 
> Talansky on Vuelta, Wiggins and calling out Andy Jacques-Maynes


Talansky says:
_What I feel is unfair is I do not feel like I owe it to a single person to show some proof that I am clean, because I do show it. I do get tested. I have a biological passport. I go out and work my ass off. I really wish sometimes that people could see how we live. Come take a look into my life for a week, to see what it takes to compete at this level. People think they know and understand, but until you live it at this level, it’s hard to truly understand._

Let's see, I don’t have to prove anything to anybody, I passed a bunch of tests, and I work harder than others for my success. Where have I heard that before?

I have no idea what Sky did to prepare for the Tour and take their results at face value but I found his sighting Sky's trips to Tenerife as evidence that they won clean hilarious.

_If you do not believe in me? More than passing doping controls, more than a blood passport, more than getting results? You cannot prove a negative. There is no more that we can do._

You could feel sorry for us.


I assume he is riding clean but after that interview I am having second thoughts. JV, get this kid some media training!


[Edit-I was typing this while others posted that LA commercial. Glad to see I'm not the only one who noticed]


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Wah wah wah and he's clearly an idiot. I guess all the members of Garmin must be feeling the heat what with half their A team being busted by their own manager. You have to justify yourself somehow...

A bit of honesty from the younger generation would be really nice, but we'll have to wait a long time for that.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

He trots out the same line of sophistry we've heard so often before. He can't say that Team Sky is clean with any more certainty than anyone else who isn't on the team. That is not to say I believe they doped, just that they are no cleaner than anyone else at this point. 
I think he has a real cheek to praise Contador and set him up as superhuman when we already know he's dirty. The fans owe the peloton NOTHING, the climate of suspicion exists because the peloton, with a little help from team managers, the sport's administrators, sponsors and the media made it that way. The kid should shut up, he's talking out of his arse.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

sir duke said:


> He trots out the same line of sophistry we've heard so often before. He can't say that Team Sky is clean with any more certainty than anyone else who isn't on the team. That is not to say I believe they doped, just that they are no cleaner than anyone else at this point.
> I think he has a real cheek to praise Contador and set him up as superhuman when we already know he's dirty. The fans owe the peloton NOTHING, the climate of suspicion exists because the peloton, with a little help from team managers, the sport's administrators, sponsors and the media made it that way. The kid should shut up, he's talking out of his arse.


^This!


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

sir duke said:


> I think he has a real cheek to praise Contador and set him up as superhuman when we already know he's dirty.


I'm having trouble parsing your tenses. We know Contador was dirty. How do we know he is dirty?


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

He's a young kid and he doesn't know what kind of alarm bells go off when he talks about how Team Sky prepares like no other team, attention to detail, leaves nothing to chance, etc etc etc.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

pretender said:


> He's a young kid and he doesn't know what kind of alarm bells go off when he talks about how Team Sky prepares like no other team, attention to detail, leaves nothing to chance, etc etc etc.


To be fair to him in that regard, thanks to the beauty of the Armstrong PR machine there's very little riders can say to justify performance that isn't going to set off alarm bells. Miracles, hard work, never failed a drugs test. 

I think if a rider isn't coming in front of the press to show his blood passport they should just stop speaking about doping altogether. They can't prove that they're clean, all they can do is restate things that everyone's heard plenty of times from people who later turned out to be dopers. Blood values or shut up.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Andrew is a local boy, and some of my riding buddies knew him well, rode with him when he was coming up, and tell me he's a great kid. He's right that most people don't have an idea how much work goes into being a top pro, but he is clearly ignorant of how his comments are going to sound to those of us who've been following doped pelotons for decades. They need to get a PR coach in there, stat.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

asgelle said:


> I'm having trouble parsing your tenses. We know Contador was dirty. How do we know he is dirty?


I'll re-phrase that, Contador _is_ a cheat. He could well be clean now..maybe you should ask the Spanish P.M.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I'm sure those plasticizers in Conti's blood have some perfectly innocent explanation.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

roddjbrown said:


> To be fair to him in that regard, thanks to the beauty of the Armstrong PR machine there's very little riders can say to justify performance that isn't going to set off alarm bells. Miracles, hard work, never failed a drugs test.
> 
> I think if a rider isn't coming in front of the press to show his blood passport they should just stop speaking about doping altogether. They can't prove that they're clean, all they can do is restate things that everyone's heard plenty of times from people who later turned out to be dopers. Blood values or shut up.


One thing riders can do, is to speak out against cheats. Where is today's peleton on the USADA case against Lance, Johann, and the rest? Where is the peleton on the return of convicted cheats like Valverde, Contador, and now Pozzato, coming back and shooting right to the top?

Earlier in the decade, Wiggins was so outspoken about the cheats, now all he can do is praise his BFF Lance and call skeptics wan**rs and c*nts. Talansky is almost creaming in his chamois in his praise of Valverde and Contador, yet later in the same article claims that it isn't the same when a convicted cheat returns from his ban.

Which is it, Andrew?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Fireform said:


> I'm sure those plasticizers in Conti's blood have some perfectly innocent explanation.


What plasticizers? Pay special attention to tense and time line.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

asgelle said:


> What plasticizers? Pay special attention to tense and time line.


My bad. Obviously, if Conti was using blood transfusions all the way back in 2010, there's NO WAY he could still be using them now. And there's absolutely NO CHANCE those tests could make anyone look askance at the way he destroyed the Peloton in stage 17 of the Vuelta. Six days ago. The day after a rest day? 

What was I thinking?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fireform said:


> My bad. Obviously, if Conti was using blood transfusions all the way back in 2010, there's NO WAY he could still be using them now. And there's absolutely NO CHANCE those tests could make anyone look askance at the way he destroyed the Peloton in stage 17 of the Vuelta. Six days ago. The day after a rest day?
> 
> What was I thinking?


fwiw it seems he is 10% weaker than e.g. 2009.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

He wasn't able to crush all rivals at will on the climbs this year, true. He's dialed things back to a safer level at least, but that performance makes me doubt he's really clean.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Fireform said:


> ...look askance ...


I see. Now I know you're standard of proof. I'll judge accordingly.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Whatever.

That Talansky or anyone else can be outraged that anyone could be skeptical of some of the results we see reflects, at best, a naive ignorance of the past. The winner of the TDF was disqualified for doping just two years ago, and is racing today. In fact, just won a grand tour. Will that result stand? It's hardly ancient history. And is he contrite or remorseful? I just saw an article in which Contador stated that as far as he was concerned he's won seven grand tours. So, no. 

Speaking as a member of the audience who has watched two decades of pro racing as a spectacle manufactured by oxygen vector doping and defended by shrill protestations of innocence, a healthy measure of skepticism is fully justified. I think there's a very good case to be made for turning off the TV until they prove they are clean.

Andrew is a youngster and thus somewhat full of himself. What he or any other pro does or doesn't do has nothing do with whether I bike, or how much I enjoy it, and never will.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

asgelle said:


> What plasticizers? Pay special attention to tense and time line.


It's heartening to see you aren't living in the past. A lot of bad things were happening then.
Of course, that's all behind us and everything is right with the world of professional cycling.:thumbsup: 
As for tomorrow, well, why worry?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

sir duke said:


> Of course, that's all behind us and everything is right with the world of professional cycling.


It always amazes me that there are people who confuse asking for proof of a statement with arguing the statement is false.


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

Here is a talented young rider, riding high on a wave of exuberance, experiencing 
success beyond his wildest dreams, having trained very very hard, never having doped,
most likely in this current age having never even being approached about doping, 
brashly and naively spewing his happiness. Perhaps you would expect him to wear
a black armband, and after a race to return to his hotel room and flagellate himself
with a whip over the sins of his predecessors. He is living in the now, and that level
of psychological immersion into the past would be both impossible given his limited
life-experience and unsustainable in any event since the human animal will strive always
to be happy and in-the-moment. Doping has been prevalent in the past and will continue
to exist, but in secluded isolation. Living the gloom has it's rigors and limitations. 
As to his ebullient rejection of all doubters, that is indeed another matter and I detect a spirit
of vindictiveness which is crass and indignant. And of course the sentiments that corruption
is rife in all aspects of life somehow eases the responsibility of a regulated sport is pure
rubbish and provokes my anger.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

asgelle said:


> It always amazes me that there are people who confuse asking for proof of a statement with arguing the statement is false.


Which part of 'Contador is a cheat' is false? Contador is 'dirty' in the sense that he was sanctioned for a doping infraction. His reputation is sullied, his defence lacked credibility, he got a free pass from his national federation and the blessing of the head of state. How is calling him 'dirty' misrepresenting facts? (other than in your purely grammatical interpretation). I'd save your energy for defending riders with no 'previous', your Spanish galleon has already sailed.


----------

