Grewal opens the curtain

Originally Posted by thoughtforfood

http://www.velonews.com/article/740...st-alexi-grewal

GREAT READ!!! People like Plectrum, No_Positives, etc, etc, etc, read and understand please. Your apologist attitudes and denial are a joke, and so are your heroes.

Originally Posted by Bro Deal

I'd be more impressed if Grewal would name names, other than Post and his soigneur. He says he knows who took what. Let's hear it.

Grewal was always a hot head, so much so it interfered with his racing.

Originally Posted by slovakguy

"All of us who were there, and who can speak up, should do so."

taking the easy way out, as was pointed out above. all he seems to be saying is that, sure, now that i'm out of the sport, i can admit i doped. the time has come to name names.

Originally Posted by thoughtforfood

I disagree actually. It is up to the conscience of each individual to determine their contribution or lack thereof to this problem. Naming someone because of an investigation, and outing people are two completely different things. On top of all of that, jumping up and saying "he did this or that" without concrete proof is a liable offense. He did what he could. I know the stories about his grandiose attitude, and it sounds like he was a prick; however, in this instance he came clean. Naming others at this point would be legally stupid in the first order. The element of time is the factor here in that because of the antiquity of the doping, proof of the kind needed to beat a defamation lawsuit is long gone except for the other people in the room. The problem there is that if they haven't come clean or were also on your hit list, you are screwed.

His coming out publicly is the best thing he could have done IMO.

Originally Posted by limerickman

A few of you have raised the point that more people should confess :

Playing devils advocate here - what is to be gained?

What would any former rider gain by confessing after they retired?

It seems to me that there is no upside with any former rider confessing.
Think about it.
By confessing, the former rider tarnishes his reputation (or whatever reputation he/she may have had).
The fact that any confession would relate to something that may have transpired years ago, cannot be punished now (strip them of a title???? - how effective is that????).
By confessiing a former rider may be falsely implicating his former team mates and his former manager.
By confessing a former rider implicates just how poorly the system of doping tests were operated in his/her time.

I can see very little upsaide to any confession from a former rider.


The only benefit that I can see being derived from such a confession is that it may give the anti-doping authorities may knowledge of how teams/riders circumvent the anti-doping tests.

Originally Posted by Powerful Pete

Thunder, fair enough, but what Lim says is true. If I was able to dope and win and earn money some time in the past, why would I admit to the doping? Curing the image of cycling to the public today? That is a bit unrealistic.

I think a 'truth commission' of some sort, with a generalised amnesty to current riders would make more sense - everyone coming clean and then 'starting with a clean slate'. Anyone caught following the amnesty is out for life...

This assumes that the testing is stringent and effective enough to make it hard for dopers to get away with it in the future... a big assumption, I know.

Originally Posted by thunder

how about it is one more step to opening up the actual conduct of the sport to the public, who are shielded from the unpalatable reality.

if there is no transaparency, there can be no healing. There needs to be an admission by the sport for the culture to change. This is part of that.

What is a reputation founded on false assumptions. I think those who have the strength to admit what goes on and went on, show alot more character, and their reputation can only grow. This all needs to be seen int he light of all the faceless Bassons that lost their careers because of doping.

Originally Posted by limerickman

A few of you have raised the point that more people should confess :

Playing devils advocate here - what is to be gained?

What would any former rider gain by confessing after they retired?

It seems to me that there is no upside with any former rider confessing.
Think about it.
By confessing, the former rider tarnishes his reputation (or whatever reputation he/she may have had).
The fact that any confession would relate to something that may have transpired years ago, cannot be punished now (strip them of a title???? - how effective is that????).
By confessiing a former rider may be falsely implicating his former team mates and his former manager.
By confessing a former rider implicates just how poorly the system of doping tests were operated in his/her time.

I can see very little upsaide to any confession from a former rider.


The only benefit that I can see being derived from such a confession is that it may give the anti-doping authorities may knowledge of how teams/riders circumvent the anti-doping tests.

Originally Posted by Leafer

But that raises the question of why, then, do so many ex-pros come clean afterwards?