Ricco is being shunned by his peers for what? Not apologizing? He admitted he doped. That’s way more than Basso, who never made such an admission did he? But basso is welcomed back with open arms. Why? Is it because he stayed silent and didn’t name names? Is it because of the omerta?

I propose that the omerta is stronger than ever. The pro peloton is awarding Basso with open arms and pats on the back for keeping quiet during his suspension. Conversely, Ricco admitted he was a doper, and named names, and he gets villified by his fellow riders. Doesn’t make sense to me. The two dopers most crucified by their fellow riders are Ricco and Kohl, who also happen to be two dopers that named names.

And what about Valverde? The omerta, like the force, is strong in this one. The guy can’t even race in one of the most important countries for bike racing, and have we heard a peep from any rider about how ridiculous this is? He has won quite a few races since being suspended in Italy, but has any rider openly said what a joke this is? Maybe the riders know valverde could bring alot of them down with him, so they stay quiet, whereas ricco was always a loner, so they knew they could gang up on him without catching the shrapnel when he went down.

Seems to me you admit doping, talk to prosecutors, and get shunned forever like Ricco and Kohl. However, if you accept punishment without admission, disappear for a couple years, you will be welcomed back with open arms.

You touched on Ricco’s popularity in the peloton prior to his suspension and I suspect that that is one reason why others feel comfortable about condemning him… although Robbie McEwen’s never been backwards about coming forward. Basso didn’t really admit anything, but he had the friendship of people like Jens! Similarly, Millar had the likes of O’Grady. Having smashed the code of omerta Kohl has opened a bike shop. Given that he’s not particularly old, I think it’s precisely because he broke the code of silence that has seen him make the career change.
It’s a fine line I’d say. The chances of returning to top level cycling seem to me to be more about patronage than remorse.

Basso didn’t really admit anything, but he had the friendship of people like Jens!

Why are the riders who speak condemned/hated the most? Like to hear what McEwen has to say about it.. I think it’s the rumor/noise which is made by Ricco and Kohl.. (And maybe the time when they were caught) To lengthen your confession makes cycling more unpopulair for (potential) followers. To stay low profile makes it easier to forget.. I have to think about but nice work!

I think there’s a difference you miss between those who don’t. have a taint of suspicion aand their teams, and those who have been caught.

The former have become more outspoken in recent years. What I’m not sure about is whether this is a genuine abhorence of doping or just a cynical realisation that they have to speak like that to get jobs and stop a dirty reputation damaging the prosperity of the whole sport.

Some I believe are genuine (Garmin, FdJ). But often it feels like the latter: if you look you can easily find quotes from Kohl castigating doping before he was caught; and there was also the bonkers clause Katusha inserted in contracts.

The attitude to dopers-who-reveal-all makes me further worried that for a lot of riders the language has changed but the M.O. remains the same.

So yeah the Omerta’s still there for me

Nevertheless he’s willing to say sorry if that grants him a place in the Tour de France..
Not sol cool Vino.. Not so cool

This is a man who knows where bodies are buried but still likes to be coy as to whether he doped or not himself.

On the matter of Dietz starting the Telekom confessional rolling … didn’t d’Hont push that one down the hill and all that Dietz had to do was confirm that what d’Hont had written was in his book was true?

In all honesty, is there really much difference between the recent cycle of confessions and the likes of Tom Simpson, Jacques Anquetil and Say Elliott all openly talking about drug use in the peloton?

Actually, you know what, there is a difference. Those three were active in the peloton at the time they spoke about doping. Most of the people today who think confession is good for the soul have either quit or been ejected from the pro ranks.

So arguably, we actually had it better in the 60s and 70s than we do today.

Fact is, throughout the history of the sport there have been many who have spoken out against doping from within the peloton. Go back to – I think – the 1908 Tour and the winner took out a full page ad to say he’d won it clean. Look at what the Pélissier’s told Londres. Look at any decade fromt he sport’s history and you’ll hear the call for a clean sport, and hear that call being championed within the peloton.

What we have today – or had, a couple of years ago, arguably the position has altered – is an unusual situation in which the fans, the sponsors, the riders, the media, the race organsiers and the sport’s governers all found themselves momenatarily on the same side, and we suddenly saw some progress on the matter.

Bob Stapleton at HTC-Columbia, Jonathan Vaughters at Garmin-Transitions and Dave Brailsford at Team Sky have all spoken openly about anti-doping and their commitment to running a drug free team.

As I remember it, Hans-Michael Holczer was one oft he most outspoke anti-doping DS’s in the sport. And yet what’s Gerolsteiner’s current score on the doping front? Too many to count.

Speaking openly about running a drug free team is clearly easier than actually committing yourself and your team to being drug free and people should be careful about confusing words and actions.

Ricco’s still a dick because he talked to minimize his own damage, not out of contrition or recognition of the error of his ways.

It’s a matter of drawing subtle distinctions that I’d rather not have to draw, but I find Sella’s behavior more admirable, and, actually, now that you mention it, Kohl has been even better.

But . . . an article about Omerta in cycling that does not mention Jesus Manzano???

I believe we’re in the second half of the clean-up of cycling. As long as there’s racing there will be people looking for easier ways to win, but I believe things will start to change. I say that for three reasons. First, it’s clear now that if you’re winning races you’ll be tested, and if you’re cheating you’re likely to be caught. Second, if you’re involved in a doping syndicate someone will eventually talk and it’ll get exposed and the police will be on to you. Thirdly, even if you get through the tests and avoid the police, someone is going to ask questions by writing a book about you or by making a television documentary. It has to be obvious now to anyone who’s thinking of cheating that they won’t get away with it – maybe in the short term, less likely in the medium term, but there’s no way of getting away with it in the long term. It’s all going to come out and hopefully people are starting to realise that.

but the evidence seems to be to the contrary.

Sure, it’s acceptable now to speak out generally against doping without making any specific accusations, as many riders and team managers have done in recent years. But I disagree that if Bassons or Simeoni did today what they did ten years ago, they would be heralded.

I can’t think of any rider who has recently done what Bassons or Simeoni did and been heralded for it. Specific doping accusations against riders or teams by riders who are not themselves facing charges and trying to save their own skins are as rare as they ever were. And, as others have pointed out here, the riders who name names when facing charges are often treated with contempt by those in the peloton, while caught dopers who respect the code of silence and do their time quietly are, if not welcomed back with open arms, at least tolerated without much dissent.

Meanwhile, the ringleader in the ostracization of both Bassons and Simeoni is lauded by the peloton on his return to the sport, and suspended doper Valverde wins the Vuelta without a peep of protest from his fellow riders.

whatever happened to that anonymous interview transcript with a pro rider about current doping practices that you posted a while ago? (Late summer was it???)

The one that Lefevere disputed and sought €20m damages over but had to settle for €20k?

(btw, in Italian it’s omertà not omertá)

the outspoken nature of [Mark Cavendish branding Riccò a ‘parasite’] is a refreshing change from the silent solidarity we had previously come to expect.

Cav and Patrik Sinkewitz. If I remember Boy Racer properly Cav gets very critical of Sinkewitz for talking openly about what he knows from his own experience – and sometimes even speculating – about doping n cycling after he was caught. As far as Cav is concerned, it should be zipped lips unless you’re talking to the UCI. Until the UCI act and come to a decision on Sinkewitz’s words, nothing should be heard of them except silence. That wonderful code.

Now I know that there are some who think the doping non-stories need to stop, that they’re not news and serve no purpose only to steal precious column inches from what matters, the racing.

And these people might think Cav has a point. Until of course they remember how the UCI dealt with the confession of Jesús Manzano. They threatened to hit him with a charge of bringing the sport into disrepute. Ditto with Phiilp Gaumont.

At which point, I think, they might have to admit that if you want action on your confession, you really need to make it public, not private. Manzano’s public comments lead to Puerto. Gaumont’s helped get Millar collared.

So is Cav really slaying omertà when he calls for Sinkewitz and his like to keep their lips zipped in public? Or is he actually supporting omertà?

it is about time Frinking comes along telling us the Fuji kits are the best kits in the world.

but they would have better bike handling of course.

Seeing as IP wants to praise Dave Brailsford as another champion of his post-omertà dream world, I thought it might be useful to consider this quote from the great man. It’s from Moore’s Heroes, Villains book and you can decide for yourself which category it puts our hero of the new age in:

“I said to the riders, ’We’re going to take your blood, and if we find anything suspicious I’m not going to send you to the police or the anti-doping guys. We’re going to do it in-house, and if I see anything dodgy, I’m just going to phone you up and say, “Look, we know what you’re doing. You can tell me about it if you want. But you aren’t riding, that’s for sure.”’ And there have been three or four riders, Great Britain riders, who didn’t get selected, where I’ve had to say: ‘No, you’re not riding, because we know what you’re doing.’ And they just said: ‘Oh, alright then.’"

Those three or four riders were road riders with contintental professional teams. Their names have never been released and no other action appears to have been taken against them, other than dropping them from Team GB.

Ask yourself this IP – does that really sound like the champion of a post-omertà world? Or does that sound more like the actions of the Irish bishops who shuffled paedophile priests from parish to parish? A modern day Pilate who washes his hands of the problem and passes it on to someone else to deal with? Don’t you think that a true champion of your post-omertà dream-world would atleast involve the anti-doping authorities?

Maybe we should keep a careful eye of Team Sky riders who suddenly find themselves on unexplained inactive duty status. Cause if what Brailford told Moore for his book is right, that seems to be the most likely way he’s going to deal with the problem, should it ever arise.

but why the hostile attitude?

Lecturing Frinkster about his English, when you know very well it’s not his native language and calling people naive if they have a different opinion?