Hard-man hero Jens Voigt on family, drugs, the Tour - and being this year's oldest rider

md6 wrote:

This seems a little premature to speculate and basically accuse based on f**k all evidence other than the fact that other people were doing it and he was in the peloton at the time.
@Colin Peyresourde He keeps mentioning it because he keeps getting asked about it - keeping quiet would make him look guilty, but then by your logic answering makes him look guilty? Do you just really want him to be guilty so you can point and shout 'Told you! Told you!' otherwise what is he to do. I hope Jens never doped, he says he didn't and frankly, I believe him. The way i see it, he is a phenominal athlete, with huge mental reserves and capability to suffer and hurt beyond what other people will do. He could (and i hope did) use that to his advantage and do what he does clean, had he doped, with his capacity for pain and suffering then i think he would have won much more. The fact he didn't makes me think that he hasn't. But then, unless and until it is proven that he did cheat there will be the speculation and none of us will have any actual idea beyond comspiracy and cynicism. It's a shame really

No, I don't. But equally, I don't think we should be taking him at his word when there's a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. If there is two things we know is that 1)absence of positive test for drugs does not mean that they weren't taken 2) all dopers deny doping, so a denial means nothing.

I just think I have my eyes open on this, but it does put me in an awkward position. I like the sport, I hate what Lance did (I hated Pantani too, except when he looked like destroying Lance), I think doping is rife in cycling and other sports (check out 'tennishasaproblemwithsteroids.com'), but I enjoy sport. I enjoy it most when it appears that people are not doping up to their eyeballs - if a cyclist looks invulnerable (or any other athlete) it probably means that he's not leaving anything to chance i.e. taking what he needs to win. It puts me in a philosophical quandary, but one that I'm happy to handle, because I think we are better off trying to worm out the cheats than accepting it. I think we are better off if we at least being aware and not trying to bury our heads in the sand, as this will only perpetuate affairs (which is what happened with Lance). We all sort of allow this to happen when we make heroes out of these cheats.

But equally I can admire the struggle and the work effort, as even the cheats have to work for their wins. It's just tempered by a knowledge that they have created an artificial playing field which means that riders no longer seem to struggle with their performance at the end of a 3 week tour like science says they should....

@ Colin Peyresourde:
That is kind of my point there is no actual evidence of Jens doping, other than speculation, heresay and cynicism. Has anyone accused him ditrectly in the way Lance was accused? I'm not aware of it (doesn't mean it hasn't happened) which makes me think that its more likely speculation than someone in the know.
I accept lots of riders were doping, probably most. Comparing to Millar, who was winning races - i.e. World TT champion clean according to his book before he decided to dope. Jens never was that successful, hence my point if he doped he would've won more. I agree all dopers deny, but then so would any clean rider. Your argument is a damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He can't deny because all dopers deny. Its a bit like making the statement 'I am a lair' if its not true then i'm a liar, which makes it true, but if its true i'm not a lair and therefore can't be true.
I agree that cycling must be cleaned up and get any cheats out - personally i think that if an althete is caught a 2nd time then a lifetime ban for them and massive fines for the teams involved should be introduced. Make the teams more responsible and punishable then that may help. I guess I agree with you, but also disagree. Maybe that is more heart than head on my point or maybe i'm just less cynical and believe in people.
Jens definately doesn't look invulnerable to me, again, he would win/won more if he did.

BenMWilliamson wrote:

We should just go along the 'innocent until proven guilty' lines, surely?

Who are we to judge?

Couldnt agree more.

notfastenough wrote:

If he was doping, you not think he would have won more?

No one would denign that Lance was an excellent athlete before he doped, if everyone did it there would still be people at the back of the field. Sadly this is the 'level playing field' argument that pushed clean riders out of the sport completely.

@Old Cranky
The mention I remember from Hamilton's book is when he returned after his ban. Hamilton said something along the lines of 'Jens Voight, nicest guy in the peloton. I went up to him to say hi and he just looked at me and pedalled off.' The implication - from someone who should know - was that Voight had no time for Hamilton's PED use and was not happy at his return.

White jazz wrote:

@Old Cranky
The mention I remember from Hamilton's book is when he returned after his ban. Hamilton said something along the lines of 'Jens Voight, nicest guy in the peloton. I went up to him to say hi and he just looked at me and pedalled off.' The implication - from someone who should know - was that Voight had no time for Hamilton's PED use and was not happy at his return.

Actually Hamilton is more ambiguous than that. He basically is making the comment that because he got caught, he was a pariah in the peloton, not because he took PEDs. If you wanted to make a deeper inference, the very fact that he mentions Voigt could be seen that he viewed Voigt as another doper, and so indicating the double standard.

However, they are always careful in these books not to implicate riders who have not been caught doping, otherwise it would easily become libellous. The whole line of 'innocent until proven guilty' was cant for the Lance lovers back in the day. I've never really trucked with that. There is levels of believability, and then there are things which do not make apparent sense, like a 41 year old professional cyclist competing at the top of an elite athletic sport in a period of time that we know more about training and human performance than ever before (i.e. we know how to train an athlete their genetic peak - so why is this old guy preventing a younger stronger rider getting through - could it be the same reason LA was able to blast his way out of retirement, which was I believe, down to steroids).

I think there was a lot of this 'we can't prove Lance cheated and therefore he wasn't' argument, when a lot of cycling history could have been sorted out if people said 'it seems very likely that Pantani is on drugs given the speed he is climbing', and 'given Pantani was on drugs and LA is beating him up a climb, doesn't that warrant further investigation?'

There is much with the psychology of sports which will cause sportsmen to cheat, that desire to win is a slippery slope to cheating (or winning by any means necessary as I'm sure they'll say). Once you know that someone else cheated you, it becomes hard not to follow a similar route if you think that you're better than someone else. Plus, for being the winner are such that it invites a 'win at all cost'. We have created the gladiators of ancient Rome, only the costs to their bodies are felt 10-20 years later, and rarely the mortality of their later day comparison, but even then there are those who have cast their lives away in the process of reaching the top.

You're right, I've just looked at the text. In fact it's quite funny.
He says (having been snubbed):
"I tried not to take it personally. Maybe Jens was just afraid of being associated with me. Maybe I was an unwelcome reminder of what might happen to him if he got popped. Maybe it's just the way the brotherhood works you're in or out. No inbetween. "
It was probably meant personally.
Maybe Hamilton knew something, maybe not. But of the reasons he presents he doesn't seem to have thought that Voight disapproved of his return on moral grounds.
However, I'm not sure your age argument holds up. Ryan Giggs is playing in the Premier League at 39. Voight's performance on the Tour de Suisse perhaps reflects the impact of age. Caught after a long breakaway. The poster above points out that cycling is a team sport a people bring different qualities to the team.
I'm not really arguing that Voight is either using or not using PEDs.
Whatl I'm saying is that winning races or having a long career are not in themselves suspicious.

stumps wrote:

Decster, in all sports you get people who perform at the top of their chosen career well past what most people would describe as their "best before date".

I doesn't mean they are on drugs or cheating, we are human and not machines so everyone is different. You seem to be drugs infatuated looking at some of your previous comments.

I would agree with you, except that most other sports require a degree of skill which sometimes makes up for a lack of stamina/speed resulting from ageing. Lets all not forget that Dr Fuentes also had many other clients whom did not cycle....my inference being that you can not hold out other sports given that many are so poor at taking blood tests.

I like Jens. He shows heart when he cycles, but I find it incredulous that he went through the naughty nineties without doping. If you read Mr Miller's book it explains just how hard it is to exist without doping, and Jens' career was hardly anonymous. Jens' statement is just the same as all the other dopers. I want to believe him, but he is better off just not saying anything on the subject if he can help it.

Decster wrote:

Not a fan of anyone who dopes and cheats, dont care how much of a 'character' and nice guy they are.