Jono L. wrote:And here was Martin Hardie's response, very interestingMatt white is not the problem here it is the administration of CA who have buried their head in the sand for far to long.
I have spoken to Matt about cycling and doing for many years. He is a person I have always admired.
Matt white has done his best for cycling throughout his life. He has worked his hardest to make sure younger riders do not face the same decisions he faced.
The individual cyc
lists are not to blame as they we re inducted into a System that gave them a choice they never wanted to make.
His inability to go public since Floyd Landis first made his allegations which mentioned Matt in the same terms as the recent usada report I believe were greatly influenced by the culture and advice of both CA and the UCI. He like others was also subject to intense pressure from the Armstrong camp which itself was tied at the umbilical cord to theUCI and many federations.
When Floyd Landis made his allegations CA ran an intense campaign, to try and stop him speaking at the conference we held at deakin university where we launched our study into sloping and pro cycling. Even during the process of writing that report some CA officials did their best to make it hard for or team. Even to the extent of leaning on one of my coresearchers.
In respect of their claims concerning operation Puerto, they have never come clean as to questions of how it was that crucial evidence was not provided to asada in their investigation of allan Davis. who and why withheld the crucial evidence which would have allowed asada to cknfuct a proprr investigation?
Other a in the cycling Australia network also need to come clean about their parts .... I d don't need to name them, they know who they are. Not only about their part in maintaining the Armstrong conspiracy or their own individual doping past. But importantly their pay in inducting others into that System.
mike turtur needs to come clean about his past as a rider in both the Olympic and commonwealth games. Hypocrisy and double standards such as that today with the saving of white is unacceptable if cycling is going to seize the moment provided by the Armstrong case and honestly renew itself.
Bolded is apt.
Vroomen says similar things: http://gerard.cc/2012/10/16/matt-white/
Cycling Australia investigated White in 2011 to see if he could remain their performance coordinator and if he should be hired for Orica-Greenedge. This makes it strange to investigate him again. There are three options:
1. In 2011, they forgot to ask White if he ever doped himself, in which case there is no point in having an investigation – the Cycling Australia board should simply step down.
2. They asked White if he ever doped and he answered truthfully, in which case there is also no need for an investigation or a suspension – the Cycling Australia board should simply explain its decision and stand by it. Or alternatively, the board should resign again if they feel their decision in 2011, having had all the facts available to them, was wrong.
3. They asked White if he ever doped and he lied, in which case there is also no need for an investigation or a suspension as he should be fired right away.