
Poškodba kolena je bila preveč mučna
Denis Menčov je v karieri dvakrat dobil dirko po Španiji, leta 2009 pa je zmagal tudi na jubilejni stoti dirki po Italiji. A letos se je 35-letni Rus ukvarjal predvsem s poškodbo kolena: »Potem sem spoznal, da je čas, da zaključim športno pot, « je dejal Denis Menčov in priznal: »Zmaga na Giru je zagotovo moj največji uspeh. Letos sem si spet želel nastopiti na Giru. To je bil prvi cilj sezone, vendar mi zaradi poškodbe ni uspelo. «
Denis Menčov ima za sabo zares izjemno kariero, saj je bil poleg prej omenjenih zmag tudi dvakrat tretji na dirki po Franciji. A letos mu je poškodba pokvarila prav vse načrte. »Razmišljal je že, da bi konec sezone končal kariero, a poškodba kolena je stvari samo še pospešila. Zdravniki so mu rekli, da bi moral izpustiti tudi Tour de France, če bi hotel povsem okrevati, « je novico potrdil menedžer ruskega kolesarja Ramondo Scimone.
Med najboljšimi za tritedenske dirke
Sicer pa je Menčov med profesionalne kolesarje prestopil leta 1999, ko je podpisal pogodbo s španskim Banestom. Leta 2001 je dobil Tour de l'Avenir, dve leti kasneje pa je na dirki po Franciji zasedel 11. mesto, a v Parizu je oblekel belo majico najboljšega mladega kolesarja. Leta 2005 je, potem ko so zaradi pozitivnega vzorca diskvalificirali Roberta Herasa, za zeleno mizo dobil dirko po Španiji. Dve leti kasneje je spet slabil na španski Vuelti.
Leta 2008 je bil tretji na francoskem Touru, leta 2009 pa je po hudem boju z Daniom Di Luco dobil dirko po Italiji. Takrat je bil na sporedu stoti Giro. Leta 2010 je bil spet tretji na dirki po Franciji. Zadnji večji uspeh mu je uspelo zabeležiti lani, ko je na španski Vuelti dobil kraljevsko 20. etapo. Po dolgem pobegu je bil najboljši na vrhu izjemno težkega vzpona Bola del Mundo. V karieri je vozil še za Rabobank, Geox TMC in Katjušo.
Since December 2012, Australian news site Cycling Tips has been publishing a blog supposedly ghostwritten for an anonymous, top-tier professional rider. The appropriately named Secret Pro dashed off three somewhat pedestrian columns and when the guessing game got old, some readers (myself included) began to question the value of his contribution.
In May 2013 however, the Secret Pro appeared to answer critics with a dynamite blogcontaining among other tidbits a rumour abroad the peloton that a former Grand Tour winner was about to be outed for questionable bio-passport values.
Speculation duly exploded all over social media already ?full of war? about the Kimmage Defence Fund but for once the brakes went on and fans showed an uncharacteristically mature constraint.
Needless to say, one particular former Grand Tour winner?s name cropped up frequently and his team is an MPCC member. Or it was, since just today, this same rider ? who I?ll dubiously call ?Rider X? ? unexpectedly announced his retirement from the sport effective immediately, fuelling renewed speculation that he was indeed the subject of the rumour shared by the Secret Pro in May.
The phrase ?quit while you?re ahead? is synonymous with pro cycling.
Leonardo Bertagnolli bowed out last year just as news of his own bio-passport case was announced, in part to save his already beleaguered Lampre team from new embarassment. Months later, it emerged that he was also an important witness in the ongoing investigation against Italian doctor Michele Ferrari.
Canadian Michael Barry quit the Sky team just days before the US Anti-Doping Agency?s landmark report on the US Postal team featured the affidavit that detailed his doping activities there.
Carlos Barredo didn?t wait to hear the outcome of his bio-passport investigation and also quit in 2012, having already spent many a month ignominiously benched by his Rabobank team.
If the speculation turns out to be true, and in light of the probably upcoming suspension of the AG2R team, I will be curious to see how Rider X?s team and the MPCC handle the situation. And even if the rumour concerns someone else than Rider X, the exercise deserves examination, since it addresses the lack of clarity in the MPCC rules.
Caught between a rock and a hard place
Next questionRider X joined the team in 2012, performing respectably but still showing little of the sort of form that would confirm his pedigree as a former Grand Tour winner.
It became known later in that year that like Bertagnolli above, he had been named in the Michele Ferrari investigation, and details of questionable activities involving him were published in the press.
Presumably such information would qualify as ?information not originating from a WADA-affiliated source? in Rule 10 of the MPCC regulations, thus no action was necessary and Rider X plodded on regardless.
Rider X began 2013 strongly, figuring prominently in early season stage racing before disappearing for the Spring Classics. Not a surprise in itself but he inexplicably failed to resurface thereafter. He had been, according to his team, suffering from a knee injury, though I can find no reference to it previous to the retirement announcement today.
Let?s say that Rider X is to be sanctioned for suspicious bio-passport values. We ask: he?s retired, so what?s the point? The same could be asked with regard to Barredo, though we never heard back about the Spaniard?s case, so we can?t answer that.
Rider X has retired but are these sanctions still applicable to the team as an MPCCmember in reference to Rule 10?
Common sense would suggest the affirmative but the MPCC rules don?t specify.
What if the sanctions were a response to questionable values from 2012 but Rider X had started 2013 on a different team? Would they still refer to Rule 10 for the team he?d just left?
Common sense would suggest the affirmative but the MPCC rules don?t specify.
Rider X wasn?t the first rider on the team to make waves. There were other positive tests, one in 2011 and 2012, one of which ended in a rather fudged warning from the national federation rather than a typical suspension, though there had definitely been a positive test in that instance. Does a positive test followed by a fudged sanction count for Rule 10 (Case #2)?
Common sense would suggest the affirmative but the MPCC rules don?t specify.
It so happens that Rider X?s team only joined the MPCC in 2013. Eyebrows were raised among some fans but membership was granted on a probationary basis. Do the two positives in 2011 and 2012 count for Rule 10 (Case #2) because the team wasn?t a member back then?
Common sense would suggest the affirmative but the MPCC rules don?t specify.
We?re starting to see a pattern here. The Georges ? AG2R case is relatively straightforward but the (still) hypothetical case of Rider X raises more questions than it answers. Presumably there would have to be a Rule 11 meeting to iron out these issues but who?s got time for that in the middle of a busy season?