"The Damiano who won the Giro no longer exists"

[ludwig]

One of the ways your reasoning goes wrong is assuming that doping is only for GTs. But history tells us dopers dominate the one-week races and classics as well.

I'm not going to try to guess what kind of doping program Cunego or others are on because I believe these programs are constantly evolving. But I would argue that there is a high degree of liklihood that the top racers are doing something similar to other top racers. It isn't always organized at a team level...indeed at this point the majority of doping is probably carried out outside the confines of team structures. If there were bigger gaps in terms of preparation, then there would be bigger demand within the peloton to develop the testing and preventive measures to do something about the problem.

I suppose the Vuelta has been lagging a little in recent years but I wouldn't exaggerate the difference...it remains extremely competitive. And looking at the history of the Vuelta in the past 15 years we see a race exclusively dominated by dopers and doping teams.

The reason I find it so hard to believe that a clean rider could win a mountain stage in a GT or a hard classic (or even a flat classic for that matter) is there doesn't seem to by any precedent for this in the past 15 years.

I acknowledge doping is not the only factor in winning races. Contador and Valverde are clearly hugely talented individuals--there is no way they could do what they do without ample natural talent. Armstrong is a unique individual with a unique physiology--he has the mental edge over the competition. But take away the dope and I don't believe any of them could score Top 20 in a GT.

I don't see myself believing a clean cyclist could win a major event until either foolproof testing arrives, or the sport gets a major facelift and change of leadership. And even then it will take some years for the sport to build up credibility. Until then, I'll enjoy the spectacle.

[pmcg76]

Originally Posted by ludwig

One of the ways your reasoning goes wrong is assuming that doping is only for GTs. But history tells us dopers dominate the one-week races and classics as well.

I'm not going to try to guess what kind of doping program Cunego or others are on because I believe these programs are constantly evolving. But I would argue that there is a high degree of liklihood that the top racers are doing something similar to other top racers. It isn't always organized at a team level...indeed at this point the majority of doping is probably carried out outside the confines of team structures. If there were bigger gaps in terms of preparation, then there would be bigger demand within the peloton to develop the testing and preventive measures to do something about the problem.

I suppose the Vuelta has been lagging a little in recent years but I wouldn't exaggerate the difference...it remains extremely competitive. And looking at the history of the Vuelta in the past 15 years we see a race exclusively dominated by dopers and doping teams.

The reason I find it so hard to believe that a clean rider could win a mountain stage in a GT or a hard classic (or even a flat classic for that matter) is there doesn't seem to by any precedent for this in the past 15 years.

I acknowledge doping is not the only factor in winning races. Contador and Valverde are clearly hugely talented individuals--there is no way they could do what they do without ample natural talent. Armstrong is a unique individual with a unique physiology--he has the mental edge over the competition. But take away the dope and I don't believe any of them could score Top 20 in a GT.

I don't see myself believing a clean cyclist could win a major event until either foolproof testing arrives, or the sport gets a major facelift and change of leadership. And even then it will take some years for the sport to build up credibility. Until then, I'll enjoy the spectacle.

I dont think doping is only for the GTs, I just think it has a much more significant impact on the GTs.

The Vuelta has definitely had a sordid past this century but I think it has improved the last few years. As I said, I heard the comparison made by a pro rider not me so I am not exaggerating.

I personally dont want this to be a back and forth between us, I would like others to give their opinion on different doping programmes and what are the gains from different drugs and what people believe is possible in modern cycling or maybe somebody can direct me to a thread on this subject I might have missed.