CyclingNews Forum  

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 11-15-09, 14:49
ludwig ludwig is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 75
Default

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.

Last edited by ludwig; 11-15-09 at 14:54.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-15-09, 17:50
pmcg76 pmcg76 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 553
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ludwig View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old Yesterday, 14:58
pendant pendant is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3
Lightbulb

I think he could still do well in 1 week tours like Rebellin did e.g. Paris.
__________________
phone calls
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old Today, 00:39
Gregory's Avatar
Gregory Gregory is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 7
Default

It's a very interesting discussion with many valuable contributions: a great read. But regarding Cunego's possible doping program since 2004, we're in a land of pure speculation. Regardless of what one may think, it's impossible to achieve some certainty here, or even come to some plausible conclusions. As for me, I merely see various options, possibilities.
I would simply like to make some observations about the 2004 Giro, since I remember this great race very well, I have watched the crucial mountain stages many times.
I have to say, that those who believe that Cunego's success was mostly a result of a lucky set of coincidences are perhaps not getting the full picture.
Although I supported Simoni during that race, I have to say that Cunego was much stronger, especially in the final part.
In the stages to Bormio and Presolana he was never in a difficulty. Because of the tactics he couldn't directly go after Simoni, but whenever Cioni (who was very strong then) accelerated to bridge the gap, Cunego immediately sat on his wheel without any problem. Cunego was so strong, that he was riding standing on the pedals, with hands on the drops (Pantani style) all the time which is not an efficient position, and Cunego himself stopped using this technique in the later years.
On the other hand, it was Simoni who was clearly in trouble. On the stage to Bormio 2000, he attacked on the last climb, but got a very small gap, and whenever Cioni accelarated (taking Cunego with him), the gap was coming down in a matter of seconds. Simoni was almost purple from exertion, and his cadence was very low, as he clearly had trouble pushing the gear he was using. Cunego's win wasn't a tight sprint finish; it was more of a devastating finishing uphill attack to which Simoni had no response.
Next day, Simoni was with Garzelii, but on the last climb Garzelli was clearly the stronger man, setting the pace on the last section, with Simoni hanging for life. When Cioni with Cunego accelerated, the gap was coming down real fast.
Cunego was also stronger than Simoni before the Giro, during Giro del Trentino and Giro dell Appenino.
Simoni was clearly the weaker man, but he could've won the Giro, had it not been for his ITT fall. Cunego was horrible during ITT. If Simoni hadn't fell down, he could've taken the leader's jersey. In this situation Cunego would not be allowed to go in that monumental escape, and Saeco would've used a classical, conservative strategy.
Simoni may have deliberately put less effort in preparations for the Giro, in order to save his form for the Tour. To some extent it worked; while he was getting dropped on the first serious climbs in 2003, he was able to hold with the contenders at least until the final climb in 2004.
As for Cunego's mysterious drop of form, there are no obvious answers here. I doubt he had access in 2004, to anything better than the rest of the peleton was using, so he clearly was in great form (although he was doping). So why the drop of form? I'll suggest a certain hypothesis, it may be completely false, but i think it's interesting:
Cyclists usually reach full maturity in their late twenties, or even early thirties. That was the case with Simoni. It's important to realize that the male body is still developing until that point: the muscle mass is increasing and the bones are becoming more dense, and as the result the weight is increasing.
Although Cunego was a very young cyclist in 2004, he was already reknown for his relatively huge calf and thigh muscles. I have never seen a climber with such big muscles, he had the legs of a sprinter. And yet he was able to maintain a very low body weight, like the smallest climbers. How was it possible? He had to have an extremely slim and light upper body to balance the bulk of his leg muscles. As years passed, Cunego's upper body certainly developed: his bones and muscles. He had two options: to accept higher weight, or to reduce it. And you can't just reduce weight selectively on one part of the body. I believe, Cunego chose the second option. When I looked at Cunego's legs in recent years I realized that they are visibly thinner than before. However the process may have killed that extra edge that Cunego had over other cyclists. In pro cycling, even small differences such as these yield huge effects.
To put myself more clear: I believe that contrary to other riders, Cunego reached his perfect point, his perfect combination very early. The natural development of the body may have killed a climber in Cunego.
I am not so sure about Cunego's implicit suggestions about his rejection of doping as a cause of his weaker results. I would love to believe him, but it is also possible that this is an attempt to rationalize and make sense (also for himself) of his failure to meet the huge expectations put on his shoulder after the 2004 victory. It must be very painful to live, and to deal with such a thing.

Last edited by Gregory; Today at 00:41.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:38.


Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.