Ag2r

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 10, 2013
36
0
0
I don't think anyone is saying that cheating is ok. Whatever systems are in place there will still be those that try to circumvent those. However, I believe that the majority of cyclists go into the sport wanting to compete clean. There are many reasons that they may be tempted to dope. I'd say one of the most important ones is that they feel everyone else is , so need to in order to stay competitive. The BP is important in this regard. Sure cyclists can still cheat the system, but it's only incremental gains not the rampant abuse of the 90s. Now of course, no-one really knows who is on what. regardless of whether Sky's success was fair or foul, if other teams think they're on something there will be catch up. And that is why there needs to be more transparency for the good of the sport.
 
Mar 8, 2010
244
0
0
Benotti69 said:
I dont care for the argument that the French riders are riding on panyagua either.
I don't know for Bardet but I think Peraud is clean.
He's been on the blood passport since 2002 and always produced consistent performance.
 
Benotti seems to believe either all doping ceases overnight, or there's literally no progress. If we went from 100% of the peloton on 60% hematocrit to 5% of the peloton on painkillers, anyone saying that's good progress would be a doping apologist.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
hrotha said:
Benotti seems to believe either all doping ceases overnight, or there's literally no progress. If we went from 100% of the peloton on 60% hematocrit to 5% of the peloton on painkillers, anyone saying that's good progress would be a doping apologist.
what progress are you referring to?
is there any evidence of progress?

yorkshire says "clearly".
is it clear?
the only thing that is clear (to me) is that you still cannot win clean.
imo cycling is as unbelievable as it was ten years ago.
the only thing that has visibly changed is the talk: our intelligence is insulted more tha ever before.
you thought usps following festina was bad? bummer waking up in the new era.

even if the quantity of peds used per cyclist would've dropped, there is no positive to draw from that if meanwhile the number of cheating cyclists and the degree of intent to cheat remains the same.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
hrotha said:
Benotti seems to believe either all doping ceases overnight, or there's literally no progress. If we went from 100% of the peloton on 60% hematocrit to 5% of the peloton on painkillers, anyone saying that's good progress would be a doping apologist.
I dont agree that there are different levels of cheating. Cheating is a line that is crossed, whether with 1 pill or a thousand.

Anybody who wants to say things are better because they are taking 1 pill is deluding themselves. Everyone is on 1 pill, till a guy wins on 2 pills than the next guy takes 3 and so on........

What is needed is the resolve to tackle doping. It doesn't exist. It is all pr at best or something a lot darker at worst.
 
Nov 29, 2010
2,326
0
0
Benotti69 said:
I dont agree that there are different levels of cheating. Cheating is a line that is crossed, whether with 1 pill or a thousand.

Anybody who wants to say things are better because they are taking 1 pill is deluding themselves. Everyone is on 1 pill, till a guy wins on 2 pills than the next guy takes 3 and so on........
O for sure, cheating is cheating, most will agree.

You however, for whatever reason, when quoting hrotha's little apologue subtly replied to a completely different point ...

Essentially his point of contention is that if we move from point A: 500 guys taking 3 pills each, to point B: 400 guys taking 3 pills each, we have made progress in the field of anti-doping.

If it is on the other hand moving from point A: 500 guys to taking 3 pills each, to point B: 500 guys taking 1 pill each, then arguably (dependent on your view) we have made no progress.

It does seem from your posts you don't value the first scenario as a possible set of circumstances and due to your cynicism (rightly or wrongly) you only see anti-doping efforts in light of the second scenario.
 
deValtos said:
O for sure, cheating is cheating, most will agree.

You however, for whatever reason, when quoting hrotha's little apologue subtly replied to a completely different point ...

Essentially his point of contention is that if we move from point A: 500 guys taking 3 pills each, to point B: 400 guys taking 3 pills each, we have made progress in the field of anti-doping.

If it is on the other hand moving from point A: 500 guys to taking 3 pills each, to point B: 500 guys taking 1 pill each, then arguably (dependent on your view) we have made no progress.

It does seem from your posts you don't value the first scenario as a possible set of circumstances and due to your cynicism (rightly or wrongly) you only see anti-doping efforts in light of the second scenario.
Agree, there's progress. But after reading some of his posts, Bennotti's point (not in direct response to hrotha tho) is to boot doping entirely off the sport. Not declare victory when the second coming of USPS just won two TdFs. I would add: who really cares about the 0 pill riders? To keep kids from drugs, you wouldn't let them party with Keith Richards, right? So why allow former 6 or 8 pills guys anywhere near a race, or even let them mentor 20 year old kids?
 
Jun 27, 2013
44
0
0
Tonton said:
Agree, there's progress. But after reading some of his posts, Bennotti's point (not in direct response to hrotha tho) is to boot doping entirely off the sport. Not declare victory when the second coming of USPS just won two TdFs. I would add: who really cares about the 0 pill riders? To keep kids from drugs, you wouldn't let them party with Keith Richards, right? So why allow former 6 or 8 pills guys anywhere near a race, or even let them mentor 20 year old kids?
Well there's a difference between declaring victory and noting with satisfaction that there may have been a slight improvement along the lines that hrotha/deValtos mentioned (while also realising it's a drop in the ocean). I think most reasonable people on this thread seem to fall into the 'noting with satisfaction' side of things.
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,246
0
0
roundabout said:
Even Gastauer is climbing well now
This is not a surprise to anyone who has followed his career. He has a huge engine and is not a half bad climber. Look at his U23 results, he was winning tough races with a lot of climbing, like Tour des Pays de Savoie, beating Van Garderen for example. Also in the Giro and Vuelta his climbing was OK (16th at Giro mountain ITT last year). At the same time the tempo that he set the other day wasn't out of this world and it wasn't for a very long time either. If Froome or Contador was still around, or if Riblon was in good shape, he would have been completely anonymous again this whole Tour, so I am glad for him that he gets to prove himself.

As for AG2R I think it is a combination of factors. Really good recruiting for the last two seasons. Overall top notch racers with Bardet and Peraud. A team that's not afraid to take the reins now that Tinkoff and Sky are diminished. Dope might well be one of the factors, but I think the aforementioned also come into play.
 
Christian said:
This is not a surprise to anyone who has followed his career. He has a huge engine and is not a half bad climber. Look at his U23 results, he was winning tough races with a lot of climbing, like Tour des Pays de Savoie, beating Van Garderen for example. Also in the Giro and Vuelta his climbing was OK (16th at Giro mountain ITT last year). At the same time the tempo that he set the other day wasn't out of this world and it wasn't for a very long time either. If Froome or Contador was still around, or if Riblon was in good shape, he would have been completely anonymous again this whole Tour, so I am glad for him that he gets to prove himself.

As for AG2R I think it is a combination of factors. Really good recruiting for the last two seasons. Overall top notch racers with Bardet and Peraud. A team that's not afraid to take the reins now that Tinkoff and Sky are diminished. Dope might well be one of the factors, but I think the aforementioned also come into play.
This is why I laugh at Sky.

They do nothing like this for UK youth cycling.

http://www.cyclisme.ag2rlamondiale.fr/en/ethics/chambery-cyclisme-formation

Since the creation in 2002 of Chambéry Cyclisme Formation, AG2R La MONDIALE has been committed to young cyclists, becoming the main partner of the centre whose original and innovative approach combines sports performance and school education aiming at preparing their future professional conversion.

What started as a bet quickly confirmed the soundness of the concept thanks in a first time to the riders’ support and to the results achieved in a second one. School success rate is now above 77 % while the rate of access to the professional category reaches 33, 3 % (since 2006), which places Chambéry Cyclisme Formation among the leading structures in France.

HEALTH PROTECTION AND FIGHT AGAINST DOPING
Within the training centre, riders benefit from daily support with regard to health protection and fight against doping. Test protocols and preventive information sessions are developed and held by the professional team doctor, Eric BOUVAT. Riders can also benefit from psychological care thanks to the professional team psychologist, Virginie DALLA COSTA.


VALIDATION OF UNIVERSITY COURSE
In agreement with the University of Savoie and the Business School, the training centre provides young athletes the necessary support to help them achieve success. More time spent on studying, change of the exam dates, academic support and paid note-takers are supports riders can rely upon to complete their course. We back riders who wish to continue their studies after they turned professionals. The best example of that is Romain BARDET who achieved a great 2013 season while successfully getting on with his business and management academic course.

The past season is as such highly representative: all riders successfully completed their school or academic year. Five of them were reaching the end of the cursus and all of them graduated (one baccalaureate, one HND, a bachelor’s degree and two DUT), equivalent to a 100 % pass rate. (For the second time in three years!).

A LAUNCH PAD TOWARDS THE PROFESSIONAL WORLD
The last eight seasons, 21 riders joined us, the latest being Clément CHEVRIER who achieved a great series of international performances in 2013. He is following in Romain BARDET and Axel DOMONT’s footsteps, which preceded him the previous two years.
 
Christian said:
This is not a surprise to anyone who has followed his career. He has a huge engine and is not a half bad climber. Look at his U23 results, he was winning tough races with a lot of climbing, like Tour des Pays de Savoie, beating Van Garderen for example. Also in the Giro and Vuelta his climbing was OK (16th at Giro mountain ITT last year). At the same time the tempo that he set the other day wasn't out of this world and it wasn't for a very long time either. If Froome or Contador was still around, or if Riblon was in good shape, he would have been completely anonymous again this whole Tour, so I am glad for him that he gets to prove himself.

As for AG2R I think it is a combination of factors. Really good recruiting for the last two seasons. Overall top notch racers with Bardet and Peraud. A team that's not afraid to take the reins now that Tinkoff and Sky are diminished. Dope might well be one of the factors, but I think the aforementioned also come into play.
I know that he was a handy climber before turning pro.

My point is that it has taken him a lot of time to show it at pro level. I think his first pro year was 2009 or 2010?

Tempo, well, he led until 5km to go and the group was < 20 people when he pulled over
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,246
0
0
roundabout said:
I know that he was a handy climber before turning pro.

My point is that it has taken him a lot of time to show it at pro level. I think his first pro year was 2009 or 2010?

Tempo, well, he led until 5km to go and the group was < 20 people when he pulled over
Ah, well cheers to you, most people wouldn't have known this I think. And not surprisingly, since he has been anonymous since his first season at professional level which was in 2010 as you quite correctly say. But being anonymous doesn't mean that he wasn't appreciated in his team, quite on the contrary I think. For example he got a three year contract in 2012 despite not having a single result. He is a highly valued team player, and since he can pass well in any terrain and is rather introverted and shy, he quickly found himself in the role of a domestique, which he did quite well. His strength is also clearly GT's, for the past two seasons he always did the Giro/Vuelta double with no problem. So I expect him to do well in the next week.

The tempo wasn't half bad from what it looked like, but I did a search on his name in the forum and found some posts in the race thread, most of them suggesting that the tempo was too low, and that it was because of him that Majka was able to extend his lead. Another poster added "If this was Sky we'd only have 4 Sky riders and 2 others left". While this is an exageration of course, I think it is accurate in the sense that Gastauer's performance, while unusual for him, comes nowhere close to the true master mountain dom's of the peloton.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
deValtos said:
O for sure, cheating is cheating, most will agree.

You however, for whatever reason, when quoting hrotha's little apologue subtly replied to a completely different point ...

Essentially his point of contention is that if we move from point A: 500 guys taking 3 pills each, to point B: 400 guys taking 3 pills each, we have made progress in the field of anti-doping.

If it is on the other hand moving from point A: 500 guys to taking 3 pills each, to point B: 500 guys taking 1 pill each, then arguably (dependent on your view) we have made no progress.
Well i think we have moved from 100 guys taking 3 pills, 300 guys taking 2 pills and 100 guys taking 1 pill. I dont call it progress, because 400 guys re going to be back taking 3 pills pretty soon as they figure out how the 100 guys are getting away with.

This is problem with the doping. The UCI are not bothered to catch them, the ABP was to set a limit that UCI could control and use against teams or riders.

deValtos said:
It does seem from your posts you don't value the first scenario as a possible set of circumstances and due to your cynicism (rightly or wrongly) you only see anti-doping efforts in light of the second scenario.
Being cycnical about sport is justified.

As for my opinion, there has been a culture to dope in the sport. To end that culture needs a monumental change and i have not seen that.

Guys like Vaughters blew smoke up people's ar$es in 2008 saying it was no longer cool to dope and people believed him.

Look at most of the teams DS or owners, all ex dopers. Look at teams doctors, most with a doping team history. Now WhereandWhenTF did these guys decide 'oh dear this aint cool no more, lets stop!'

Smoke and mirrors.

Festina put the scare on lots because of police involvement, but as we saw with Pantani at the '99 Giro he was still doping to his little hearts content till he failed the HcT limit and got booted out and Armstrong at 99 TdF proved the culture to dope was not going to be put off by the mere French Gendarmes, god forbid the culture to dope would end with the law being anti doping....plenty of French riders have been caught since Festina. Plenty have been caught doping at the TdF.



So
 
Jul 7, 2014
149
0
0
roundabout said:
I know that he was a handy climber before turning pro.

My point is that it has taken him a lot of time to show it at pro level. I think his first pro year was 2009 or 2010?

Tempo, well, he led until 5km to go and the group was < 20 people when he pulled over

Mostly the 20 people who wanted to be there. Sky, Garmin or Saxo didn't even try. All those second tier leaders have really few climbers with them.Vdb even had to rely on Gallopin.
Gadret, Izaguirre, Horner, Velits, Stetina, Kruswijk, Tankink, Jeanneson, Gautier, Zubeldia and the remains of the 3 astana "climbers" and that's nearly all.

I probably forgot some but a 20 people GC group seems legit to me.
 
Jun 26, 2014
9
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Sorry but cheating is cheating. 1 less blood bag is not better than no blood bags. That people accept reduced doping is stupid.



There is a line that is crossed by cheating. How far past the line an athlete goes is not important once they have crossed that line.



Yeah, Belkin dont have a history? BMC dont have a history?:rolleyes:

I dont care for the argument that the French riders are riding on panyagua either.
Who's accepting reduced doping? Not seen anyone do that.

Just about every team has a history.

Do you believe Mollema, Ten Dam & Van Garderen are doping? I don't. If you do are there any particular reasons why? I can't say any of them 3 have done anything I find suspicious.
 
faraday said:
Well there's a difference between declaring victory and noting with satisfaction that there may have been a slight improvement along the lines that hrotha/deValtos mentioned (while also realising it's a drop in the ocean). I think most reasonable people on this thread seem to fall into the 'noting with satisfaction' side of things.
And I agree with 'most reasonable people'. However, I completely understand the skeptics like Benotti. To be the devil's advocate, how do we know how big an improvement, if any, has been made? Because UCI says so? Because the likes of Phil and Paul say so? And for the life of me, how can you achieve a 0 pill peloton by accepting that Vino or Mr. 60% mentor 20 year-old kids? It's like hiring Pablo Escobar to run a rehab facility. It takes away the credibility of the efforts that I agree have been made. The only real success/deterrent IMO is a policy of testing B samples years later and exposing the cheats. That makes guys think twice.
 
Tonton said:
And I agree with 'most reasonable people'. However, I completely understand the skeptics like Benotti. To be the devil's advocate, how do we know how big an improvement, if any, has been made? Because UCI says so? Because the likes of Phil and Paul say so? And for the life of me, how can you achieve a 0 pill peloton by accepting that Vino or Mr. 60% mentor 20 year-old kids? It's like hiring Pablo Escobar to run a rehab facility. It takes away the credibility of the efforts that I agree have been made. The only real success/deterrent IMO is a policy of testing B samples years later and exposing the cheats. That makes guys think twice.
Because they are slower. No matter how talented, a clean rider wouldn't have a chance in the mid-90's. Now, if truly talented, a rider will have a chance.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Netserk said:
Because they are slower. No matter how talented, a clean rider wouldn't have a chance in the mid-90's. Now, if truly talented, a rider will have a chance.
did somebody hijack your account?
i'm not used to you postulating wildly speculative propositions as if they were proven realities.

anyway, who did you have in mind that fits the description of "1. truly talented, 2. clean and 3. (regularly) podiuming high profile races"?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
sniper said:
did somebody hijack your account?
i'm not used to you postulating wildly speculative propositions as if they were proven realities.

anyway, who did you have in mind that fits the description of "1. truly talented, 2. clean and 3. (regularly) podiuming high profile races"?
Chris Horner, clearly.
 
sniper said:
did somebody hijack your account?
i'm not used to you postulating wildly speculative propositions as if they were proven realities.


anyway, who did you have in mind that fits the description of "1. truly talented, 2. clean and 3. (regularly) podiuming high profile races"?
I think it's obvious that if there's a talent like Lemond (who for some reason wouldn't like to win the Tour and therefore dope), he would be able to fx win a stage in the Tour. I can't see why a Lemond like talent shouldn't have a chance to beat Kadri on the stage he won.

I don't think it's possible to compete for the win of the overall in the Tour clean, but I certainly do think highly talented clean riders can have a better career now than they could 20 years ago. It'd surprise me very much if you don't think so too.
 
Netserk said:
Because they are slower. No matter how talented, a clean rider wouldn't have a chance in the mid-90's. Now, if truly talented, a rider will have a chance.
Good point, i.e. Cadel Evans, whom I think won clean.

They are slower: how much is less doping? Could it be less talent overall as well? Did the Spanish become dominant due to lesser competition? Did emerging cycling countries emerge for the same reason? How much did all the scandals deter parents to get their kids into cycling in some usually prolific cycling countries? Who would want to spend all that money on bikes (me) and risk the health of their child (not me)? A 12 year old kid at the time of the Festina scandal would be 26 today...

I am on record writing that the peloton is cleaner, attributing (rightly I hope) the resurgence of French cycling to less doping. Still, I can't buy the idea that cycling is doing much to eliminate doping when the Vinos, Mr. 60%, are allowed be anywhere near, or mentor, the young riders. I can't.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY