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.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
I don't know for Bardet but I think Peraud is clean.Benotti69 said:
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.
hrotha said:
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.
hrotha 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........
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.
Benotti69 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.
deValtos 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?
Tonton 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.
roundabout 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.
thehog
BANNED
Christian said:
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
Christian 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
roundabout said:
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.
thehog
BANNED
roundabout said:
I was talking about educating them to a degree whilst cycling. The fallback position.
On the positives they did withdrawn themselves from the Dauphine because of it. That's not bad.
deValtos said:
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:
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
roundabout said:
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.
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?
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:
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:
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?Netserk said:
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"?
sniper said:
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:
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 358
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Latest: Armchair cyclist
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram