Are there any "clean" cyclists?

[zigmeister]

Does the TDF bring out every fool and poster on the internet?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You don't seem to be the kind of person that would vouch for someone unless you were quite certain. What makes you think he is clean as opposed to other riders?

Pierrick is a man who eschews supplements, vitamin pills and even energy gels because "they're not real food". In 2008 he won Plouay, beating Alessandro Ballan in a two-up sprint. He was selected for the Worlds that Ballan won just a month later, but elected not to ride because he'd booked a family holiday that week (really).

In addition to this, he has a quintessentially French laissez-faire attitude to training; he goes out on tough rides regularly but he doesn't log his km, and prefers to gauge performance based on how he feels relative to opponents when in the break than to check power meters and log his W/kg. His attitude to training drives team management nuts. He considers himself to be mentally quite fragile and doesn't want the pressure that would come with being a team leader (or didn't in his peak years; he's 35 now and unlikely to be a team leader at any top two tier team at this point in his career), preferring to target stages and smaller races, and most of his results are along these lines - smaller one-day and short stage races in France and four stages of Le Tour.

 

[hiero2]

to Me if doping is on the wane why? are the clean riders still not calling out the dirty ones

omerta or do riders not know what others are doing?

could critical mass be reached when there enough clean riders to isolate dirty ones?

Mark L

Wow. Well, one thing for sure, OP, you've aroused a taste of the cynicism present in this forum. Matter o' fact, your op could be considered trolling, as it is likely to draw out such discussion. But, I say it is trolling in the good sense - seeking honest - if biased (because this forum is biased) - discourse. ebandit has posted one of the more reasonable replies - if you can read it!

Me, idk for sure, but I believe many in the peloton are clean today. Of the rest, dopage resources are becoming extremely limited and risky. Therefore, unlike 1995, or 2k, or 2k+5, other riders in the peloton might NOT know if you are doping. Advantages gained, it seems, are becoming much less remarkable. If one believes that ANYone in the peloton is clean, then one must believe more than one is clean. Why? Because they AREN'T all reporting each other. Remember, at the height of dopage, we had a few souls speak out loud "DO NOT believe!". Today, we do not see that. So, either omerta is stronger than it ever was in the halcyon days, or it is not, and we can believe at least some of the people who claim they are trying.

But the cynicism here knows no bounds. As one said - he would rather believe Talansky is doped now, than to believe he is clean and be hurt later. Personally, I think Talansky is one of the ones we can trust, because I think Vaughters is one of the ones we can trust.

 

[hiero2]

Pierrick is a man who eschews supplements, vitamin pills and even energy gels because "they're not real food". In 2008 he won Plouay, beating Alessandro Ballan in a two-up sprint. He was selected for the Worlds that Ballan won just a month later, but elected not to ride because he'd booked a family holiday that week (really).

In addition to this, he has a quintessentially French laissez-faire attitude to training; he goes out on tough rides regularly but he doesn't log his km, and prefers to gauge performance based on how he feels relative to opponents when in the break than to check power meters and log his W/kg. His attitude to training drives team management nuts. He considers himself to be mentally quite fragile and doesn't want the pressure that would come with being a team leader (or didn't in his peak years; he's 35 now and unlikely to be a team leader at any top two tier team at this point in his career), preferring to target stages and smaller races, and most of his results are along these lines - smaller one-day and short stage races in France and four stages of Le Tour.

Well argued. Btw - which Saiz? Is it the land of

Prospero Saiz
Jesus Saiz
or
Manolo Saiz

Or, OTHER (like Asociación Hermanos Saíz?)

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Pierrick is a man who eschews supplements, vitamin pills and even energy gels because "they're not real food". In 2008 he won Plouay, beating Alessandro Ballan in a two-up sprint. He was selected for the Worlds that Ballan won just a month later, but elected not to ride because he'd booked a family holiday that week (really).

In addition to this, he has a quintessentially French laissez-faire attitude to training; he goes out on tough rides regularly but he doesn't log his km, and prefers to gauge performance based on how he feels relative to opponents when in the break than to check power meters and log his W/kg. His attitude to training drives team management nuts. He considers himself to be mentally quite fragile and doesn't want the pressure that would come with being a team leader (or didn't in his peak years; he's 35 now and unlikely to be a team leader at any top two tier team at this point in his career), preferring to target stages and smaller races, and most of his results are along these lines - smaller one-day and short stage races in France and four stages of Le Tour.

He sounds very much like how David Moncoutié is often described.

 

[beowulf]

to Me if doping is on the wane why? are the clean riders still not calling out the dirty ones

omerta or do riders not know what others are doing?

could critical mass be reached when there enough clean riders to isolate dirty ones?

Mark L

Possibly, but to eradicate doping from cycling the teams have to take a stand and encourage a dope free culture. I do not see that at the moment. I mean Horner is riding in this years tour.

The reason why clean riders do not accuse other riders of doping is because quite often there are riders on their own teams who are doping. Bassons was not just ostracized from the tour, but from his own team. Also a cyclist may be clean and win a race or a stage of one of the tours, but he may have been helped by doping team mates. In the end it has to come from the teams.

I am very suspicious of any cyclist whose power numbers on climbs do not decrease as the tour goes on.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

He sounds very much like how David Moncoutié is often described.

There are definite parallels. I think Fédrigo is a bit more driven than Moncoutié, and there isn't the word of somebody like Gaumont in his favour (but then, he never rode for a team that was known for doping, unlike Moncoutié being at Cofidis) - when he left Bouygues he went to FDJ, who have a very good reputation on the doping front, which meant he escaped involvement in Europcar's miracle Tour of 2011.

I also think Moncoutié was the stronger overall rider; though Fedrigo has always targeted Le Tour, and on his better attempts is at the low end of the top 30; normally he's around 50th to 60th with some strong placements from the break in mountain stages. If Fedrigo had targeted the Vuelta (which he's only done twice) and the Giro (which he's never raced) maybe he could have carved out a different niche for himself like David did in later years.

Either way, I trust Le Nez.

 

[blackcat]

to Me if doping is on the wane why? are the clean riders still not calling out the dirty ones

cyling norms, mores and culture

omerta or do riders not know what others are doing?

if they want to know, they would ask their brethren with the saucepan up their @rse

could critical mass be reached when there enough clean riders to isolate dirty ones?

hypothetically, if one isolates this with no influence of the previous era and norms, mores and culture. Why does Talansky defend Armstrong? This has to be the most stupid exhalation possible. It is equivalent to the saucepan on your @rse but it is the saucepan on your forehead.

 

[blackcat]

There are definite parallels. I think Fédrigo is a bit more driven than Moncoutié, and there isn't the word of somebody like Gaumont in his favour (but then, he never rode for a team that was known for doping, unlike Moncoutié being at Cofidis) - when he left Bouygues he went to FDJ, who have a very good reputation on the doping front, which meant he escaped involvement in Europcar's miracle Tour of 2011.

I also think Moncoutié was the stronger overall rider; though Fedrigo has always targeted Le Tour, and on his better attempts is at the low end of the top 30; normally he's around 50th to 60th with some strong placements from the break in mountain stages. If Fedrigo had targeted the Vuelta (which he's only done twice) and the Giro (which he's never raced) maybe he could have carved out a different niche for himself like David did in later years.

Either way, I trust Le Nez.

Libertine, i know you know your stuff. but i think you lean to the credulous end of the spectrum. personally, i lean to the opposite, the riders need to prove by losing. Perrick has a phenomenal tdf palmares, a little like Eric Dekker.

And my position is, one needs to triangulate the competition. As D-Queued's aphorism goes, "marginal gains aint a rounding error on Ferrari's comprehensive doping program"

 

[Master50]

Regardless of whether you think they are all dopers or all clean you are both wrong. There are always people that cheat and there are always people that will not. The only debate is the percentages of clean/dirty.
Within the clinic part of the Forum I am sure the majority of regulars are heavily on the most are cheating point of view as their bias.
Since it is currently impossible to prove a negative and proving a positive is almost as hard I guess you may as well just say it is a faith based answer. What ever you believe is probably as close to the truth as you need to be.
I am puzzled why the doping faithful bother to watch cycling? they profess the sport is a joke and everyone is a cheater. They seem to be offended by the doping yet they come back every day to prove they watch every stage. Follow the careers of the riders looking for a clue?? Why do they follow a sport they say is totally corrupt? The sport would be a lot better off if they followed soccer. That sport needs a few more people to be indignant about doping. Is it really only cycling and athletics that care?

 

[Benotti69]

If the sport was interested in proving itself to have a majority of clean athletes it would make the testing harder to beat. That UCI hasn't means cheating and the doping culture is still the norm. That the teams are full of enablers and ex dopers points to the culture to dope still being the norm.

 

[sars1981]

Yeah I'm a clean cyclist. Never took a PED in my life.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Yeah I'm a clean cyclist. Never took a PED in my life.

Not even a cup of coffee when that was on the prohibited list ?

But yes you can be 100% sure only of yourself.
You can be pretty sure about those very close to you, but even then dopers quite easily learn how to hide that fact from their friends and family.

 

[bewildered]

Regardless of whether you think they are all dopers or all clean you are both wrong. There are always people that cheat and there are always people that will not. The only debate is the percentages of clean/dirty.
Within the clinic part of the Forum I am sure the majority of regulars are heavily on the most are cheating point of view as their bias.
Since it is currently impossible to prove a negative and proving a positive is almost as hard I guess you may as well just say it is a faith based answer. What ever you believe is probably as close to the truth as you need to be.
I am puzzled why the doping faithful bother to watch cycling? they profess the sport is a joke and everyone is a cheater. They seem to be offended by the doping yet they come back every day to prove they watch every stage. Follow the careers of the riders looking for a clue?? Why do they follow a sport they say is totally corrupt? The sport would be a lot better off if they followed soccer. That sport needs a few more people to be indignant about doping. Is it really only cycling and athletics that care?

I think there are clean riders but still dopers dominating all major races. But to answer your question, a lot of the 'doping faithful' don't necessarily attach most blame to the riders, but rather the DSs, UCI, enablers etc who make it nigh on impossible in practice for most riders to race clean.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Are there any "clean" cyclists?

Only among the unemployed. They no longer can afford Dr. Feelgood's consultation fees.

 

[Master50]

If the sport was interested in proving itself to have a majority of clean athletes it would make the testing harder to beat. That UCI hasn't means cheating and the doping culture is still the norm. That the teams are full of enablers and ex dopers points to the culture to dope still being the norm.

First of all the UCI and every sport only has the same ability to catch drug cheats. it is about chemistry and timing. More is done in cycling to test at times when catching them is more likely like out of Competition.

You only see the dark and dirty side and In my mind that is where you live.

It is my opinion that you are one of the most likely people to cheat because it is your paradigm. If doping is the default then you would feel justified to play dirty, at least in your mind. You'd be the first guy to ask your DS when can you get your dope.

can't you ever appreciate that many have been wanting a de-escalation for a long time. not everyone is polarized at 1 end of the mora spectrum. It just cannot work like that. You have to realize that some riders just won't.

We all wish for better testing including the UCI.

 

[Benotti69]

First of all the UCI and every sport only has the same ability to catch drug cheats. it is about chemistry and timing. More is done in cycling to test at times when catching them is more likely like out of Competition.

I disagree. They are not trying.

You only see the dark and dirty side and In my mind that is where you live.

It is my opinion that you are one of the most likely people to cheat because it is your paradigm. If doping is the default then you would feel justified to play dirty, at least in your mind. You'd be the first guy to ask your DS when can you get your dope.

Why make it personal? I am the last person to dope. Why am i not doping now as an amateur and beating everyone around me? Why am I not doping to win the club race every month? No doubt the others are taking stuff as there is no testing. I dont care for winning but you the pseudo psychologist can diagnose me?

My mind is not dark. I have followed this sport since the 80s and i have not seen the monumental change, which would flip from the majority of doping to a minority of doping. I call it as it is.

Those who cant see it, is because they fail to understand human nature and when the reward is greater than the risk people will cheat. Look at all those invloved in the reason decision, all well off from their cheating, not one had to pay back any of their ill gotten earnings from cheating. Tell a young pro not to be a Hincapie, CVdV, or a Vaughters and they will ask why? they are rich from doping!

can't you ever appreciate that many have been wanting a de-escalation for a long time. not everyone is polarized at 1 end of the mora spectrum. It just cannot work like that. You have to realize that some riders just won't.

We all wish for better testing including the UCI.

Many want it but no one wants to be 1st to fall behind the others and lose any advantage.

Take Garmin. With the exception of Thomas Dekker none of their dopers were caught doping. Millar was caught because the police searched his flat and he caved in and told the truth to the ownership of the empty epo vials. They all (exception being Dekker) know how to dope and how to beat the system. Why change? They need to perform the testing is a joke, the other teams have no morals, do they think they can beat dopers? No chance, the only thing JV has done was introduce internal testing and better logistics to ensure no positives. He has done well, 2 monuments and a GT.

Again the reason i see the sport as still a cesspit is the lies. Take Vaughters, he assured us Wiggins was clean in 2009, but he then admits he never saw Wiggins till July and he hasn't got a clue who Wiggins was training with!

Cookson told us he was going to be vey harsh on doping and be very transparent and yet we see Menchov gets a 2 year ban and not a word from UCI and Menchov gets to keep all his wins. Tell a young pro not to be like Menchov and they'll laugh. He got to keep his Giro win, his Vuelta win and all the money along with them!! Why not dope? See Cookson lied.

The sport is still a cesspit. Cookson might have got a new carpet for the sport, but underneath it is still the same.

 

[sittingbison]

Gentle(wo)men,
Let's keep it impersonal please

Keep calm and carry on

Bison

 

[RobbieCanuck]

If you root for any rider you have 'blood on your hands' that's all I'll say on the matter.

Does that include the Angels or are they exempt from your blanket doping curse

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Any time you're tempted to think a rider on the podium hasn't used illicit means to enhance performance, watch the following:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v4nHQsrUrZg

(It's the Lance "what am I on?" Nike ad, sorry if you're not on mobile)...

Sorry that ad doesn't do it for the whole peloton. Maybe the peloton 1995 to 2010, but after that things are a changing and doping is just not as rampant. Still a substantial problem however, as scientist discover new ways to get around tests and new PEDs.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Second rider from the left. As least he insists on mentioning that he's "never tested positive."

Hincapie's Development Team! Give them a year or two and they will all be juiced.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

sure there are clean cyclists. i even reckon there are clean riders at the tour.

the question should be, do clean cyclists win?

Yep. Sastre, Evans, Froome, Horner, Nibali and wait for it - Contador (I know that massive amount of clen (50 trillionths of a gm) that had no performance enhancing effect).

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Clearly the guy in your avatar is riding on bread and water.

Disingenuous questions deserve disingenuous answers. Isn't this like the 1000th time this exact thread has been posted? Use the search function next time noob, it'll save you some time and save us some frustration.

Its a generational thing Chewie!

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Pierrick is a man who eschews supplements, vitamin pills and even energy gels because "they're not real food". In 2008 he won Plouay, beating Alessandro Ballan in a two-up sprint. He was selected for the Worlds that Ballan won just a month later, but elected not to ride because he'd booked a family holiday that week (really).

In addition to this, he has a quintessentially French laissez-faire attitude to training; he goes out on tough rides regularly but he doesn't log his km, and prefers to gauge performance based on how he feels relative to opponents when in the break than to check power meters and log his W/kg. His attitude to training drives team management nuts. He considers himself to be mentally quite fragile and doesn't want the pressure that would come with being a team leader (or didn't in his peak years; he's 35 now and unlikely to be a team leader at any top two tier team at this point in his career), preferring to target stages and smaller races, and most of his results are along these lines - smaller one-day and short stage races in France and four stages of Le Tour.

This guy has his priorities right!

 

[BYOP88]

Does that include the Angels or are they exempt from your blanket doping curse

The 'blood on your hands' comes from the clinic's #1 fan and now permabanned martinvickers.

Regarding the Angels, I love them but wouldn't put my hands in the fire for any of them.