At what point did cycling become "clean"?

[Ryo Hazuki]

Good example. Gewiss are the shining light of cleanliness from that era, no doubt.

good on your for completely missing the point

 

[Dear Wiggo]

good on your for completely missing the point

thehog's argument is that skinny riders have traditionally been poor TTers - but the new crop of good, skinny tters are good due to their "preparation".

The fact that you suggest Gewiss were skinny and good TTers reinforces thehog's point.

Feel free to make your point clearer next time, given you are reinforcing a point you appear to want to disagree with.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

One could argue that today is 'darker' than 1998-2005 or so. We knew damned well then that EPO was happening big time. Maybe not exactly how. But we knew a lot more then about what was happening then than we do now about what is happening now.

It's possible it's darker now than it ever was in the past 20 years.

no it's not unless with "performance enhancing products" you mean actually performance decreasing products as riders are much slower than back then. riders can barely attack one time in a race without getting dropped immediately after it.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

At 61kg / 1.74m, Lemond's BMI is 20.14.
At 69kg / 1.90m, Wiggins BMI is 19.11.

Wiggins is significantly "skinnier" than either Hinault or Lemond. Even if you bump his weight up to 72kg, Wiggins is "skinnier".

you can never put it like that. you need to see a persons build as well and his % of fat. I've seen riders that were 169x52(libardo nino) that looked a lot heavier and more muscled than guys their size and much heavier. same accounts in reallife and the other way around as well. I'm 1.77 and 86 kg with 10% bodyfat and a teammate of mine is 182 and 88 kg with a ton more bodyfat, but the weights don't lie. you can't explain that but it's still the truth. if you'd set us next to each other everyone would see me as skinnier but the weights tell a different story. bmi is also the biggets joke in "science" ever.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

thehog's argument is that skinny riders have traditionally been poor TTers - but the new crop of good, skinny tters are good due to their "preparation".

The fact that you suggest Gewiss were skinny and good TTers reinforces thehog's point.

Feel free to make your point clearer next time, given you are reinforcing a point you appear to want to disagree with.

the point was that also back in epo time skinny guys could itt all of a sudden like monsters (gewiss) and added to that is the point that they were no itt specialists, didn't wear helmets, skinsuits and didn't even train on it. just a ton of dope made them that, which is different from today.

 

[richwagmn]

The other point I'll add if a guy like Scarponi and several other of his level are still working with Ferrari and doping then what hope is there for the top tier wining GT's?

I still can't work out what changed? I know speeds are slower than Pantani and Armstrong but that doesn't mean "no doping".

I've never really heard a credible answer to why cycling is now clean.

Do blood transfusions have the same effect as say EPO does?

I know reading Tyler's book it makes a huge difference during a race but isn't it more of "restoring" you to your highest natural level than goosing your numbers?

If so, that would explain the raw speed drops. Doesn't mean they're not dropping a blood bag now and then though.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Do blood transfusions have the same effect as say EPO does?

I know reading Tyler's book it makes a huge difference during a race but isn't it more of "restoring" you to your highest natural level than goosing your numbers?

If so, that would explain the raw speed drops. Doesn't mean they're not dropping a blood bag now and then though.

it's all microdosing anyway if it still happened. these guys can't get injected anymore with blood that is suspicious(high hematocrite, hemeaeglobine all of a sudden) due to bio passport.

 

[sniper]

it's all microdosing anyway if it still happened. these guys can't get injected anymore with blood that is suspicious(high hematocrite, hemeaeglobine all of a sudden) due to bio passport.

you put a lot of faith in the biopassport.
there might still be guys or teams out there getting special treatment from the testers. we don't know.

 

[Von Mises]

thehog's argument is that skinny riders have traditionally been poor TTers - but the new crop of good, skinny tters are good due to their "preparation".

But it is poor argument if only examples are already million times repeated Froome and Wiggins, especially if trying to make generalization (cycling, peloton, skinny tters).

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

you put a lot of faith in the biopassport.
there might still be guys or teams out there getting special treatment from the testers. we don't know.

the testers can't manipulate that at all. they don't even know, who's blood they are testing, next time think of a better argument

 

[peterst6906]

the testers can't manipulate that at all. they don't even know, who's blood they are testing, next time think of a better argument

That's true at the lab end, but the samplers know what, who and when they will collect a sample.

It is credible to imagine that pre-warnings or other assistance may be given as to when tests will be carried out, as no system is perfect and all systems can be abused at their weak points.

In addition, post the lab testing, the numbers and names come back together again at some point within the UCI. If it's true that the UCI are corrupt (I personally believe that the top of the organisation is corrupt, but I don't know about others in the organisation), then this is another weak point that may be exploited to provide preferential treatment.

I'm not saying that this goes on, just that it's possible because the names and numbers are together in at least 2 places along the whole process (the lab is only one component of the overall procedure).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

you can never put it like that. you need to see a persons build as well and his % of fat. I've seen riders that were 169x52(libardo nino) that looked a lot heavier and more muscled than guys their size and much heavier. same accounts in reallife and the other way around as well. I'm 1.77 and 86 kg with 10% bodyfat and a teammate of mine is 182 and 88 kg with a ton more bodyfat, but the weights don't lie. you can't explain that but it's still the truth. if you'd set us next to each other everyone would see me as skinnier but the weights tell a different story. bmi is also the biggets joke in "science" ever.

Here's a clue for you - noone in the pro peloton has 10% body fat.

 

[the sceptic]

Interesting topic; We're now being told that clean teams and riders win can win GT's and that its a victory for 'clean cycling".

What changed in cycling? When did this change occur? Was it testing? Was it a cultural shift? What year did it occur in? Did the governing body make a significant change? Is it marketing?


It appears to occurred with;

Evans, Ryder and now Wiggins.

Why do these cyclists represent "clean cycling" and not others?


I'm a little cynical. I fail to see what was the "turning point" in cycling to take it from a sport which has a high level of drug use to a completely clean environment whereby you could win GT's clean.

But I'm willing to be shown where I've missed the sea change.

Im confused too. people keep talking about the "dark years", but when did they end?

If a team is doping their entire TDF squad in 2007, then it doesnt sound like much has changed.

 

[sniper]

Im confused too. people keep talking about the "dark years", but when did they end?

If a team is doping their entire TDF squad in 2007, then it doesnt sound like much has changed.

And where does e.g. Contador fit in? How was 2010 not a dark year if the TdF winner got stripped?

 

[LaFlorecita]

And where does e.g. Contador fit in? How was 2010 not a dark year if the TdF winner got stripped?

He is a Spaniard

 

[pmcg76]

And where does e.g. Contador fit in? How was 2010 not a dark year if the TdF winner got stripped?

I can never understand how this is so difficult to comprehend.

The dark era was when you needed to be on EPO just to even have a chance of winning any race of any significance or even staying in the peloton, when lets say 80%-90% of the peloton were jacked up on EPO or unlimited blood-doping.

Lets say that now that 20%-30% of the peloton are jacked up on more limited blood doping/EPO but these are they guys winning/contending GTs, that still doesn't take away from the fact that perhaps the entire peloton is a lot cleaner and that you can actually win any number of other races without jacking up. It might not mean winning GTs but it might mean being able to make a decent career without doping which was near impossible in the 90s/00s.

As I said in another thread, I find the idea of people believing a totally clean LeMond could be within 8 seconds of EPO Indurain over a 73km TT yet somehow refuse to entertain the idea that it is possible to win clean in the current era as hypocrisy at it's highest level.

 

[Netserk]

I can never understand how this is so difficult to comprehend.

The dark era was when you needed to be on EPO just to even have a chance of winning any race of any significance or even staying in the peloton, when lets say 80%-90% of the peloton were jacked up on EPO or unlimited blood-doping.

Lets say that now that 20%-30% of the peloton are jacked up on more limited blood doping/EPO but these are they guys winning/contending GTs, that still doesn't take away from the fact that perhaps the entire peloton is a lot cleaner and that you can actually win any number of other races without jacking up. It might not mean winning GTs but it might mean being able to make a decent career without doping which was near impossible in the 90s/00s.

As I said in another thread, I find the idea of people believing a totally clean LeMond could be within 8 seconds of EPO Indurain over a 73km TT yet somehow refuse to entertain the idea that it is possible to win clean in the current era as hypocrisy at it's highest level.

How fast were they climbing in '91? How fast were they climbing in '13?

Do you get my point?

 

[pmcg76]

How fast were they climbing in '91? How fast were they climbing in '13?

Do you get my point?

So doping only works in the mountains then, genius logic there

So clearly there is no need to throw accusations at the likes of Tony Martin or Cancellara as they are only TT and classic's riders where doping is not needed.

 

[the sceptic]

I can never understand how this is so difficult to comprehend.

The dark era was when you needed to be on EPO just to even have a chance of winning any race of any significance or even staying in the peloton, when lets say 80%-90% of the peloton were jacked up on EPO or unlimited blood-doping.

Lets say that now that 20%-30% of the peloton are jacked up on more limited blood doping/EPO but these are they guys winning/contending GTs, that still doesn't take away from the fact that perhaps the entire peloton is a lot cleaner and that you can actually win any number of other races without jacking up. It might not mean winning GTs but it might mean being able to make a decent career without doping which was near impossible in the 90s/00s.

As I said in another thread, I find the idea of people believing a totally clean LeMond could be within 8 seconds of EPO Indurain over a 73km TT yet somehow refuse to entertain the idea that it is possible to win clean in the current era as hypocrisy at it's highest level.

How do you know Indurain was using EPO in 1991? any links or evidence?

Seems more logical that he was doping when he was destroying everyone by 3 minutes but what do I know.

 

[pmcg76]

How do you know Indurain was using EPO in 1991? any links or evidence?

Seems more logical that he was doping when he was destroying everyone by 3 minutes but what do I know.

Maybe you should look at FGLs nice details of Indurain's advances in the other thread and use some logic yourself.

If Indurain wasn't on EPO in 91, are we saying LeMond was beaten fairly in 91 and that LeMond is just whining like a little girl when he claims his decline was due to the arrival of EPO. Let's face it he went from winning in 90 to finishing 15 mins down in 91 when he claims he was in the best shape of his life.

 

[roundabout]

Was the 1991 Tour "faster" than the 1990 one?

 

[pmcg76]

Was the 1991 Tour "faster" than the 1990 one?

Who cares. Comparing one Tour to the next in terms of speed is redundant.

 

[roundabout]

Who cares. Comparing one Tour to the next in terms of speed is redundant.

Notice the use of quotations which say that faster was not meant literally.

How fast was Bugno up Alpe d'Huez? How fast was Hampsten in 1992?

 

[The Hitch]

Im confused too. people keep talking about the "dark years", but when did they end?

If a team is doping their entire TDF squad in 2007, then it doesnt sound like much has changed.

What is confusing you? The end of doping the dark era has never changed.

It has always been x -2y where y stands for years and x for today.

 

[pmcg76]

Notice the use of quotations which say that faster was not meant literally.

How fast was Bugno up Alpe d'Huez? How fast was Hampsten in 1992?

What has times up Alpe d'huez got to do with anything I posted.

I was specifically talking about LeMond v Indurain over a 73km TT.

I don't think there are any times for 92 Alpe anyways. 91 Alpe was very fast but was only one minor climb on the way to the Alpe.