At what point did cycling become "clean"?

[the sceptic]

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.

I dont know. The only logical conclusion I can draw from that is that Indurain wasnt on the full program yet, so it would be possible for a talented rider like Lemond in the best shape of his life to almost beat him.

Do you think Lemond was doping in that ITT but stopped the year after when he lost 4 minutes?

What current clean rider beating dopers isnt given the credit they deserve?

 

[pmcg76]

I dont know. The only logical conclusion I can draw from that is that Indurain wasnt on the full program yet, so it would be possible for a talented rider like Lemond in the best shape of his life to almost beat him.

Do you think Lemond was doping in that ITT but stopped the year after when he lost 4 minutes?

What current clean rider beating dopers isnt given the credit they deserve?

If LeMond was in the best shape of his life, how did he lose 15mins???

I have consistently stated that LeMond's decline was more down to ill-health than the onset of EPO. His decline was made worse by EPO in 93/94 but it was still his health that was the main factor.

As for clean riders, I don't claim to know one way or the other but what about Tony Martin, no black marks against his name or Dan Martin for that matter, Mollema, Kruiswijk, Roche, Pinot, Demare, Cavendish, Degenkolb, the list is endless.

 

[roundabout]

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.

People barely breaking 40 minutes (or possibly not even breaking 40 minutes) could not have been ludicrous dopers.

LeMond losing 2 minutes to them in the 'shape of his life' is more indicative than being competitive on stage 7 or whatever it was in thr TT.

 

[pmcg76]

People barely breaking 40 minutes (or possibly not even breaking 40 minutes) could not have been ludicrous dopers.

LeMond losing 2 minutes to them in the 'shape of his life' is more indicative than being competitive on stage 7 or whatever it was in thr TT.

Are you saying that having EPO in your system is not beneficial to a rider in a TT. Consider that one of the signs most associated with doping is when a non TT rider suddenly morphs into a good TT rider.

 

[roundabout]

I am not the one trying to draw some far reaching conclusions from 1 result for the next 20 years of racing.

1. Miguel Indurain: 1hr 35min 44sec
2. Greg LeMond @ 8sec
3. Jean-François Bernard @ 53sec
4. Erik Breukink @ 1min 14sec
5. Gianni Bugno @ 1min 31sec
6. Melchior Mauri @ 1min 33sec
7. Djamolidine Abdoujaparov @ 1min 37sec
8. Pedro Delgado @ 2min 5sec
9. Pascal Lance @ 2min 16sec
10. Philippe Louviot @ 2min 18sec

lol at Abdu though.

Indurain beat lemond in all 3 TTs in 1990. Must have been EPOed then as well.

 

[pmcg76]

I am not the one trying to draw some far reaching conclusions from 1 result for the next 20 years of racing.

1. Miguel Indurain: 1hr 35min 44sec
2. Greg LeMond @ 8sec
3. Jean-François Bernard @ 53sec
4. Erik Breukink @ 1min 14sec
5. Gianni Bugno @ 1min 31sec
6. Melchior Mauri @ 1min 33sec
7. Djamolidine Abdoujaparov @ 1min 37sec
8. Pedro Delgado @ 2min 5sec
9. Pascal Lance @ 2min 16sec
10. Philippe Louviot @ 2min 18sec

lol at Abdu though.

Indurain beat lemond in all 3 TTs in 1990. Must have been EPOed then as well.

Well If people want to believe that LeMond could match riders on EPO, then they should be able to accept that riders can win one day races, individual stages, week long races and world titles in the current age without doping.

Do you believe that?

 

[roundabout]

Are they as gifted as LeMond? Is the gain from doping for the top riders about the same as it was in 1990/1991?

How often did LeMond match riders on EPO apart from one result which you keep going about in 2 different threads now?

 

[pmcg76]

Are they as gifted as LeMond? Is the gain from doping for the top riders about the same as it was in 1990/1991?

How often did LeMond match riders on EPO apart from one result which you keep going about in 2 different threads now?

Well to the first two questions, there is no definitive answer to either, yet many posters claim to know exactly what talents levels are and how beneficial doping methods are. The answer here is they don't know so don't have any idea what is possible for a clean rider to do currently. Therefore it is BS to claim that a clean rider cannot win in the current era.

Actually LeMond was not far off the top guys in the second TT either and that was after 3 weeks, I think he was 3rd/4th.

 

[Taxus4a]

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.

It is depends what you consider clean. Totally clean is maybe not possible

I think that is difficult to answer your question. I know that is like that, but is posible to demostrate?n I dont Know, maybe no. But you cant demostrate me the contrary.

Biopassport and Adams make a big change, but things cant change just in one day, that needs time. it has been a question of credibility of cycling, Cycling cant deal with more scandals, and there is a problem, even if you want to hide something, things will be know sooner or later, and if all this things you believe is a circus or marketing, it is how you think, cycling will have too options: admit that and star a new cycling with tolerance with doping, that a lot of people will not want, including me... or stop profesional cycling. We have in Spain a big problems with sponsors, with a lot of things.. and the main problem for that has been doping, becouse this have been a good place for doping, with good doctors as well.

For me clean cycling started in 2011, even I see stange things on some races, but I am convinced Evans won clean in the Tour.

After Contador case, before there is a transitional time from 2008, but even after 2003 some things changed. Contador was important to change mind in some people. The most important rider, protected by Riis, could be santioned with an small evidence.

But that doenst mean clean, not totally clean, but year by year better.

I have been a little inside this world, I have heard cyclist talking about how to avoid a positive, I have interchange opinions with them, and I do today, and things are quite different. They told me, when I am riding in this country everybody dope, in this other nodody dope, in this races just riders from that team dope, and there are some riders you have a full confidence in what they say and what they see... how to make you fell the same?, I think that is impossible. You rely on some people, maybe some friend, that you cant convince me of the same...

Evidences? Well, there is not evidence, there are some things to take in account. One is that now colombian and french riders are again on the top.

You have one evidence, not evidence of no doping, but evidence things have change a lot about EPO or transfusions, and that is that, believed clean or not Lance or Horner, his biopassport shows 42-43 at the end of a GT...with Pantani that was 52 or more, two months before 42.

So, you must admit that blood doping has fallen a lot, beliving or not the Zorzoli graph.. I believe becouse the data are acorrding to that.

Froom that, there is a reality, nowadays teams waste a lot of money in a lot of profesionals that they didnt before, and they waste a lot of resources in work long time in altittude: Teide, Sierra Nevada, Colorado, Etna, etc...that is an advantage for performance, but performance is today not better and the routes are shorter and soft compared to ie Le tour 2003. If we consider as well the better bikes and the globalization, that give more talented riders, it hard to believe that the average speed or the w/kg power in the climbs are not better now.

I will continue another day.

 

[42x16ss]

Well If people want to believe that LeMond could match riders on EPO, then they should be able to accept that riders can win one day races, individual stages, week long races and world titles in the current age without doping.

Do you believe that?

Christophe Bassons finished a few GT's before he was shunned and made a pariah. Won a stage at the '99 Dauphine too.

So I'll certainly say yes to one day races and GT stages from the breakaway when the peloton CBF'd are more than possible clean.

 

[Ferminal]

So I'll certainly say yes to one day races and GT stages from the breakaway when the peloton CBF'd are more than possible clean.

Unless you got in with a green alien

Vomistar aren't bad at that either.

 

[IndianCyclist]

It never became clean. Simply cleaner with each scandal. Festina, Puerto, Landis, Ricco, Contador, LA but still about 50% doping.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Well to the first two questions, there is no definitive answer to either, yet many posters claim to know exactly what talents levels are and how beneficial doping methods are. The answer here is they don't know so don't have any idea what is possible for a clean rider to do currently. Therefore it is BS to claim that a clean rider cannot win in the current era.

Actually LeMond was not far off the top guys in the second TT either and that was after 3 weeks, I think he was 3rd/4th.

http://www2.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/CyclismeResultat414_2298_ETAPE.html

Given the detoriation of Bugno/Chiapucci/Mauri/Pulnikov when epo use got widespread it is fair to say those were allready on a high epo cure. And, why would Indurain have gone full gas in that TT? He had allready won the Tour by that time. The first TT is a marker for what epo will bring you over a three week GT when compairing it with the second, shorter, one.

1. Miguel Indurain en 1h35'44" (/Moy : 45.752 km/h/)
2. LeMond à 8"
5. Bugno à 1'31"
6. Mauri à 1'33"
15. Poulnikov à 3'30"
19. Chiappucci à 4'04"

And yes, Indurain was on epo in 1990, just like Breukink and Chiappucci.

 

[Taxus4a]

http://www2.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/CyclismeResultat414_2298_ETAPE.html

Given the detoriation of Bugno/Chiapucci/Mauri/Pulnikov when epo use got widespread it is fair to say those were allready on a high epo cure. And, why would Indurain have gone full gas in that TT? He had allready won the Tour by that time. The first TT is a marker for what epo will bring you over a three week GT when compairing it with the second, shorter, one.

1. Miguel Indurain en 1h35'44" (/Moy : 45.752 km/h/)
2. LeMond à 8"
5. Bugno à 1'31"
6. Mauri à 1'33"
15. Poulnikov à 3'30"
19. Chiappucci à 4'04"

And yes, Indurain was on epo in 1990, just like Breukink and Chiappucci.

Indurain dont need EPO to win an ITT to Lemond, what joke is this? Indurain worn the yellow jersey in the Vuelta with 20 years, I dont think EPO exist in sport in that era.
Indurain has a hearth and other qualities of an extraterrestrial, he had an huge engine... people talk here about Indurain like if he was Riis or anyone similar.

 

[Netserk]

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.

Nope, dope works in the mountains and in the TTs.

I see you didn't get my point...

 

[Netserk]

Well If people want to believe that LeMond could match riders on EPO, then they should be able to accept that riders can win one day races, individual stages, week long races and world titles in the current age without doping.

Do you believe that?

LogicFail.

The current (star) riders are stronger/faster than LeMond's opponents were (at least before '92)....

 

[jens_attacks]

Indurain dont need EPO to win an ITT to Lemond, what joke is this? Indurain worn the yellow jersey in the Vuelta with 20 years, I dont think EPO exist in sport in that era.
Indurain has a hearth and other qualities of an extraterrestrial, he had an huge engine... people talk here about Indurain like if he was Riis or anyone similar.

i rarely agree with taxus but this is one of those times.

sorry fearless, because big mig beat lemond on luz ardiden doesn't mean that he was on epo. do keep in mind that he climbed luz ardiden slower than trofimov did in 2011

1990---very slow cycling, nothing to do with 1993-2013 and beyond

lemond was a hell of a talent but it's not like he was the strongest rider in cycling history i'm sorry

 

[Taxus4a]

I wasn't referring to your original post, but to the bulk of the replies since, few of which engage with your question, other than to sneer at the very idea of asking.



1) Scandals, largely brought to the fore by outside bodies, forced the UCI to adopt measures which neither they nor any other sports federation would voluntarily take (eg bio passport, testing which is still inadequate but greater than other sports, ceding some power to WADA).

2) Testing improved on a scientific level.

3) Centrally organised team programs became very risky (see Hamilton on this).

4) Together this changed the economics of doping, leaving riders with a choice between buying expensive expertise or engaging in affordable but stupidly risky DIY programmes, pricing a lot of them out of the game.

5) And those who can afford the expertise find that obeying the experts advice that enables them to beat the EPO test and the passport also means doping in much smaller amounts, with correspondingly smaller benefits.

6) In addition, as Omerta starts to fray, and as the number of people getting in trouble without an "analytical finding" starts to rise that further changes the risk/reward calculation. Scarponi being merely the latest object lesson.

7) Consequently, without any significant change in personnel at the top and without the peloton coming down with some epidemic of ethics, the numbers doping are down and the benefit dopers get is reduced.

8) So we have "cleaner cycling", a sport where doping certainly exists and can certainly provide a real advantage but doesn't have the transformative effects that from 1990 to recently put winning beyond the reach of talented clean riders.

9) And this is corroborated by a marked decline in power numbers and also by large changes in "suspicious" blood values corresponding to the introduction of the EPO test and then the passport.

That, at least as I understand it, is the argument. And I'd be genuinely interested to see people examine its strengths and, more importantly, its weaknesses. As an aside, I think that LS makes a very important point above by distinguishing between "within theoretical human capacity" and "within the capacity of a particular rider".

Very good. That save for me a lot of work.

 

[Benotti69]

Well to the first two questions, there is no definitive answer to either, yet many posters claim to know exactly what talents levels are and how beneficial doping methods are. The answer here is they don't know so don't have any idea what is possible for a clean rider to do currently. Therefore it is BS to claim that a clean rider cannot win in the current era.

Actually LeMond was not far off the top guys in the second TT either and that was after 3 weeks, I think he was 3rd/4th.

LeMond was held up to be the clean max humanly possible, by Aldo Sassi for example.

Now if he was doping I think there are a few out there who would want that exposed, Armstrong for 1, Bruyneel for 2, Stapleton for 3, Fignon while he was still alive 4....so plenty have had and still have the opportunity to do a Rasmussen, Landis or Hamilton and expose LeMond.

So it aint BS to claim that Froome, Wigans and others are able to a LeMond when they never showed that potential like LeMond.

 

[Von Mises]

LeMond was held up to be the clean max humanly possible, by Aldo Sassi for example.

Sassi said pretty much same thing about Cadel Evans.

 

[Benotti69]

Sassi said pretty much same thing about Cadel Evans.

I dont remember his saying that, but he definitely was a champion of Evans.

Evans is not a clean rider, imo.

 

[blackcat]

when did cycling become clean?

this is the fourth paradox of Zeno.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

and a shoutout to Moose McKnuckles <thumbup>

 

[Benotti69]

when did cycling become clean?

this is the fourth paradox of Zeno.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

and a shoutout to Moose McKnuckles <thumbup>

Excellent.

 

[blackcat]

Sassi said pretty much same thing about Cadel Evans.

I dont remember his saying that, but he definitely was a champion of Evans.

Evans is not a clean rider, imo.

VM, Sassi did say those things.Said he was the talented one of the pair of Basso and him. But Basso had the tunnel vision and work ethic to dial in every variable to the enth degree. He also commended Evans on those things, but not to the pathological degree of amigo de birillo.

He also said, if he did win the TdF he would go down as the finest rider of his generation.

But he was not clean. I reckon he did the recovery doping, managing the levels of bio-parameters. And he rolled the dice in his last years from winning Worlds and Tour. But he really never went down the blood vector hardcore route.

just my two cents. He could always timetrial, and always climb, and always ride the hilly classics for 230km. Just he never had the dominance for Liege distance, nor could he hold the wheel in the last three kms on the HC ascent on the Queen stage.

 

[Ferminal]

He could always timetrial, and always climb, and always ride the hilly classics for 230km.

Until 2012