At what point did cycling become "clean"?

[blackcat]

Until 2012

yep. like Rider. they want to keep their gains.

 

[IndianCyclist]

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.

I think the problem with Cadel is his earlier years especially 2007 with Contador & a doped Leipheimer.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

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

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1365465&postcount=102

 

[blackcat]

I think the problem with Cadel is his earlier years especially 2007 with Contador & a doped Leipheimer.

nah it was BMC too. ask Thomas Frei.

 

[Benotti69]

yep. like Rider. they want to keep their gains.

and Wigans......

 

[Von Mises]

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

Evans is not a clean rider, imo.

Well, he said...
But, my point is, Sassi was a nice person who said lot of nice things. For instance, few years ago he predicted Richie Porte to be next big thing in GC. But did he truly meant it or was he just polite (he gave an interview to one Australian newspaper)? At the end I would not take too seriously what Sassi said about LeMond, Evans, Porte etc, whatever he said, it was just an opinion, subjective one, depending of context and so on.

 

[Ferminal]

I think the problem with Cadel is his earlier years especially 2007 with Contador & a doped Leipheimer.

Maybe, maybe not. He also declined after 2006/2007 (so whilst I agree with most of blackcat's hypothesis I think he overlooks these years). If he stayed that good he would have won the 2008 Tour, 2009 Vuelta and 2010 Giro. I think the difference may be that he didn't really have one standout GT since 2008. 2011 seemed more like everything going right and being very good every single day. Not like Contador who was just brutal in 2009, or Scarponi (and sort of Basso) 2010. IMO Basso and Contador post-2010 is more in line with the level of risk Evans accepted 2008-2011.

Whether the old dogs have another big one in them who knows. I still think Basso will have one more go but have thought that for two years now. Contador has 5+ years in him so it depends how many more years guaranteed income he wants and how much a big 2014 will be worth in future contracts. Evans I don't think so, reason why he's opted for the Giro two years in a row. In any case he would only ever be as good as 2011 which probably isn't good enough to win a GT today.

(Most of this is purely speculation)

 

[Taxus4a]

Maybe, maybe not. He also declined after 2006/2007 (so whilst I agree with most of blackcat's hypothesis I think he overlooks these years). If he stayed that good he would have won the 2008 Tour, 2009 Vuelta and 2010 Giro. I think the difference may be that he didn't really have one standout GT since 2008. 2011 seemed more like everything going right and being very good every single day. Not like Contador who was just brutal in 2009, or Scarponi (and sort of Basso) 2010. IMO Basso and Contador post-2010 is more in line with the level of risk Evans accepted 2008-2011.

Whether the old dogs have another big one in them who knows. I still think Basso will have one more go but have thought that for two years now. Contador has 5+ years in him so it depends how many more years guaranteed income he wants and how much a big 2014 will be worth in future contracts. Evans I don't think so, reason why he's opted for the Giro two years in a row. In any case he would only ever be as good as 2011 which probably isn't good enough to win a GT today.

(Most of this is purely speculation)

Man, cycling is not maths, and doping didnt disapeared at all in 2008, there are maybe about 200 pro riders involved in Padua investigation, and maybe and most of them using news EPO and AICAR, and dome of the Cadel rivals, so it is not that easy.

You can have a bad Tour de France for some reasons, a virus, or something, some times without an aparent reason. It is the same for TVG this year Tour, but that doesnt mean he is over as tour contender.

Cadel was very strong at Giro 2010, but he got a fever, he did Aquila stage with 39 degrees, but he could show in the sterrato stage of Montalcino that he was ready to win.

He also declined after 2006/2007

Despite his problems in some races with illenes, Evans finished at CQR in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011: 3,3,6,3 is that declined?

he got those years his best results: Tour de France and world champion... both the dream of any cyclist

Yes, he was in 2007, the last year of the dark era, the best in the CQR, but if you look better the yearm he got it for:

Be second in TdF, but he was beating for a young Contador, and doper Rassmusen, and maybe Rogers, would have beated him as well...all the Op riders out: Birilo, Ulle, etc...so that result is credible in the perspective evans be clean and a big talented rider.

Be four at the Vuelta.

Be four at Romandia

Be seven at Paris Nice, six at Lombardía and Emilia.

To summ up, he got that first place for his regularity along a year without illnes or other problems, and becouse OP riders where out, but it is from 2008 onwards when he got his best results despite his illnes.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Well, he said...
At the end I would not take too seriously what Sassi said about LeMond, Evans, Porte etc, whatever he said, it was just an opinion, subjective one, depending of context and so on.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sassi-talks-about-basso-evans-and-the-zoncolan

Sassi talks about Basso, Evans and the Zoncolan

Basso climbed the 10.1km to the summit of Monte Zoncolan in a time of 40:45, one minute and 45 seconds slower than Gilberto Simoni in 2007. His average speed was 14.7km and he put out an average of 395 watts on the climb.

The VAM (Velocità Ascensionale Media) or average climbing speed adjusted for the gradient, was calculated at 1777m/hour and Basso's power to weight ratio was 5.68w/k. In the past Sassi has said that any value over 6.2w/kg for a long effort on a major climb at the end of a stage race could be an indication of doping.

whaT would indicate Basso weighing 69.54kg

followed by
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/basso-its-useless-to-try-to-stop-sky_230769

“Look. It’s the same discussion as always, it’s like watching the Tour when Lance [Armstrong] or [Miguel] Indurain raced. You could try to attack, get ahead, but then what are you going to do? Just to have a laugh?” Basso said, sitting on the steps of the team bus.

“If he [Wiggins] goes as they have been, where Richie Porte is pulling and you are on the wheel pushing 420 watts, then explain to me, where are you going to go?

“They’ve done well to bring their captain and vice captain in their best condition. They are doing their work to make sure that those two are protected, nether too fast nor too slow. Like I said, they’re riders with big balls.”

what would implicate Basso doing 6w/k just to follow wheels.

Thats when cycling became cleans.

 

[ChrisE]

LogicFail.

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

No, his logic is failing because he is equating increased power output in a TT to climbing, and extrapolating that onto a clean cyclist being competitive in a GT.

The main resistance to TT is wind resistance, and wind resistance vs speed is not linear. It is ^2. You need 4 times as much power to double your speed.

The main resistance in climbing is lifting the weight, and that is linear. Twice the power, you climb twice as fast.

Doing the math on something realistic, for example you gain almost twice the time for a 10% increase in power for a climb vs a TT.

One other thing; the effects of more power in reserve is cumulative. Comparing TT performance fresh for say a 1 hour performance vs how far down somebody ends up at the end of a 5 hour mountain stage vs a doped rider is apples to oranges. GT results are cumulative, of course. A non-doped rider is at a big disadvantage to a doped rider of somewhat similar clean ability.

 

[42x16ss]

Well, he said...
But, my point is, Sassi was a nice person who said lot of nice things. For instance, few years ago he predicted Richie Porte to be next big thing in GC. But did he truly meant it or was he just polite (he gave an interview to one Australian newspaper)? At the end I would not take too seriously what Sassi said about LeMond, Evans, Porte etc, whatever he said, it was just an opinion, subjective one, depending of context and so on.

I'd imagine Sassi was quite familiar with Porte. His son in law Will Walker (ex Rabo) is friends with Porte and helped him out when he first moved to Italy.

It was probably an informed opinion, and lets be honest, despite any flaws, Sassi knew his stuff.

 

[Benotti69]

In 13 years, we have seen exactly three and truly voluntary doping confessions: Floyd Landis (2010); Frankie Andreu (2005); and Jerome Chiotti (2000).

This is not what one would expect if the culture of doping was over in 2008.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

In 13 years, we have seen exactly three and truly voluntary doping confessions: Floyd Landis (2010); Frankie Andreu (2005); and Jerome Chiotti (2000).

This is not what one would expect if the culture of doping was over in 2008.

Wouldn't call Landis' voluntary. Up against the wall etc.

The others? Maybe.

 

[Benotti69]

Wouldn't call Landis' voluntary. Up against the wall etc.

The others? Maybe.

Landis was in a dark place, sure, but he did volunteer the info.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Landis was in a dark place, sure, but he did volunteer the info.

Don't see it that way, sorry. He might be truthful however.
Same with Rasmussen. Also truthful imo.

 

[Netserk]

Don't see it that way, sorry. He might be truthful however.
Same with Rasmussen. Also truthful imo.

Rasmussen wouldn't have come clean at that moment if it wasn't for Levi's testimony.

edit: Might have misunderstood you :S

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Rasmussen wouldn't have come clean at that moment if it wasn't for Levi's testimony.

edit: Might have misunderstood you :S

Misunderstood perhaps.
None of these volunteered anything. Rather circumstances drove them to deliver the information close to the truth. Having said that, Landis is still pretty weak on info related to others besides LA/JB.

 

[Benotti69]

Misunderstood perhaps.
None of these volunteered anything. Rather circumstances drove them to deliver the information close to the truth. Having said that, Landis is still pretty weak on info related to others besides LA/JB.

That the riders doped, is the circumstances that led to them volunteering to confess. Landis could've done what plenty of others have done and crawled away with tail between his legs and lived a life of obscurity knowing that he lied about his wins. Or he could volunteer the full information about the sham that pro cycling is. No one pushed Landis to talk.

I agree that Landis should've told all that he knew about Phonak, but he still might.

 

[Netserk]

I agree that Landis should've told all that he knew about Phonak, but he still might.

He might already have told USADA that.

 

[Benotti69]

He might already have told USADA that.

True, but they would've sanctioned Phonak riders, docs or staff by now before SOL or am i missing something?

 

[Netserk]

True, but they would've sanctioned Phonak riders, docs or staff by now before SOL or am i missing something?

Maybe one testimony isn't enough, or they have had all their attention on USPS. Dunno.

 

[Benotti69]

Maybe one testimony isn't enough, or they have had all their attention on USPS. Dunno.

Hesejedal rode for Phonak so that is 2 testimonies. But yep it sure seems like TT was only after LA.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Hesejedal rode for Phonak so that is 2 testimonies. But yep it sure seems like TT was only after LA.

I seem to recall Hamilton saying he was unable to talk about his Phonak experience due to some legal issues. I could be wrong about this.

 

[Benotti69]

I seem to recall Hamilton saying he was unable to talk about his Phonak experience due to some legal issues. I could be wrong about this.

Also Hamilton, so 3 possible testimonies!

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

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

I don't think the scandals so drastically curtail the numbers who are doping, if at all.

For years riders have been saying you can't fail a drug test unless you first fail the IQ test. The doping protocols are well-established, and if a rider gets caught, that only can mean one of three things: 1. he doped too aggressively (exceeded the protocol), 2. he either was careless in his doping technique or failed to adequately monitor his blood values, or 3. the tests have got better. The rest of the peloton then will critically examine the failure to determine if or how they must modify their own doping program in response.

The nature of the use of EPO is a classic example. When the only EPO test was indirect, HCT level, all the top riders were doped to within a hair's breadth of the blood value limit. Then when they developed a direct test for EPO, the riders didn't stop using it, they shifted to microdosing, exploiting the drug's short half-life. I have little doubt it still is in widespread use, but now they have to use it so their bio passport values don't trip any alarms.

Most importantly, if even half the peloton is doping, that means they are successfully doping without detection. The other half will know this, and will know their riding "clean" is endangering their livelihood. I can't imagine they would tolerate this, which is the the greater reason I don't think the levels of doping have diminished appreciably. If even 10% are doping successfully, that compels the other 90% to follow suit.

True, but they would've sanctioned Phonak riders, docs or staff by now before SOL or am i missing something?

The SOL stops running in the case of a sealed indictment, does it not? Is there any chance USADA might be waiting to tie up loose ends before indicting? Or is there any chance the Phonak investigation might also have been passed to Andre Birotte, only to get flushed along with the Pharmstrong investigation?

I dunno, I'm just asking.