BMC Soigneur caught with 195 does of EPO

[sniper]

Hadn't seen that pic before..
As someone above mentioned - if he was on the gear, they got his dosage wrong before the stage where he lost 17 minutes..
QUOTE]

He might look have looked comfortable at the front on this climb in the pink but he lost 17'11" on this very same stage!

Sniper - given the consistency of his times and efforts over the years you seem to be suggesting that clever Cadel had the foresight only to dope sufficiently to be at that precise sub-charged but 'also ran' level that he would need to be at in 10 years time (continuing to dope undetected at the same level) when finally all the chargers had all been found out and/or the tests been perfected so that he could kick all their now slower butts and loudly proclaim to be 'first clean winner of the Tour in our living memory'.

The ultimate sleeper cell in fact - the only slight flaw I can see with this suggestion is Ferrari and Rominger being happy to wait that long for their big collects

points well taken.
Howeve, are you suggesting we shouldn't doubt Sastre either, because he tried a couple of times unsuccessfully, and then, in the Fall of his carreer, suddenly wins it?

but don't get me wrong:

I'm happy to express my skepticism regarding Cadel in this forum. However, I also believe that, in public media coverage, Cadel DOES by all means deserve the benefit of the doubt as long as no compelling evidence against him has surfaced.

 

[Cloxxki]

strong post, hard to argue with most of it.
But:

This tells me little, because in cycling, doping is the norm, it's not seen as cheating.
Floyd wasn't exactly a bad guy either before he started doping.


The Germans often reiterate his connection with Ferrari.

Exactly. I would have come with the Floyd mention had you not beated me to it.
Parents, don't let your good sons become cycling pro's. Even the very best have bad odds at resisting the evil temptations the "sport" (business) WILL present them with.

 

[Nearly]

points well taken.
Howeve, according to your logic, we shouldn't doubt Sastre either, because he tried a couple of times unsuccessfully, and then, in the Fall of his carreer, wins it.

Sastre could be in similar mould. He and Evans always used to yo yo around each other although Sastre was the better climber if somewhat less consistent. His 08 Alped'Huez climb and following time trial were dangerously special though but I can allow a guy a couple of good days in a career with the sniff of yellow.

 

[goggalor]

"Cadel was never tested positive, but he came under suspicion due to contacts with Dr. Ferrari. However, he denied allegations and assured that Ferrari only provided him with training schedules".

This sounds like bull****.

Compare that to AC whose name popped up in the Puerto affair yet who could have proven his innocence with a simple DNA test but refused

I think this is a myth.

Floyd wasn't exactly a bad guy either before he started doping.

Same with Tyler Hamilton, apparently. Wasn't he supposed to be proof that good guys also doped?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Floyd would never dope because he is a Mennonite so he's really religious.

 

[pedaling squares]

Floyd, Tyler, etc... plenty of stories about the nice boy from the house next door who would not say nor do a thing wrong, but still made the choice to dope. As for Cadel, well I have no idea. There are the merely circumstantial associations with manager/teams/physicians, but it also looks like the pack has come down a bit, perhaps to his natural level.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I find that quite hard to believe. In that era, you wouldn't even get a pro-contract if you had the reputation of being clean.
One shouldn't forget either that it was ferrari who discovered Evans (see Team Sky Fans' post in the other thread).

Not true.
We know from Willy Voet that the neo pro's were not put on a program so they could see their natural potential.

It wasn't Ferrari who discovered Cadel - it was Rominger.
Remember Rominger is not a coach, he is a agent - you don't get him to be your moneyman unless he spots the potential to earn some coin.

Doping is and has been the norm in the past two decades, we all agree right? So in lack of any compelling evidence in either direction, it's quite plausible to assume that Cadel hasn't been riding clean.
(NB: the "norm" not meaning that there weren't any exceptions of course)

Well, if you are saying that doping was 'the norm', then there is no need to debate this issue. Cadel and everyone else must have doped.
But when you add that there are exceptions, well.....

A better way of putting it is that throughout the 90's and much of the 00's to win a major event - particularly a GT- required doping.
And this is the current Cadel dilemma, because he did not win during that drug fueled era but won when there appears to be an apparent dip in the amount of doping going on.

 

[Lanark]

And this is the current Cadel dilemma, because he did not win during that drug fueled era but won when there appears to be an apparent dip in the amount of doping going on.

But it's not like he was nowhere either. In 2007 and 2008 he finished second in the Tour, in 2007 only a hair lenght away from victory, and in 2008 he didn't win the Tour not because he didn't have the physical capabilities, he lost because he cracked mentally, and we know there was still a lot of dopers in the top of GC's in those years, and he beat pretty much all of them. I don't think that dilemma's is really there, he has had the level to win a GT for the last 5 years.


Anyway, somebody above told us about Cadel's personality, how he is too moral even to consider illegal parking. But Cadel is also the guy who headbutted a cameraman, threatened to kill someone if they stood on his dog (2008 Tour), and started punching other cyclists (2010 Giro). That hardly seems like the behavior of the saint that's being painted here, at the very least, he seems to be someone who can completely lose his cool when things don't go his way. I don't put much stock in predicting whether somebody is a doper based on their character anyway, good guys dope just as much as those sleazy Italians that nobody trusts. If we want to know if Evans dopes (which we probably can't know right now), we have to look at other factors than just his character.

 

[goggalor]

Anyway, somebody above told us about Cadel's personality, how he is too moral even to consider illegal parking. But Cadel is also the guy who headbutted a cameraman, threatened to kill someone if they stood on his dog (2008 Tour), and started punching other cyclists (2010 Giro).

Those all happened in the heat of the moment. Completely different to the decision whether to dope or not. Bjarne Riis says he stared at the syringe for half an hour before his first EPO injection. And I except it took him a while to get to the point where he had the EPO in front of him.

But even if Evans is still as moralistic as in his teens, that doesn't mean he doesn't dope. Maybe he just changed the rules. Maybe "doing recovery" isn't doping to him. Or maybe not. I agree that debating whether or not Evans doped based on his personality is not very fruitful, even the biggest SOBs out there will have someone who vouches for their good nature (and amazing test results). But I do find many of the links and comments posted in this thread interesting.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But it's not like he was nowhere either. In 2007 and 2008 he finished second in the Tour, in 2007 only a hair lenght away from victory, and in 2008 he didn't win the Tour not because he didn't have the physical capabilities, he lost because he cracked mentally, and we know there was still a lot of dopers in the top of GC's in those years, and he beat pretty much all of them. I don't think that dilemma's is really there, he has had the level to win a GT for the last 5 years.

For me its the opposite.
Evans was good right out of the box and he has always remained consistent.
Yet he got beaten by others who put in extraordinary rides, like Sastre in the 08 TT and Contador & the Chicken in 07.

Anyway, somebody above told us about Cadel's personality, how he is too moral even to consider illegal parking. But Cadel is also the guy who headbutted a cameraman, threatened to kill someone if they stood on his dog (2008 Tour), and started punching other cyclists (2010 Giro). That hardly seems like the behavior of the saint that's being painted here, at the very least, he seems to be someone who can completely lose his cool when things don't go his way. I don't put much stock in predicting whether somebody is a doper based on their character anyway, good guys dope just as much as those sleazy Italians that nobody trusts. If we want to know if Evans dopes (which we probably can't know right now), we have to look at other factors than just his character.

Good points, and as someone else mention Floyd or Tyler who are nice guys with a strong moral background it shows personality has little to do with doping.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

For me its the opposite.
Evans was good right out of the box and he has always remained consistent.
Yet he got beaten by others who put in extraordinary rides, like Sastre in the 08 TT and Contador & the Chicken in 07.

Was Sastre's performance really that unusual for him?

I mean, he was 10th at 2'13 over 53km.

But in the '08 Vuelta he was 14th @ 1'30" over 42,5km in Ciudad Real. In the '09 Giro, in the hardest ITT we've had in a GT in quite some time, he was 11th @ 2'18" over 61km, ahead of the likes of Pinotti and Rogers, and just a second behind Bruseghin. He was 15th @ 41" in the (short) final Vuelta ITT in 2007, but admittedly lost mucho time in the 53km test in Zaragoza. In the 2007 Tour with its two 50+km ITTs, he was 25th (@ 2'47") in the first once Vino was taken out, and 16th (@ 3'24") in the second. In the Vuelta's final ITT in 2006 he was 7th; and 8th in the Cuenca ITT over 33km earlier in the race, less than 50 seconds behind Millar and Cancellara. In the 2006 Tour he was 18th and 19th respectively - once Gonchar's ridiculous times are taken out of the equation he was only 1'10" off 2nd place in the first. He was 3rd in the (admittedly comically ridiculous) 39km final ITT in the 2005 Vuelta, and 4th in the 40km one earlier on, and in the Tour he was 12th in the final ITT (3'10" down, but Armstrong and Ulle were over a minute ahead of everybody else).

To be honest, it looks to me like Sastre's performance in Chérilly was good for him, but not extraordinary. Certainly not more extraordinary than Evans rediscovering his ITT strength in the final days of the Tour de France on a course he'd done slower after a couple of days of racing only a month earlier. Evans has always been an excellent time triallist, but he hadn't been showcasing that much in the last three years or so - then he pulled out something akin to his 2007 level in Grénoble. It's something he's capable of, but not less surprising than Sastre defending yellow in 2008.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

It is interesting that Hincapie signed for another year. It might give a clue about how BMC's management thinks about doping. They know that Hincapie is walking around with a sword that could fall at any time dangling over his head. Ochowicz is probably in the same situation. Management does not seem to care about a doping scandal.

 

[sniper]

Well, if you are saying that doping was 'the norm', then there is no need to debate this issue. Cadel and everyone else must have doped.
But when you add that there are exceptions, well.....

the "norm" indeed doesn't mean that everybody's at it.
The norm is not to fart in public, but there are always exceptions.
In the peloton, the norm is to dope, but here too, there are always exceptions.
We should definitely discuss it.
My opinion remains, though, that in lack of clear-cut evidence in either direction, I'm inclined to assume Cadel is a doper.
But I'm very open to other's arguments in support of Cadel being clean.
I think there have been some quality arguments/posts in his favor in this thread.

A better way of putting it is that throughout the 90's and much of the 00's to win a major event - particularly a GT- required doping.
And this is the current Cadel dilemma, because he did not win during that drug fueled era but won when there appears to be an apparent dip in the amount of doping going on.

Cadel was a big favorit for this years tour. Everybody spoke about his great form this year. Did those who called him the big favorit already know that others wouldn't be doping in order to give Cadel a decent chance to win this year?

 

[goggalor]

On Sastre vs Evans in 08: The big difference between 2011 and 2008 is that Evans didn't lose 2'15" to the Schlecks on Alpe d'Huez. That he managed to turn that deficit into a 30 second lead on Sastre was not bad at all. And he claimed he was on his limit that whole Tour. We all saw that he was not in a good place after the mountain stages.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Was Sastre's performance really that unusual for him?

I mean, he was 10th at 2'13 over 53km.

But in the '08 Vuelta he was 14th @ 1'30" over 42,5km in Ciudad Real. In the '09 Giro, in the hardest ITT we've had in a GT in quite some time, he was 11th @ 2'18" over 61km, ahead of the likes of Pinotti and Rogers, and just a second behind Bruseghin. He was 15th @ 41" in the (short) final Vuelta ITT in 2007, but admittedly lost mucho time in the 53km test in Zaragoza. In the 2007 Tour with its two 50+km ITTs, he was 25th (@ 2'47") in the first once Vino was taken out, and 16th (@ 3'24") in the second. In the Vuelta's final ITT in 2006 he was 7th; and 8th in the Cuenca ITT over 33km earlier in the race, less than 50 seconds behind Millar and Cancellara. In the 2006 Tour he was 18th and 19th respectively - once Gonchar's ridiculous times are taken out of the equation he was only 1'10" off 2nd place in the first. He was 3rd in the (admittedly comically ridiculous) 39km final ITT in the 2005 Vuelta, and 4th in the 40km one earlier on, and in the Tour he was 12th in the final ITT (3'10" down, but Armstrong and Ulle were over a minute ahead of everybody else).

To be honest, it looks to me like Sastre's performance in Chérilly was good for him, but not extraordinary. Certainly not more extraordinary than Evans rediscovering his ITT strength in the final days of the Tour de France on a course he'd done slower after a couple of days of racing only a month earlier. Evans has always been an excellent time triallist, but he hadn't been showcasing that much in the last three years or so - then he pulled out something akin to his 2007 level in Grénoble. It's something he's capable of, but not less surprising than Sastre defending yellow in 2008.

I am not saying anything about Sastre other than pointing out he did better in that TT then he normally does while Evans did his usual solid TT but only put in 29 seconds in to Sastre.

As for Evans - the Grenoble TT course suited him and it wasn't a surprise that he went quicker than at the Dauphine as that time was done on a wet course.
Evans has always been consistent in TT's - in 08 he won in Albi (after Vino got busted) on a similar type course.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

the "norm" indeed doesn't mean that everybody's at it.
The norm is not to fart in public, but there are always exceptions.
In the peloton, the norm is to dope, but here too, there are always exceptions.
We should definitely discuss it.
My opinion remains, though, that in lack of clear-cut evidence in either direction, I'm inclined to assume Cadel is a doper.
But I'm very open to other's arguments in support of Cadel being clean.
I think there have been some quality arguments/posts in his favor in this thread.

Thats fair enough - but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt if there is not clear cut evidence.

I just look at Evans performances as being quite consistent and he has never gone off and done an ET effort.

Cadel was a big favorit for this years tour. Everybody spoke about his great form this year. Did those who called him the big favorit already know that others wouldn't be doping in order to give Cadel a decent chance to win this year?

I have no idea what the above means.

I didn't have CE down to win the Tour this year, but I didn't expect all the other favs to have less than stellar performances.
Evans was smart this year - particularly in not doing the Giro and building up to peak for the Tour and then he rode smart to not lose time in the first week.

 

[Krebs cycle]

For what it's worth, the German press often points at his connection with Ferrari.

What is this connection with Ferrari apart from the recent 53x12 post by Ferrari in which he discusses testing Cadel in 2000? What evidence is there that he worked with Ferrari throughout his career?

Cadel was coached by Aldo Sassi for pretty much his entire road career. Aldo Sassi may have worked with Ferrari in the past but he was known for his anti-doping stance. They even set up Hbmass testing at the Mapei lab to examine whether it was being improved with altitude training. If you are having HBmass tested there is no possible way that you can fly under the radar and not get discovered for doping. Bassi is now training with Sassi and look at his performances compared to pre-ban, he is a shadow of the rider he was back in the mid-2000s, which would seem to be consistent with the point that Sassi won't allow his riders to dope.

And besides if Cadel really was "working" with Ferrari all these years, why hasn't he dominated and won the tour at least 3 or 4 times by now? Someone with physiology similar to Greg Lemond surely must be unbeatable if you add another 10% of PPO right?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I am not saying anything about Sastre other than pointing out he did better in that TT then he normally does while Evans did his usual solid TT but only put in 29 seconds in to Sastre.

But Libertine is pointing out that Sastre didn't produce a better than normal ITT, he produced an ITT at around his normal level.

 

[sniper]

I have no idea what the above means.

I didn't have CE down to win the Tour this year, but I didn't expect all the other favs to have less than stellar performances.
Evans was smart this year - particularly in not doing the Giro and building up to peak for the Tour and then he rode smart to not lose time in the first week.

I guess I meant this:
How come Cadel was the big favorit before-hand according to insiders and people around him? Did people around him have inside information that there was going to be a level playing field this year? Of course, people didn't. Those people around him who called him a favorid and who said he was in the form of his life knew that even if others were doping, Cadel would still be prepared properly enough to beat these dopers.

 

[Cloxxki]

I don't see a single indicator of Cadel being clean.
Seems he was a great talent (obbviously, getting his MTB prizes in) when he met Ferrari. Perhaps he was on a good program already, or perhaps doping just didn't work for him the way it did for Armstrong et al.
When the peloton shies away from doping (a bit), the usual suspect lost about 0.4W/kg, Cadel loses just 0.25W/kg. I just turning my hat over for these. But you'll see that Cadel, already a worthy runner-up, simply becomes the man to beat. Even in a TT-low Tour. Add another ITT early on, and the Tour would have been boring all the way through.
The top climbers just didn't seem themselves this Tour, in terms of climbing speed. Contador even got tired. Lost climbing stages. Hello!? Cadel just dragged on through as usual. Perhaps he was the only one who didn't get the "we ride clean this year" memo.
Or, he just found a legal supplement that does offer a substantial W/kg, allowing him to easy off the doping, and not lose too much speed. I know there's more to lose by skipping legal supplements than a pro can afford to miss out on, especially when riding clean which is my personal experience.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Thats fair enough - but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt if there is not clear cut evidence.

I just look at Evans performances as being quite consistent and he has never gone off and done an ET effort.

But you specifically pointed at Sastre's 2008 ITT as one of these efforts that Evans hasn't gone off and done.

What I'm saying is that Sastre's time in 2008 was perhaps a bit better than his norm, but not by all that much. Sastre's time was a good one but still within the realms of the totally believable given what was on the line.

It certainly wasn't any more ridiculous than Evans' TT in Grénoble. When has Evans produced a TT like that recently?

Evans, assuming not injured, is always solid in ITTs. But we're going back to the 2009 Dauphiné if we're looking for a time when he's produced a real front-running long ITT, and in Grénoble he put a minute into everybody bar Martin. Is it ridiculous? No, not at all. Evans is always a solid ITT rider. But it's a performance better than his norm borne out of possibly an only remaining chance at the yellow jersey.

Is it really any less unusual than Sastre's? Really? If one of them is evidence of consistency, then the other one should be, as both performed round about their level given all the other parameters (length, end of GT etc), but with a little bit of extra, not enough to be suspicious for my money.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I guess I meant this:
How come Cadel was the big favorit before-hand according to insiders and people around him? Did people around him have inside information that there was going to be a level playing field this year? Of course, people didn't. Those people around him who called him a favorid and who said he was in the form of his life knew that even if others were doping, Cadel would still be prepared properly enough to beat these dopers.

Are you not absorbing any information that has been presented to you in here over the past few days? The bio passport appears to be working. There are fewer incidences of abnormal blood profiles and it even looks as though it can detect autologous blood doping. So if the pro-peleton goss is that it is getting harder to obtain a performance edge via doping, this would favour strong riders that are suspected to be clean, such as Cadel Evans. The observed outcome would fit this theory, Evans rode a tour much like he has in the past, strong and consistent throughout but without any super human mountain attacks where he gained an unassailable time advantage. He prepared better this year than ever before, he had a better and more supportive team. His rivals got slower and they didn't seem to be able to produce super human mountain attacks as they have in recent years.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Are you not absorbing any information that has been presented to you in here over the past few days? The bio passport appears to be working. There are fewer incidences of abnormal blood profiles and it even looks as though it can detect autologous blood doping. So if the pro-peleton goss is that it is getting harder to obtain a performance edge via doping, this would favour strong riders that are suspected to be clean, such as Cadel Evans.

The people who suspect Evans is clean seem to be mostly australian. I am sure they are not biased.

The observed outcome would fit this theory, Evans rode a tour much like he has in the past, strong and consistent throughout but without any super human mountain attacks where he gained an unassailable time advantage. He prepared better this year than ever before, he had a better and more supportive team. His rivals got slower and they didn't seem to be able to produce super human mountain attacks as they have in recent years.

What rivals? Contador was injured and tired. Most of the others crashed out or were not invited. We were left with the Schlecks, who seemed to be off form. That is not much data to support "his rivals getting slower." Meanwhile, Cunego and Voeckler increased their strength relative to Evans. Perhaps that is a sign that Evans was not able to dope as much, thus narrowing the gap between him and Cunego.

This years Tour was too messed up to draw many conclusions one way or the other.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I don't see a single indicator of Cadel being clean.
Seems he was a great talent (obbviously, getting his MTB prizes in) when he met Ferrari. Perhaps he was on a good program already, or perhaps doping just didn't work for him the way it did for Armstrong et al.
When the peloton shies away from doping (a bit), the usual suspect lost about 0.4W/kg, Cadel loses just 0.25W/kg. I just turning my hat over for these. But you'll see that Cadel, already a worthy runner-up, simply becomes the man to beat. Even in a TT-low Tour. Add another ITT early on, and the Tour would have been boring all the way through.
The top climbers just didn't seem themselves this Tour, in terms of climbing speed. Contador even got tired. Lost climbing stages. Hello!? Cadel just dragged on through as usual. Perhaps he was the only one who didn't get the "we ride clean this year" memo.
Or, he just found a legal supplement that does offer a substantial W/kg, allowing him to easy off the doping, and not lose too much speed. I know there's more to lose by skipping legal supplements than a pro can afford to miss out on, especially when riding clean which is my personal experience.

Umm sorry but where are you getting those w/kg numbers from? Srsly, accuracy of 2 decimal places? oh of course you're just speculating out of thin air, much like the rest of the post.

Seems like this forum has 2 kinds of posters, those who believe that certain riders are dopers because of years and years of doping accusations from a wide variety of sources (ie: those whom are evidence based), and then there are posters whom believe that certain riders are doped based on pure speculation alone which is that someone must be on the juice simply because they win the tdf.

 

[Krebs cycle]

The people who suspect Evans is clean seem to be mostly australian. I am sure they are not biased.

Of course Australians suspect Cadel to be clean because we know him. We know his personality, we know his physiology, our cyclists have ridden and trained with him on and off season, we know who has had close associations with and we can compare his data going back to 1995. You can't hide evidence of doping from experts when they are testing you several times per year, every year, for 15yrs.

What rivals? Contador was injured and tired. Most of the others crashed out or were not invited. We were left with the Schlecks, who seemed to be off form. That is not much data to support "his rivals getting slower." Meanwhile, Cunego and Voeckler increased their strength relative to Evans. Perhaps that is a sign that Evans was not able to dope as much, thus narrowing the gap between him and Cunego.

This years Tour was too messed up to draw many conclusions one way or the other.

Umm you just agreed with me. Contador and Shleck have been his main rivals for the past 4-5yrs, not Cunego or Voeckler, and those former 2 performed worse this year than previously. But according to you this means Evans must be doping!!! So if someone has good form they must be doping, but if they have bad form it doesn't indicate lack of doping, just "bad form". right whatever dude.

This forum is f@#ked up. I'm out and this is why I don't bother posting in here much.