Cadel Evans is a Clean Champion

[Tinman]

This is a strange post considering you are very active in the Sky thread where much of the discussion presented revolves around associations. In that thread, anyone who posted a response like the one above would immediately be labelled a fanboy.

I know you weren't addressing me because I haven't used bold , but for the record, I am Australian, I really enjoy Cadel (even if he is a bit boring), I don't like Sky, I dislike Froome, Wiggins sometimes makes me laugh but in general I don't really like him, BUT as a regular reader of the Clinic, I do find it perplexing, strange, amusing, etc, etc, etc.... that Cadel seems to get off pretty lightly around here when others get every single move questioned. Every single move.

The general tone is "all the top riders dope, you can't win a tour without doping.... oh unless you're Cadel."

I have never once said that I think Cadel is doping. Not once. I am genuinely interested in why the magnifying glass isn't focussed on Cadel the way it is focussed on others. It's a legitimate question. "Cos he's a nice guy" just doesn't cut it.

Surely people are entitled to ask questions and discuss links to known dodgy doctors, just as they do in Sky and other threads, without being accused of having ulterior motives.

Thanks for the question, and appreciate the way you have worded it.

Without going into detail, there is a lot of significant circumstantial evidence that team Sky has a number of key staff and riders who have been close to doping activity. Either doped themselves, had serious doping allegations directed at them, or hung around doping programs for many years.

Cadel has nothing other than on-road performances that make him almost keep up with dopers, a one visit to Ferrari, and a UCI blood value suspicion index rating which is marginal (that I DO think is worth querying/knowing more about further, although although there seems little discussion here on that).

I think there is some great discussion here trying to "place" his performances on certain days into perspective. Very useful. But the rest of the circular argumentation and restated conclusions are repetitive.

My mail wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular, although apply to some more than others I guess.

 

[Tinman]

I just want to make it clear that despite your having my statement quoted in your response, your words are directed at the Cadel-is-a-doper posters and not at me.

Apologies. Entirely. Your quote was a timely summary. I had been following the thread and yours seemed a good point to use for doing so.

 

[Tinman]

NO. Not obviously. Ask Cyclingheroes René Schuijlenburg if he confirmed he had professional relations with Ferrari when he was at Telekom. That is what I was told in email. Ask Thomas Frei about Evans.

If you have sorted that, come back to me, and tell me what the position is. If there is denials by Frei, I would be happy. And Rene was about 2003. So thats along time back.

Yes this is of interest for digging more on. Good contribution. I would like to know more. Please elaborate. Meanwhile I will also do some digging myself.

 

[sittingbison]

Here is a thought about the "how could he compete against known dopers" theory.

For years this was the major reason to doubt Lance, along with the transformation from classics to GC winner, especially for the uninitiated. And when ALL the podium placers were busted one offer the other.

However, there was plenty of evidence both real and circumstantial for the initiated. TUE, actovegin waste, missed OOC, ex team mates getting busted, the list goes on. Then the 2005 EPO retro testing, and allegations of 2001 positives. Then the 2009 transfusion kits and dubious blood values altered on Internet then pulled. Plenty for the initiated to ponder.

Now it has been shown that the suspicions based on the only two observations of competing against dopers and unbelievable transformation are true. And we can all point to the other stuff and say tip it was staring us in the face all along.

But is that enough reason to cry havoc for every rider? Sure every rider must come under scrutiny, the clinic always knew this but now everyone else does as well. But there is a major difference between SCRUTINY and ACCUSATION. And as it stands, Evans does not have those other aspects against him that Armstrong did. And Armstrong has just been labelled by Victor Conte as the best most sophisticated EVADER in history.

So is Evans really in the league of Armstrong? An evil genius of evasion? Such an evil doping genius he didnt even need a cohort of team mates, an notorious doping doctor like Ferrari, Feuntes, del Moral or Leinders, and has never ridden for mastermind DS dopers like Riis and Bruyneel.

After all, although some say look at all those dopers (known and unknown lol thanks everyone garlic ho included), the flip side is all those dopers he competed against and largely beat HAVE ALL BEEN CAUGHT. Almost to a man especially applying the clinic standard (bang bang you're dead Menchov, Oscar, Carlos,TommyV et al).

All but Evans. Food for thought.

 

[Mellow Velo]

This is a strange post considering you are very active in the Sky thread where much of the discussion presented revolves around associations. In that thread, anyone who posted a response like the one above would immediately be labelled a fanboy.

I know you weren't addressing me because I haven't used bold , but for the record, I am Australian, I really enjoy Cadel (even if he is a bit boring), I don't like Sky, I dislike Froome, Wiggins sometimes makes me laugh but in general I don't really like him, BUT as a regular reader of the Clinic, I do find it perplexing, strange, amusing, etc, etc, etc.... that Cadel seems to get off pretty lightly around here when others get every single move questioned. Every single move.

The general tone is "all the top riders dope, you can't win a tour without doping.... oh unless you're Cadel."

I have never once said that I think Cadel is doping. Not once. I am genuinely interested in why the magnifying glass isn't focussed on Cadel the way it is focussed on others. It's a legitimate question. "Cos he's a nice guy" just doesn't cut it.

Surely people are entitled to ask questions and discuss links to known dodgy doctors, just as they do in Sky and other threads, without being accused of having ulterior motives.

Excellent post; very reasoned. I think in much the same way.
The wildly fluctuating standards of proof that are now being used as evidence in the Clinic, is the reason that I no longer think of this place as the primary source for doping information.

 

[Ferminal]

So Evans whose list of teams is Mapei, Telekom, Omega Pharma, and Phonak 2.0 is clean.

But because Sky have a doctor with a past, anyone good on their team is beyond doubt, dopers?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The wildly fluctuating standards of proof that are now being used as evidence in the Clinic, is the reason that I no longer think of this place as the primary source for doping information.

Your chicken has bones in it so you stop eating the chicken? tsk tsk

 

[CharacterFirst]

Excellent post; very reasoned. I think in much the same way.
The wildly fluctuating standards of proof that are now being used as evidence in the Clinic, is the reason that I no longer think of this place as the primary source for doping information.

So where do you get your info from - seriously?

 

[Bratam]

My opinion is that Cadel's brief meeting with Ferrari in 2001 under those circumstances is totally fine. I am quite surprised with all the fuss to be honest. Sure, there would be a major problem if it was found that Cadel continued to see him after that meeting. But there is nil evidence at this stage.

I am not saying he is definitely clean, however it is possible. The Australian Institute of Sports did some testing on him in his younger days and the results were very impressive to say the least. Honestly, I think we need to dig elsewhere to find some dirt on him. Perhaps a Truth and Reconciliation commision will reveal if there is any dirt on Cadel.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I am not saying he is definitely clean, however it is possible. The Australian Institute of Sports did some testing on him in his younger days and the results were very impressive to say the least. Honestly, I think we need to dig elsewhere to find some dirt on him. Perhaps a Truth and Reconciliation commision will reveal if there is any dirt on Cadel.

AIS testing revealing impressive figures - did that happen before or after he joined?

 

[Tinman]

I realise that Cadel is a very different beast to Wiggins/Sky. Chalk and cheese in many ways. I guess my point is that I have seen people go to great lengths to dig and dig and dig when it comes to other individuals and teams to find things. There have been links demonstrated in other threads that are tenuous at best. I'm not suggesting that all that digging is a bad thing, if you don't look, you won't find, and I'm as interested as the next person in what is posted.
I just don't see anyone that interested in doing any digging on Cadel, either on here or in the Aus media. He is presented as pretty untouchable in anything I've read.

I think the digging on Cadel is excellent. That's what got the Team Sky thing started. I think digging on the references BlackCat provided (Tomas Frei / Linda Pierce) is worthwhile. I think more questions on his marginal UCI blood passport rank is worthwile. On what is currently known however I just can't justify the conclusion he is a doper. And I have a problem with people clobbering that over my head here and pretty much stating I must therefore be gullible, naive or stupid. But yes I do like to trust people on first glance and give them the benefit of the doubt. But I also called Lance (privately) relatively early, around 1999 and lost interest in the sport. So don't generally consider myself gullible, naive or stupid. In fact quite the opposite.

But knowing what I know through my involvement in other sports here in Australia where doping is prevalent, ...

Regarding other sports and Aussie legends: Ian Thorpe's first retirement announcement, and the rumors on a postive dope test. Now that's an investigation the time is right for.

I actually think the debate needs to shift from doping athletes to corrupt sporting administrations. Athletes the way they are will generally work within the system. And the system is way behind, run on greed for money and power, rarely truly for the sport itself. Cycling is receiving attention now, but it is widespread in all sports, as you know, and that needs more scrutiny by the media and fans alike. So that we get the true sport back, not a pro-wrestling scene. Cricket already destroyed, Soccer on its way there, only Rugby doing well (and swimming, although Australia in a relative lull, and doping in swimming also a can of worms I suspect. IMHO (and off topic).

 

[Zam_Olyas]

So Evans whose list of teams is Mapei, Telekom, Omega Pharma, and Phonak 2.0 is clean.

But because Sky have a doctor with a past, anyone good on their team is beyond doubt, dopers?

Apparently yes but so was froome the other day. lol

 

[sittingbison]

So Evans whose list of teams is Mapei, Telekom, Omega Pharma, and Phonak 2.0 is clean.

But because Sky have a doctor with a past, anyone good on their team is beyond doubt, dopers?

Ferminal you are being disingenuous and you know it.

BTW although teams has been discussed previously specifically brought up again by me, I will repeat joining teams is a poor argument. Bassons on Festina and Moncoutie on Cofidis shows clean riders on dirty teams. Funnily enough Tyler riding paniagua on USPS joins the list (came 100th?). Which teams are clean? And he is a genuine GC contender so will be on teams that have wealth resources and endeavour to win ie bigger teams.

Anyway, the joke is none of those teams have contributed diddly squat to his performance. Unlike TeamSKY this year, CSC for Sastre or USPS/Discovery for LA and Banesto for Big Wig.

BTWx2 Yes Sky hiring Leinders is almost the stupidest worst thing they could do. Far more than anything Evans has done.

 

[Tinman]

Reluctantly posting this link to article by Sam Lane, The Age

Setting himself up for a huge fall if not clean.


"CADEL Evans will help lead cycling through its darkest hour, but will address the sport's doping crisis on his own terms and in his own time, his Australian manager says.
Jason Bakker said yesterday that he had been in regular contact with the untainted 2011 Tour de France winner, who will return to Australia from Europe in coming weeks in professional road cycling's off-season.
''Putting our obvious relationship aside, I have never met a more principled person. I've never met a person who holds his values so dearly to him,'' Mr Bakker said.
''And for that very reason I think Cadel has an enormous role to play in cycling, but I think he's been playing that role for some time.''

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycl...ing-doping-crisis-his-way-20121020-27yjf.html

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Anyway, the joke is none of those teams have contributed diddly squat to his performance. Unlike TeamSKY this year, CSC for Sastre or USPS/Discovery for LA and Banesto for Big Wig.

Nice spot - for Evans, and certain riders like Popovych. I think there's the person that does the team thing, in a team doing a team thing (Popo) and then there's the person who does their "own thing" (Wiggins at Garmin then 2011/12 @ Sky).

ie the team association has no bearing on Cadel's doping status, imo. You can remove it as a variable, because, as you suggest, his performance is not affected by his team.

 

[JimmyFingers]

So Evans whose list of teams is Mapei, Telekom, Omega Pharma, and Phonak 2.0 is clean.

But because Sky have a doctor with a past, anyone good on their team is beyond doubt, dopers?

Because the most vonciferous of Sky accusers here are Australian

Nothing an Aussie likes more than to deride British sporting success

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Because the most vonciferous of Sky accusers here are Australian

Nothing an Aussie likes more than to deride British sporting success

British? Au contraire, monsieur.

 

[Tinman]

Because the most vonciferous of Sky accusers here are Australian

Nothing an Aussie likes more than to deride British sporting success

Sorry, Evans thread here, "Mate" Not a bit of whingeing here are you now?

I for one am a travelling gypsy, no fixed abode, of mixed origins...

 

[JimmyFingers]

Sorry, Evans thread here, "Mate" Not a bit of whingeing here are you now?

I for one am a travelling gypsy, no fixed abode, of mixed origins...

Whinge, moi?

 

[JimmyFingers]

British? Au contraire, monsieur.

ahh Francais, oui. Comment t'allez vous?

 

[Cookster15]

do you even know how much does doping enhance ones performance? armstrong was nowhere before he went on to dominate 7 tours in a roll against doped riders that were always top riders and top talents. that how far a good program can take you.

Based on what I read on here - between 5 and 15% - but highly variable based on the individual. Potentially not an insurmountable difference for an athlete with superior genetics AND preparation. Evans VO2 Max early on was 4% better than Armstrong's at the same age and you must know the results of Ferrari's one off test with Cadel in 2001 showed similar superiority.

As we now know thanks to USADA, Post Cancer, Armstrong subsequently employed the most sophisticated doping program ever uncovered in sports. I don't believe Sastre, Kohl, VDV, Menchov, Valverde and the Schleck's had a doping program going in 2008 of USPS levels of sophistication.

 

[Bratam]

AIS testing revealing impressive figures - did that happen before or after he joined?

Before or after joining what ? A quick google search
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/why-evans-was-always-going-to-win-20110730-1i59s.html
http://www.ridemedia.com.au/?p=7387

If Evans is truly clean, then I suspect he could have won 3 or 4 Tour De France titles by now given a totally clean field.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

ahh Francais, oui. Comment t'allez vous?

Votre rolleur c'est de le Monde. Pas de British.

They don't call me the butcher of Francais for nothing

 

[del1962]

Ferminal you are being disingenuous and you know it.

BTW although teams has been discussed previously specifically brought up again by me, I will repeat joining teams is a poor argument. Bassons on Festina and Moncoutie on Cofidis shows clean riders on dirty teams. Funnily enough Tyler riding paniagua on USPS joins the list (came 100th?). Which teams are clean? And he is a genuine GC contender so will be on teams that have wealth resources and endeavour to win ie bigger teams.

Anyway, the joke is none of those teams have contributed diddly squat to his performance. Unlike TeamSKY this year, CSC for Sastre or USPS/Discovery for LA and Banesto for Big Wig.

BTWx2 Yes Sky hiring Leinders is almost the stupidest worst thing they could do. Far more than anything Evans has done.

How much did Garmin contribute for Wiggins back in 2009?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

How much did Garmin contribute for Wiggins back in 2009?

I say nothing. They had no idea at all he was going to be 4th overall. Noone did. Sky coached him - they certainly didn't know. It cost Sky $2M transfer fees to Garmin and $2M salary to get Wiggins out of Garmin. NO way they prepared him that well while he was in another team.