Cadel Evans is a Clean Champion

[ScienceIsCool]

My complete and total guess - wild hypothesis - based on my own fevered imagination - is that the first generation of motor dopers looked a lot like Cancellara. Hit the "go" button to get that 200 Watts of acceleration you need and then turn it off after a few minutes. As with everything evolution. I would bet that now, systems are smart and analyze a basket of variables before automatically activating the motor at just the right amount of power. That would be near undetectable by analyzing performance and wouldn't require any rider input like buttons. Just don't crash and have it go "nuts" the way Hesjedal's did. For me the question is what is the timeline of that evolution and when does it make sense to put a cutoff because you won't be able to analyze your way to an answer?

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Re:

My complete and total guess - wild hypothesis - based on my own fevered imagination - is that the first generation of motor dopers looked a lot like Cancellara. Hit the "go" button to get that 200 Watts of acceleration you need and then turn it off after a few minutes. As with everything evolution. I would bet that now, systems are smart and analyze a basket of variables before automatically activating the motor at just the right amount of power. That would be near undetectable by analyzing performance and wouldn't require any rider input like buttons. Just don't crash and have it go "nuts" the way Hesjedal's did. For me the question is what is the timeline of that evolution and when does it make sense to put a cutoff because you won't be able to analyze your way to an answer?

John Swanson

I think an important distinction / split in evolution is between time trials bikes and track bikes on the one hand (read: large frames and disc wheels to work with), and road bikes on the other hand (initially only classic crank assist).
I think TT motor doping (crank assist and/or gear-driven hub) goes back to at least the early 90s (Boardman's Lotus; a bit later Riis and Ulrich; after that the vast majority); road bike motor doping to the mid/late 90s (Lance 1999 of course and a host of others are more or less suspect in that early period).

In the mid-2000s I think we are seeing large gear driven hub motors both in TT bikes and in road bikes. In addition to crank assist.

Cancellara 2010 of course provides ample evidence that crank assist never ceased to be in use in road bikes, Ironically, his 2010 display was at the same time the reason why that model needed to be replaced by something more subtle.

And so I think 2010 might be a plausible, rough cut off point in terms of when crank assist becomes outdated in the propeloton in favor of small, more subtle rear hub motorization (road bikes) and magnetic wheel systems (road and TT/track).

 

[sniper]

Doping is just one half of Cadels story.
Motors is the other half.

Ehm.. I think most of us would want to hear some arguments for that one..

Sniper has made the arguments for Evans using a motor in another thread, I can't say they were very convincing. I'm 99.9% certain Evans doped throughout his career but I'm yet to see anything to suggest a motor was used.

See for instance
viewtopic.php?p=2066793#p2066793
and a link to another post provided therein.

 

[GreasyChain]

Re: Re:

My complete and total guess - wild hypothesis - based on my own fevered imagination - is that the first generation of motor dopers looked a lot like Cancellara. Hit the "go" button to get that 200 Watts of acceleration you need and then turn it off after a few minutes. As with everything evolution. I would bet that now, systems are smart and analyze a basket of variables before automatically activating the motor at just the right amount of power. That would be near undetectable by analyzing performance and wouldn't require any rider input like buttons. Just don't crash and have it go "nuts" the way Hesjedal's did. For me the question is what is the timeline of that evolution and when does it make sense to put a cutoff because you won't be able to analyze your way to an answer?

John Swanson

I think an important distinction / split in evolution is between time trials bikes and track bikes on the one hand (read: large frames and disc wheels to work with), and road bikes on the other hand (initially only classic crank assist).
I think TT motor doping (crank assist and/or gear-driven hub) goes back to at least the early 90s (Boardman's Lotus; a bit later Riis and Ulrich; after that the vast majority); road bike motor doping to the mid/late 90s (Lance 1999 of course and a host of others are more or less suspect in that early period).

In the mid-2000s I think we are seeing large gear driven hub motors both in TT bikes and in road bikes. In addition to crank assist.

Cancellara 2010 of course provides ample evidence that crank assist never ceased to be in use in road bikes, Ironically, his 2010 display was at the same time the reason why that model needed to be replaced by something more subtle.

And so I think 2010 might be a plausible, rough cut off point in terms of when crank assist becomes outdated in the propeloton in favor of small, more subtle rear hub motorization (road bikes) and magnetic wheel systems (road and TT/track).

Briliant!

Cancellara rode away form everybody by using his motor. But everybody has been using motors since 1992. So why didn't they just use their motors to catch up?

And Canchellara was on the same team as Schleck. So why did Evans have the benefit of a motor in his time trial while poor Andy was deprived of the assistance given to his team-mate?

Do try and make some sort of logical sense or people may think your tin-foil needs changing.

 

[veganrob]

Yes Brilliant. ???
Could you show where someone said everybody has been using motors since 1992?

 

[sniper]

Re:

Yes Brilliant. ???
Could you show where someone said everybody has been using motors since 1992?

One thing Greasychain seems to have trouble acknowledging is that top sport is not a fair competition.
Doping is not a free for all. Some are allowed to dope more than others. History has given us plenty of examples.
There is never a level playing field (at least as far as bigger sports like soccer, tennis, athletics, cycling are concerned).
Why not? Well, mainly because some athletes sell more t-shirts than others. And some athletes are better friends with the people who govern the sport than other athletes. Etc.

With motors it's the same. It's not a free for all. For fairly obvious reasons.

Here's a link for Greasychain to help him come to terms with reality:
http://thesportdigest.com/2017/07/study-nearly-35-percent-of-athletes-believe-matches-fixed/
(as per MrHender in the athletics thread)

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Briliant!

Cancellara rode away form everybody by using his motor. But everybody has been using motors since 1992. So why didn't they just use their motors to catch up?

And Canchellara was on the same team as Schleck. So why did Evans have the benefit of a motor in his time trial while poor Andy was deprived of the assistance given to his team-mate?

Do try and make some sort of logical sense or people may think your tin-foil needs changing.

Motors are very different from pharmaceuticals. Medicine is highly controlled and restricted. Production, distribution, handling, dispensing are all regulated by law. Buying proscribed medicine is by definition difficult and tracked. EPO *required* omerta.

Motors are a bit of machinery that can be acquired from anywhere by anyone with no controls or tracking. Legal to both buy and own. Buy from any country, anywhere and there's no trace. Putting a motor in a bike isn't illegal either. Just in competition.

The logistics of doping with drugs is phenomenal. It's a long chain from manufacturer to distributor to doctor to pharmacist to patient. Motors is manufacturer to client. Any person could today pull out their credit card and buy a hidden system from online sources. Actual and for real literal. The only person who needs to be in on it is your mechanic. And as motoman can tell you, that's just a step too far.

John Swanson

 

[42x16ss]

Cadel Evans' Stage 20 Time Trial performance is one of the most suspicious performances I've ever seen... finishes just seconds behind Tony Martin and miles ahead of everyone else. I think he made up a 53 second deficit in about 15km.

Great advertisement for e-bikes if you ask me.

Where did you get the 53 seconds from? At the first time check at 15 ks Evans was 22 seconds off Martins time, at the second time check at 27.5 ks Evans was 7 seconds off Martin and at the finish line Evans finished 7 seconds off Martin, so he made up 0 seconds in the last 15 ks.

He was 57 seconds behind Schleck before the stage. Evans actually only took 36 second back in the first 15km, but it increased to 1:42 at the next check.

I thought DanielSong39 was talking about his time gaps to Tony Martin in the stage, my mistake!
In regards to his time gains on Andy Schleck, nothing in the performance to me looks like motor use (leaving regular doping aside) but more to Evans being in form and not choking and taking that sort of time out of Schleck is that much of a surprise.

I'd say Evans just "found" his 2007 TT form once again. My guess is that it was pharmaceutical.

 

[Taxus4a]

Evans would have won lot of things if he would have born a few years later. Sadly he was fighting with all those dopers, and in a GT it was impossibe to beat them. But he was able to win le Tour when he was just in little dissadvantage with other riders.. anyway make me laugh how people that in normal condition would be at an hour from him in GC was close to him in his Tour, as Voeckler. Cleaing cycling has been a long way. Luckily all the people of Padua investigation were out by those times, so after that we could say, with some exceptionw, that WT is clean.

But you can folow writting all you want here with so vague and no solid arguments... the important thing is reallity.

 

[noddy69]

Re:

Evans would have won lot of things if he would have born a few years later. Sadly he was fighting with all those dopers, and in a GT it was impossibe to beat them. But he was able to win le Tour when he was just in little dissadvantage with other riders.. anyway make me laugh how people that in normal condition would be at an hour from him in GC was close to him in his Tour, as Voeckler. Cleaing cycling has been a long way. Luckily all the people of Padua investigation were out by those times, so after that we could say, with some exceptionw, that WT is clean.

But you can folow writting all you want here with so vague and no solid arguments... the important thing is reallity.

Agree completely. Never mind he has a chin like Sammy Sanchez and beat loads of dopers throughout his career, he never tested positive .
2006 Tour De Romandie win is proof clean cyclists beat dopers.
Top 5:

1. Evans
2. Contador
3. Valverde
4. Jakshe
5. Kashechkin

:lol: how could you beat that lot on bread and water

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re: Re:

Evans would have won lot of things if he would have born a few years later. Sadly he was fighting with all those dopers, and in a GT it was impossibe to beat them. But he was able to win le Tour when he was just in little dissadvantage with other riders.. anyway make me laugh how people that in normal condition would be at an hour from him in GC was close to him in his Tour, as Voeckler. Cleaing cycling has been a long way. Luckily all the people of Padua investigation were out by those times, so after that we could say, with some exceptionw, that WT is clean.

But you can folow writting all you want here with so vague and no solid arguments... the important thing is reallity.

Agree completely. Never mind he has a chin like Sammy Sanchez and beat loads of dopers throughout his career, he never tested positive .
2006 Tour De Romandie win is proof clean cyclists beat dopers.
Top 5:

1. Evans
2. Contador
3. Valverde
4. Jakshe
5. Kashechkin

:lol: how could you beat that lot on bread and water

What about the 2002 Giro?

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=8929
1. USA HAMILTON Tyler CSC 41'21"
2. UKR HONCHAR Serhiy FAS 31"
3. AUS EVANS Cadel MAP 41"
4. BEL VERBRUGGHE Rik LOT 53"
5. ESP GONZALEZ JIMENEZ Aitor KEL 56"
6. ITA FRIGO Dario TAC 59"

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

[quote="Taxus4a
Agree completely. Never mind he has a chin like Sammy Sanchez and beat loads of dopers throughout his career, he never tested positive .
2006 Tour De Romandie win is proof clean cyclists beat dopers.
Top 5:

1. Evans
2. Contador
3. Valverde
4. Jakshe
5. Kashechkin

:lol: how could you beat that lot on bread and water

:lol: :lol: Where have we all heard the "never tested positive...blah blah blah" schitck before? Oh that's right, from :Flandis/Contadoper, Ullrich and the king of doping himself, Wonderboy(to name a few). As history has shown, you can say whatever you want, and the masses believe it. Miggy's claimed he never doped, Merckx has as well, except for that time MUCH later when he admitted it, then tried justifying it and shrugged it off.

Anquetil has supposedly doped too, I don't know either way, so I can't comment on if he did for sure, as I can't Hinault(despite asking here numerous times, and never getting the answer)< but if it makes you feel good to say that, more power to you.

Then there are those who swear up and down(and sideways) that: LeMond/Hampsten/Bauer, etc have all doped, without a shred of evidence to support or back up those claims, despite numerous attempts to try to get this info from the folks who claimed it.

If your only defense to try to defend: Evans/Froome/Schleck/Wiggins that they didn't dope is:"They never tested positive for _______", then you're more naive then I thought.

Weak argument to say the least.

 

[noddy69]

Re: Re:

[quote="Taxus4a
Agree completely. Never mind he has a chin like Sammy Sanchez and beat loads of dopers throughout his career, he never tested positive .
2006 Tour De Romandie win is proof clean cyclists beat dopers.
Top 5:

1. Evans
2. Contador
3. Valverde
4. Jakshe
5. Kashechkin

:lol: how could you beat that lot on bread and water

:lol: :lol: Where have we all heard the "never tested positive...blah blah blah" schitck before? Oh that's right, from :Flandis/Contadoper, Ullrich and the king of doping himself, Wonderboy(to name a few). As history has shown, you can say whatever you want, and the masses believe it. Miggy's claimed he never doped, Merckx has as well, except for that time MUCH later when he admitted it, then tried justifying it and shrugged it off.

Anquetil has supposedly doped too, I don't know either way, so I can't comment on if he did for sure, as I can't Hinault(despite asking here numerous times, and never getting the answer)< but if it makes you feel good to say that, more power to you.

Then there are those who swear up and down(and sideways) that: LeMond/Hampsten/Bauer, etc have all doped, without a shred of evidence to support or back up those claims, despite numerous attempts to try to get this info from the folks who claimed it.

If your only defense to try to defend: Evans/Froome/Schleck/Wiggins that they didn't dope is:"They never tested positive for _______", then you're more naive then I thought.

Weak argument to say the least.

You may have missed the sarcasm in my post. I don't actually think he was on just bread and water and thought maybe Sammy Sanchez bit might give that away if not the rest of the post after that point !

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

[quote="Taxus4a
Agree completely. Never mind he has a chin like Sammy Sanchez and beat loads of dopers throughout his career, he never tested positive .
2006 Tour De Romandie win is proof clean cyclists beat dopers.
Top 5:

1. Evans
2. Contador
3. Valverde
4. Jakshe
5. Kashechkin

:lol: how could you beat that lot on bread and water

:lol: :lol: Where have we all heard the "never tested positive...blah blah blah" schitck before? Oh that's right, from :Flandis/Contadoper, Ullrich and the king of doping himself, Wonderboy(to name a few). As history has shown, you can say whatever you want, and the masses believe it. Miggy's claimed he never doped, Merckx has as well, except for that time MUCH later when he admitted it, then tried justifying it and shrugged it off.

Anquetil has supposedly doped too, I don't know either way, so I can't comment on if he did for sure, as I can't Hinault(despite asking here numerous times, and never getting the answer)< but if it makes you feel good to say that, more power to you.

Then there are those who swear up and down(and sideways) that: LeMond/Hampsten/Bauer, etc have all doped, without a shred of evidence to support or back up those claims, despite numerous attempts to try to get this info from the folks who claimed it.

If your only defense to try to defend: Evans/Froome/Schleck/Wiggins that they didn't dope is:"They never tested positive for _______", then you're more naive then I thought.

Weak argument to say the least.

You may have missed the sarcasm in my post. I don't actually think he was on just bread and water and thought maybe Sammy Sanchez bit might give that away if not the rest of the post after that point !

My apologies if I missed the sarcasm, I was saying this mostly in general to the masses, not so much you specifically.

 

[Tonton]

Anquetil doped and made no mystery about it.

 

[Benotti69]

Evans picking to ride MTB races with Hincapie says all that needs to be said whether Evans was clean.

 

[DanielSong39]

We need more people like Anquetil and Coppi. They owned up to their doping while still active and even added a little humor.

 

[GuyIncognito]

Re:

We need more people like Antequil and Coppi. They owned up to their doping while still active and even added a little humor.

"Do you dope as well?"
"Yes, but only when absolutely necessary"
"When is that?"
"Pretty much all the time"

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

Evans picking to ride MTB races with Hincapie says all that needs to be said whether Evans was clean.

Maybe also because they are rich, retired bored guys that want to have some fun...........