Cadel Evans is a Clean Champion

[Jalina]

Arguments for doping:
1) Client of Ferrari
2) lots of known doping teams
3) performance against known dopers
4) not a vocal anti doper
5) silence on Armstrong
6) still performing at 35yo

The Ferrari link is tenuous at best, it was 11 years ago, before he turned pro on road. Organised by new manager Rominger (doper). He never went back and used Sassi instead. Plenty of touted "clean" riders have ridden for doping teams notably Bassons at Festina and Moncoutie at Cofidis. Evans as a GC prospect has always been at top teams with a chance of winning (except Lotto lol). He is not vocal about anything, we all know he is reclusive and private person, uncomfortable and prickly in the limelight and public address. Same argument for silence on Armstrong. Many athletes in many sports are performing into their 30s now through advances in training, diet and psychology - and he IS starting to taper off. The biggest argument, the one hardest to ignore, is his palmares against known dopers - see my post http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1054190&postcount=22


Arguments against doping:
1) no 'hard' evidence of any kind
2) no mutterings from peloton or media
3) normal career trajectory
4) no abnormal performance increases
5) no startling stages
6) physiology

Of course lack of 'hard' evidence means diddly squat. Omerta prevails in the peleton, but not even enemies have made insinuations. As to the rest, its hard to ignore that the guy is a top level talent. Always has been from young mountain bike career.

This is a guy who has been roundly criticised for years for being a wheel sucker, unable or unwilling to launch attacks or take risks. When the known dopers launched attackes in the mountains, he would struggle to maintain contact, or even minimise losses. He has beaten plenty of known dopers, but also been beaten by them. He has a great pamares but is in no way dominant. In fact that suggestion would have been laughed at until last years win. If anything his WC win and TdF are surprises.

All in all, given the history of doping in the sport, and what we have seen in The Secret Race and The Evidence, you back "clean" at your peril. However, there is still a realistic chance that he could in fact be clean or 'clean'. I don't think he is an out and out doper in the mould of Armstrong or Ricco, if he is doping it is augmenting his natural abilities. Personally, I choose to believe he is clean, but acknowledge this could be misguided, and will not vociferously and blindly defend him if something crops up. I also have no problem with people thinking he is doping.

The highlighted is the problem I have with this post and with this thread in general. The overall tone is, "if he dopes, he only dopes a little bit." WTF? Doping is doping. There's no grey areas, it's black and white. There's a clear friggin line.

Only doping to augment his natural abilities?? Give me a friggin break, Lance would say exactly the same thing. Every single doper ever would say exactly the same thing.

If Cadel doped to win a TdF, there's no difference between him and Lance as far as the doping goes (the behaviour surrounding the doping is clearly different and is not the issue I am raising). The result is still the same, the pressure is still on every kid in the peloton to dope to keep up... some poor b*stard was still cheated out of their rightful place because they wouldn't dope. Only doping "a little bit" doesn't change that.

I don't know whether Cadel dopes or not, I'd like to think he doesn't but I'm not naive enough to believe that 100%. But if he dopes, he's a doper. There's no half way point. An individual either crosses that line or they don't, you can't only cross it a bit. Yes, you may be able to come back and choose to never cross it agan, but ultimately you have to pick which side of the line you are on.

As long as this line of thinking remains, that doping a little bit is somehow ok, then yes, the fans are part of the problem.

 

[BroDeal]

Things are looking bleak for Evans. Liggett recently assured us that Evans won the TdF clean. Going by Liggett's track record on such things, Evans is probably running a Papp-like drug distribution scheme.

 

[Galic Ho]

Can anybody remind me what was that GT where he sort of suggested (innuendo) 'if these guys are doping how can I do anything'?

2008 and also 2006.

Was not talking about doping per se in the context of the questioning asked. He was simply saying what could he do as one guy when Chris Horner was broken and gone and T-Mobile and Rabobank along with CSC couldn't do a darn thing to pull Floyd Landis back in. The one I think you remember, where Cadel was dejected and really sweaty and said 'What can I do" was at the end of stage 17 in the 2006 Tour. The day 'Freaky Floyd' destroyed the GC riders single handedly. Cadel tried to explain when Floyd was allowed to go, he had nothing to play, that he couldn't do a single thing if whole teams, like T-Mobile who were in awesome form were getting annihilated.

At that stage Cadel was up for a podium spot. Third if the ITT went his way. Floyd's revamp changed the entire race. Ironically, who was the best chaser? Sastre...but he's clean or so some in this thread say. And he rode for Riis. He just played his cards wiser than others, just like Evans.

 

[Galic Ho]

Things are looking bleak for Evans. Liggett has assured us that Evans won the TdF clean. Going by Liggett's track record on such things, Evans is probably running a Papp-like drug distribution scheme.

Thanks for that news. Nothing to see here people. Move along. Move along.

Oh dear, an endorsement by Phil at the moment is like betraying the mob during the racketeering days and being taken out on a boat over a deep body of water and being given your cement shoes. It's an almost sealed fate.

On that note, don't count on Evans opening his trap anytime soon. I suspect he will remain very low key when he heads back Down Under later this month or early next month.

 

[onimod]

The highlighted is the problem I have with this post and with this thread in general. The overall tone is, "if he dopes, he only dopes a little bit." WTF? Doping is doping. There's no grey areas, it's black and white. There's a clear friggin line.

Only doping to augment his natural abilities?? Give me a friggin break, Lance would say exactly the same thing. Every single doper ever would say exactly the same thing.

If Cadel doped to win a TdF, there's no difference between him and Lance as far as the doping goes (the behaviour surrounding the doping is clearly different and is not the issue I am raising). The result is still the same, the pressure is still on every kid in the peloton to dope to keep up... some poor b*stard was still cheated out of their rightful place because they wouldn't dope. Only doping "a little bit" doesn't change that.

I don't know whether Cadel dopes or not, I'd like to think he doesn't but I'm not naive enough to believe that 100%. But if he dopes, he's a doper. There's no half way point. An individual either crosses that line or they don't, you can't only cross it a bit. Yes, you may be able to come back and choose to never cross it agan, but ultimately you have to pick which side of the line you are on.

As long as this line of thinking remains, that doping a little bit is somehow ok, then yes, the fans are part of the problem.

Bingo

 

[Maxiton]

The highlighted is the problem I have with this post and with this thread in general. The overall tone is, "if he dopes, he only dopes a little bit." WTF? Doping is doping. There's no grey areas, it's black and white. There's a clear friggin line.

Only doping to augment his natural abilities?? Give me a friggin break, Lance would say exactly the same thing. Every single doper ever would say exactly the same thing.

If Cadel doped to win a TdF, there's no difference between him and Lance as far as the doping goes (the behaviour surrounding the doping is clearly different and is not the issue I am raising). The result is still the same, the pressure is still on every kid in the peloton to dope to keep up... some poor b*stard was still cheated out of their rightful place because they wouldn't dope. Only doping "a little bit" doesn't change that.

I don't know whether Cadel dopes or not, I'd like to think he doesn't but I'm not naive enough to believe that 100%. But if he dopes, he's a doper. There's no half way point. An individual has either crossed that line or they haven't, you can't only cross it a bit.

As long as this line of thinking remains, that doping a little bit is somehow ok, then yes, the fans are part of the problem.

Let's say you're the Cadel Evans of a few years ago, and your doc/trainer/coach comes to you and says, Cadel, you are arguably the most physically gifted athlete in the peloton. You know that. You should be *dominating* these grand tours, not just winning them. And yet you're not dominating, not even winning. I think we both know why. Look, I respect your decision to win or lose on your own abilities but as things stand now you have little chance of ever getting your due in the sport of cycling. I think you should give further thought to what you are and aren't willing to do, and if you find you can't relax just a bit the restrictions you've placed on yourself, perhaps you should think about another sport - of course, I don't know which sport."

What do you think your response would be? Can you see a rider of Cadel's caliber saying something like, "Here's what I can live with: I'm willing to take vitamins and minerals, and to re-infuse my own blood. It is my blood, after all. Win or lose, that's as far as I go."

Would that put a rider on the same level of culpability as, say, Armstrong or Pantanni, or some other inveterate doper?

 

[sittingbison]

...Get your head read champ and lay off the weed. It's messing with your thinking....WTF you silly silly fool?...Seriously, get your act together....

you do realise I highlighted the busted dopers?

 

[onimod]

Let's say you're the Cadel Evans of a few years ago, and your doc/trainer/coach comes to you and says, Cadel, you are arguably the most physically gifted athlete in the peloton. You know that. You should be *dominating* these grand tours, not just winning them. And yet you're not dominating, not even winning. I think we both know why. Look, I respect your decision to win or lose on your own abilities but as things stand now you have little chance of ever getting your due in the sport of cycling. I think you should give further thought to what you are and aren't willing to do, and if you find you can't relax just a bit the restrictions you've placed on yourself, perhaps you should think about another sport - of course, I don't know which sport."

What do you think your response would be? Can you see a rider of Cadel's caliber saying something like, "Here's what I can live with: I'm willing to take vitamins and minerals, and to re-infuse my own blood. It is my blood, after all. Win or lose, that's as far as I go."

Would that put a rider on the same level of culpability as, say, Armstrong or Pantanni, or some other inveterate doper?

Yep - it just perpetuates the system where the person who chooses to ride paniagua never gets a result commensurate with his physiology and skill.

 

[sittingbison]

...The overall tone is, "if he dopes, he only dopes a little bit." WTF? Doping is doping. There's no grey areas, it's black and white....As long as this line of thinking remains, that doping a little bit is somehow ok, then yes, the fans are part of the problem.

ummmm....you have successfully cherry picked one sentence out of a rather long post and completely misinterpreted the entire effort. Thanks.

I make NO apologies for any doping. Never have in what, 500 posts? That sentence was alluding to the available information that I listed NOT showing him to be in the Ricco class of doping, which makes it impossible to point the finger with complete authority. Which is why this thread exists. That is all.

So get off your high horse.

 

[sittingbison]

Bingo

Before giving the high five, look at what the post is directed at.

The content is correct, the target is wrong.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

One Aussie to another. Get your head read champ and lay off the weed. It's messing with your thinking.

Sastre clean? In 2008 he climbed Alpe d'Huez two minutes faster than anyone and cracked the 40 minute barrier with a 39'30" time. Evans time ironically was almost exactly the same as he did in 2011. And that was still faster than Lemonds best time. Sastre's time is WAY TOO FAST to be that of a clean rider. Rubiera in the 80s didn't crack 41', so how did Carlos? Extra blood bag, like the one Kohl wanted, that's what won him the Tour in 2008

Evans climbed it in around 40'25" back in 2006. Get it through your thick skull: your national hero was doped, too.

 

[onimod]

Before giving the high five, look at what the post is directed at.

The content is correct, the target is wrong.

I completely agree - sorry I missed the nuance

 

[AussieEdge]

The highlighted is the problem I have with this post and with this thread in general. The overall tone is, "if he dopes, he only dopes a little bit." WTF? Doping is doping. There's no grey areas, it's black and white. There's a clear friggin line.

Only doping to augment his natural abilities?? Give me a friggin break, Lance would say exactly the same thing. Every single doper ever would say exactly the same thing.

If Cadel doped to win a TdF, there's no difference between him and Lance as far as the doping goes (the behaviour surrounding the doping is clearly different and is not the issue I am raising). The result is still the same, the pressure is still on every kid in the peloton to dope to keep up... some poor b*stard was still cheated out of their rightful place because they wouldn't dope. Only doping "a little bit" doesn't change that.

I don't know whether Cadel dopes or not, I'd like to think he doesn't but I'm not naive enough to believe that 100%. But if he dopes, he's a doper. There's no half way point. An individual either crosses that line or they don't, you can't only cross it a bit. Yes, you may be able to come back and choose to never cross it agan, but ultimately you have to pick which side of the line you are on.

As long as this line of thinking remains, that doping a little bit is somehow ok, then yes, the fans are part of the problem.

I do agree however that point about the natural abilities thing & how every doper would say that. Well Cadel doesn't have to, his results as a mountain biker speak for themselves...

we don't know if he does or doesn't, but no suggestion from the peloton of anything other than clean, not being liked to anything yet, looking like he its totally exhausted every race and his natural ability makes me believe he is. No twisted arguments on an Internet forum full of faceless so and so's hell bent on telling the world 'Look at me, look at me' isnt evidence

Anyone who doesn't like it can bite me!

 

[Maxiton]

Yep - it just perpetuates the system where the person who chooses to ride paniagua never gets a result commensurate with his physiology and skill.

I would argue that if there are paniagua GC GT riders, Cadel is one; but there probably are none. So in today's environment if you're going to be competitive in a GT over all, you have to at least blood dope.

 

[onimod]

I would argue that if there are paniagua GC GT riders, Cadel is one; but there probably are none. So in today's environment if you're going to be competitive in a GT over all, you have to at least blood dope.

fingers crossed, eyes open

 

[AussieEdge]

Can you explain paniagua and what is it

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Can you explain paniagua and what is it

From Tyler Hamilton's book

pan y agua = bread and water.

all natural. no dope.

 

[AussieEdge]

Thanks

Without faith you have nothing and I have faith in Cadel

And I'm no more naive or wrong than the believe everyone does it

 

[Maxiton]

Thanks

Without faith you have nothing and I have faith in Cadel

And I'm no more naive or wrong than the believe everyone does it

How much is a cup of coffee in Australia?

 

[Tinman]

Thanks

Without faith you have nothing and I have faith in Cadel

And I'm no more naive or wrong than the believe everyone does it

Me too (for now). Tibet, various philanthropy donations and hypocracy don't go together well. And no Evans foundations either.

 

[onimod]

Thanks
Without faith you have nothing and I have faith in Cadel
And I'm no more naive or wrong than the believe everyone does it

Without faith you have a person who is able to judge the situation on it's merits.
I'm interested in why you think you need to "have faith" in another human being? Care to share?

 

[AussieEdge]

How much is a cup of coffee in Australia?

Depends on where you buy it, city is more expensive than a lot of shopping centre type caffe's

 

[AussieEdge]

Without faith you have a person who is able to judge the situation on it's merits.
I'm interested in why you think you need to "have faith" in another human being? Care to share?

You can't prove he is clean/dopes anymore than I can - so that's where the faith comes into it

No suspicion, genuine ability and general belief thought peloton that he is clean shouldn't be counted as merit then?

Depends on your argument I guess

 

[Tinman]

Without faith you have a person who is able to judge the situation on it's merits.
I'm interested in why you think you need to "have faith" in another human being? Care to share?

I'd call it trust rather than faith. Faith a loaded word these days.

 

[AussieEdge]

I've grown up with them being same difference to me so take your pick