Cadel Evans is a Clean Champion

[blackcat]

ACF Evans is indeed a good guy.

But the relevance between good guy = clean is zero. It is mutually exclusive.

Like cancer, it has zero play in this topic.

But dont ask Jorg Jaksche about Cadel. They dont get on.

 

[Ferminal]

So basically when he says something you agree with, he is telling the truth (i.e. Armstrong), but when he is saying something I disagree with, he is telling lies (i.e. Evans)?

If he makes a sworn testimony under threat of perjury which corroborates with a dozen other testimonies then I'm inclined to believe he is telling the truth.

Where in George's testimony does it say that he can guarantee Cadel Evans doesn't dope? Which other testimonies verify this? Maybe Och could finally fess up and they could ask him?

 

[auscyclefan94]

ACF Evans is indeed a good guy.

But the relevance between good guy = clean is zero. It is mutually exclusive.

Like cancer, it has zero play in this topic.

But dont ask Jorg Jaksche about Cadel. They dont get on.

Way to completely miss my point. I never said what you are stating. I simply said that you can't use one standard for one person and another standard for another person when it suits one's argument. That is imbalanced.

What he says about Armstrong is corroborated by many other people and facts. What he says about Evans is much, much less definite

We are discussing George's inherent trustworthiness not what he saw or did not say. My point stands. You can not have double standards about one person and then another person. What George has said has been corroborated by facts and stated by Hamilton later on.

 

[auscyclefan94]

If he makes a sworn testimony with penalties of perjury which corroborates with a dozen other testimonies then I'm inclined to believe he is telling the truth. But of all those who gave evidence, George has to be considered the least trustworthy, along with Leipheimer.

Where in George's testimony does it say that George said he can guarantee Cadel Evans doesn't dope?

Why would George be making a testimony on Evans' doping or non-doping? Simply absurd argument that makes no sense whatsoever to the debate. The point is that you can not just trust a doper when he dobs somebody in and then don't in other cases. You either trust him or you don't. Whether true or not, what George said to Hamilton has been more or less corroborated by other team mates.

 

[hrotha]

We are discussing George's inherent trustworthiness not what he saw or did not say. My point stands. You can not have double standards about one person and then another person. What George has said has been corroborated by facts and stated by Hamilton later on.

Let me spell it out then: Hincapie is not trustworthy. He's been lying for decades. We believe him about Armstrong because what he says is corroborated by countless other people and by widely known facts. If he says the Earth is (roughly) round, I'll believe him. If he says he's been working for clean cycling for the past 5 years, I'll take that with a grain of s- nah, I won't buy it without proof.

 

[Ferminal]

Why would George be making a testimony on Evans' doping or non-doping? Simply absurd argument that makes no sense whatsoever to the debate. The point is that you can not just trust a doper when he dobs somebody in and then don't in other cases. You either trust him or you don't. Whether true or not, what George said to Hamilton has been more or less corroborated by other team mates.

I do not trust George, wasn't that pretty clear in what I said in this thread previously?

What that has to do with the Armstrong case is something you made up, perhaps you could explain.

 

[blackcat]

Way to completely miss my point. I never said what you are stating. I simply said that you can't use one standard for one person and another standard for another person when it suits one's argument. That is imbalanced.

try this then:

USPS era. George has manifest motive to maintain the ruse, and keep it going. Then the Grand Jury empaneled much later and he is faced with ioncarceration for perjury if he lies. Others start to tell the truth on Armstrong.

Less cost to tell the truth now on Armstrong. Previously, great motivation to keep schtum. Did very well out of his pro career. See for example, Frankie Andreu.


2011 and 2012 retirement.

Evans. Everyone at the pointy end, is still doping. Why would George speak out on one rider. When he probably has not shared his sources, his EPO, his doctor, his time getting transfused.

George has probably ridden on bread and water for 36 months.

But to pick out one rider, would be unfair. And a tenet, never recognised in cycling, of justice, is universality. Why pick on Evans. This would be very poor form. Evans should be able to reap some rewards for his hard work.

Ask George off the record, can someone win the Tour clean. Then you will get your true answer.

Before then, you are doing the best impression of Dimspace delusion

 

[auscyclefan94]

I do not trust George, wasn't that pretty clear in what I said in this thread previously?

What that has to do with the Armstrong case is something you made up, perhaps you could explain.

Your original post makes it relevant to Armstrong because you mentioned George's lying over the past years about Armstrong, which he has now admitted.

 

[Ferminal]

Your original post makes it relevant to Armstrong because you mentioned George's lying over the past years about Armstrong, which he has now admitted.

So that makes everything he says from that point onwards, certifiable truth?

I don't believe everything Landis and Hamilton say, and Hincapie is miles away from them.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Ask George off the record, can someone win the Tour clean. Then you will get your true answer.

Isn't that what Tyler did? You're forgetting that George didn't tell the public that Cadel is clean, he told Hamilton. He'd lie to the fans, no doubt, but would he lie to Tyler?

 

[sairyder]

Isn't that what Tyler did? You're forgetting that George didn't tell the public that Cadel is clean, he told Hamilton. He'd lie to the fans, no doubt, but would he lie to Tyler?

good point

 

[blackcat]

Evans fealty to the Armstrong myth on his return, says spades.

If I was clean and robbed out of my purse and rewards and achievements my diplomatic strategy to play out would be, BE SCHTUM

 

[D-Queued]

Still love the title to this thread.

...and I'm a monkeys uncle!

Dave.

 

[Alphabet]

Apologies if this has been posted earlier, but here's what Evans has to say re: Ferrari.

“I once completed a test of 2 x 20-30min supervised hill repetitions. Separated by a 4-hour ride which I completed solo. I have never seen or had contact before or after this test,” Evans wrote in an email to Cycling Central.

“I was recommended to take a test by my manager Tony Rominger to understand if I had the capabilities to race on the road. I took the test as Mr Ferrari described on his website. Mr Ferrari briefly explained the results to me and the meeting was over.

“There was never any discussion of doping (with Dr Ferrari) or any sign of anything illegal,” he said.

Link

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I find it ironic that Cadel sees Ferrari once in 2001 and gets attention for it.

CN employ (quid pro quo or $$, who knows) Ferrari for 2 years to write columns for them 2003-2004. Nothing.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I find it ironic that Cadel sees Ferrari once in 2001 and gets attention for it.

CN employ (quid pro quo or $$, who knows) Ferrari for 2 years to write columns for them 2003-2004. Nothing.

Are you accusing Susan of doping?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Are you accusing Susan of doping?

I'm accusing the media of double standards.

Living in glass houses and throwing stones.

 

[AussieEdge]

I find it ironic that Cadel sees Ferrari once in 2001 and gets attention for it.

CN employ (quid pro quo or $$, who knows) Ferrari for 2 years to write columns for them 2003-2004. Nothing.

Apparently it take only one meeting to orchestrate and carry out a doping program

Spare me

Hamilton has no invested interest in Evans, or has Hincappi to tell Hamilton what he thinks.

face it - there is nothing that tells you Evans is doper and the clinic doesn't like it

 

[Maxiton]

Are you accusing Susan of doping?

Susan is clearly on PEDs. It's time it was said. It would be naive to think otherwise. You don't start writing for a top online cycling journal, and herding the cats in this forum, unless you're on something.

Anyway, I wonder what, if anything, Cadel is doing in the PED department? Is it only reinfusing his own blood? Does he draw the line at maintaining his health, but stops short of trying to give himself undue advantage? Is it anything goes? Nothing at all? What?

EDIT: I think with Evans, as with other riders, until we see signs of doping (performance well above his previous efforts), or start hearing credible testimony otherwise, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is clean (that's clean, not "clen") - or at least clean-ish.

N.B. "Clean-ish" because I'm pretty sure you can't win a GT without blood doping - or, let's say, that no one has for many years.

 

[ElChingon]

CN Writing? I think you meant paraphrasing and straight out coping without references to the direct source.

 

[Maxiton]

CN Writing? I think you meant paraphrasing and straight out coping without references to the direct source.

"Writing" is easier to say.

 

[sittingbison]

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
7) BMC Soigneur arrested with EPO (EDIT)

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.

 

[Maxiton]

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.

What you said.

 

[Galic Ho]

could one possibility be they were really juiced to the eyeballs on straight EPO back in the day?

Lets do a DW and look at some historical Grand Tour results:
2005 8th (actually 1st - beaten by Armstrong, Basso, Ullrich, Mancebo, Vino, Levi, Rasmussen - with Floyd, Oscar and Moreau behind)
2006 5th (actually 2nd - beaten by Floyd, Oscar, Kloden, Sastre)
2007 2nd (actually 1st - beaten by AC, with Levi, Sastre, Zubeldia, Valverde, Kirchen, Popo, Astarloza, Oscar behind) (4th Veulta)
2008 2nd (Kohl, Menchov, CVV, Frank, Sami Sanchez, Kirchen Valverde, Valjevec behind)
2009 30th (crashed?) (3rd Veulta)
2010 26th (blew up) (5th Giro)
2011 1st (Andy, Frank, Voeckler, Sami Sanchez, Cunego, Basso, TommyD, Peraud, Rolland behind)
2012 7th no comment this is not a Sky thread

If we apply the same standards to Cadel that we apply to wiggo, it doesnt look promising. The same argument used against Lance when there was not much else, this sole argument. How can he compete against dopers? Which is what, anecdotal? circumstantial?

BTW thats a truly remakable palmares. Even 2009 and 2010 TdFs are offset by the excellent results in Giro and Veulta.

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.

Menchov??? WTF you silly silly fool? Denis I have a Suspicion Index rating for the 2010 Tour from the UCI of 9 Menchov and I also outgunned a juiced to the gills Danilo Di Luca in the 2009 Giro and to boot I have my name all throughout the Human Plasam files. Yeah the Pope is clean too.

Seriously, get your act together. Cadel has kept up with all the dopers because he is a doper. Simple. The level they were riding at in 2007 was phenomenal. If Lemond had raced that year he'd have been 20-30 minutes back no problem. Take Levi in that race for example. No where near Evans in the first chrono. Final chrono, puts 50 seconds in Cadel. Both winners, Levi and Vino were doping on that leg and Cadel came second in both, a minute down. Even Cancellara was nowhere close.

But wait...I'll raise everyone Basso. Gosh it's gold how some guys around here though Basso was clean in 2010 at the Giro and now...well it's damn clear he was doping. Mapei Clinic with Aldo Sassi's two star pupils does not equal clean cycling. Less doped than others. Heck yes, I'd wager they are doing less than others, but for the big wins, the Giro and Tour, they went all out.

Evans will not say much at all. He can have ALL his results stripped. He will not make a peep. I'd bet good coin that if people in Cycling Australia know about Evans doping, it will be kept quiet and covered up. Evans role in the legacy of Australian cycling is deep. He will be protected, very protected.

PS: I like both Evans and Basso. They have an element of class and air about them. I don't think they doped, I know they do, because everyone else does, but I'm cool with that. It's how the sport has run and yes it does need to change, but I will not begrudge them for going along with it, nor will I ridicule those who talked to USADA. People need a platform to talk about what they have done so the sport can move forward and build a future without drugs and full disclosure on what happened. But there is the problem...tell the truth, you lose all results.

Look at Levi. He was clearly clean this season, but 2007-2011, with his wins in Cali and Suisse and numerous GT placings it was obvious doping. If the sport were clean it would look like the 80s. One or two guys would be doing the top times and the rest would be miles back. They aren't, so many are doing what Lemond did and more, thus as far as I can see doping is still accepted within the peloton, the difference is now, the PR message is WE are clean, the OLD guys were dirty, rather than EVERYONE is clean. Pro-cyclists are trying to hoodwink the public AGAIN and I am not buying it.

 

[Galic Ho]

Clean

gut instinct - sorry but it has never wavered with Cadel
career progression
His expressed opinion on doping over time
The peletons attitude toward him
Chiara would kill him! (the Betsy effect)

That statement has a lot of wrong with it. Cadel Evans wife, is not Betsy Andreu. She is an enabler, a person who knows how the game is played. She supports her husband and knows fully well he dopes, but is also acutely aware he is also vastly gifted as a cyclist. She sleeps easy knowing he dopes.

Now contrast Evans wife with Wiggins wench. Want to know why Brad changed after 2007? The missus will be 50% of that equation and it will all be about the almighty $$$. She be a gold digger who won't put up with now broke Wigger.

The pelotons attitude? Oh do tell dude. The biggest two riders to make statements about Cadel have been Georgie Boy and Tommeke. The same Tommeke talking crap about USADA on this sites main page. The same Tommeke who was in another dimension in the classics this season. And Thor Hushovd, who left Garmin (where he was in career best form) to join the oh so clean stables Rihs and Lelangue run at BMC...where Tyler and Floyd both doped.

Short story. Tyler is just trying to be optimistic and picked the best candidate of all the ones available. I won't fault him on that. If you had to make a case for the current GC boys being clean, Evans is the obvious choice. But reality says he ain't clean at all.

BTW, Evans slumps are all illness, fall related or a psychological anomaly where Cadel got peeved with some Belgian retards who couldn't run their team correctly. He's always been up there. Always. After Valverde and Contador, he has been the most consistent GC rider over the course of a season for years. That alone puts him in super suspicious territory. He's had the good fortune of not getting popped and luxury of being a loner and having to do things on his own. Means less people to blab on your transgressions and couple that with a noted habit of keeping his trap shut, Cadel being spoken of as being 'clean' is a natural conclusion. Has a sense of inevitability to it, but the holding logic Bison and Sairyder are using is not inevitable, just lazy thinking. It's akin to what the Poms are doing with Wiggins. Patriotism and nationalism running amok unchecked and untempered with rational thought, reasoning, questioning and transparency backed by accountability.

Evans was in an interview years back. He looked uncomfortable. Doping questions were asked. He didn't look as uncomfortable as Wiggins did this week, but he was phased. That is why Cadel keeps quiet, he knows he isn't a great liar...unlike Armstrong. Armstrong has a pathological skill for lying. It's an art form for him. Wiggins and Evans have massive tells. They read like open books, if you take your blinkers off. And yes, I've heard multiple people say this.

Edit: I notice Blackcat also said Chiara is an enabler. I agree 100% with that. Was the first description that came to mind when thinking of a wife who has a husband who was doping before she met him. There literally is no other explanation for such behaviour (granted some don't believe Cadel is engaging in dubious hematological shenanigans...you will eventually). I also note sairyder had to ask if BETSY ANDREU is any different!!! Lol, dude, you are so lacking in base info on cycling it's funny. What Blackcat said...that was a really dumb question, but at least you now know. Her reputation on cycling forums, particularly the Clinic is akin to a Unicorn. That is how rare people of her condition are. They exist in legend, especially in a sport like cycling.