The UCI takes care of the tests, of that I have no doubt.Even though DQS don't get busted (assuming cheating for the sake of argument), technological advances in the future mean Cavendish could risk a test years down the line of this years samples destroying his legacy (the early years of which are not particularly suspicious in comparison to anything else).
Rackham, often your posts are intelligent and knowledgable, but then you have posts with conspiracy theories worthy of starring Tom Hanks.The UCI takes care of the tests, of that I have no doubt.
IMO the future of cycling was so bleak after the American coyboys & their friends like Fuentes went mad & acted like lunatics in the early 2000's, someone stepped in & secured the future of the sport with the UCI doing what the UCI does & always did: cover for everyone (not just the highest bidder, but everyone in the world tour, hence why no one tests positive anymore). Cavendish is safe. If he's to face punishment, it'll come in different forms (like a polite tap on the shoulder with a message saying "time to let the others have their victories & you'll ride paniagua for the rest of the race my friend").
I mean for example I've been hearing stories on Eurosport since yesterday about issues with his green jersey & the ASO (Tour organizer) not delivering his special outfit as they usually do. I have no idea what that's all about but I'm pretty certain all the cloak & dagger stuff is taken care of behind the scenes.
Just my opinion.
I think you're being generous with Tom Hanks, i.e. I admit this is B movie stuff.Rackham, often your posts are intelligent and knowledgable, but then you have posts with conspiracy theories worthy of starring Tom Hanks.
36 is old for a sprinter. They lean more towards fast twitch, which declines at an earlier age than heavily slow twitch climbers.The "UCI covers for everything" mantra has been the default position of the Clinic for years. So easy when you have nothing concrete. In some cases there is truth e.g. Armstrong. But I don't see this with Cavendish - not yet at least. Plus at 36 he isn't that old.
If this was a factor only absolute nobodies would dope. Sure, there are riders who stop taking big risks late in their careers because the risk-to-reward ratio changes decisively and they have a lot more to lose (Pereiro comes to mind). But riders who do that do not make amazing comebacks or perform at a stupdenously high level in the most important race in the world.Even though DQS don't get busted (assuming cheating for the sake of argument), technological advances in the future mean Cavendish could risk a test years down the line of this years samples destroying his legacy (the early years of which are not particularly suspicious in comparison to anything else).
Almost like he saw your post……I'm not one to dismiss depression, but Ibarguren must be one helluva psychologist.
Armstrong wasn't unique in his doping, i.e. his "extra" over the competition was more money & Verbruggen.The "UCI covers for everything" mantra has been the default position of the Clinic for years. So easy when you have nothing concrete. In some cases there is truth e.g. Armstrong. But I don't see this with Cavendish - not yet at least. Plus at 36 he isn't that old.
You are dismissing it in that post, and clearly have no understanding of it if that is your attitude.I'm not one to dismiss depression, but Ibarguren must be one helluva psychologist.
Mate, it was a joke and a funny one at that. I know some people (Americans usually), are professionally offended, but it ignores a long and noble history of finding humour in the taboo. You may think it in bad taste, and you'd be right, but don't conflate a joke and not taking a devastating illness seriously, because one does not imply the other.You are dismissing it in that post, and clearly have no understanding of it if that is your attitude.
(this is nothing to do with Cav or doping.)
Both in that clinical depression is life destroying and you need more than a psychologist to help you out of it.
I'd suggest being less flippant in future.
Maybe the UCI covers, who knows, I mostly meant the green skinsuit thing as a punishment or warning in this case.I think you're being generous with Tom Hanks, i.e. I admit this is B movie stuff.
But seriously, there "has" to be a reason beyond what we're seeing because DQS are too obvious, too farcical & too dominant for their performances to be anything other than "pas normal" aka not normal. We know from history when a team like theirs is so successful over an entire season, it's because the clinic stuff is dialled in perfectly.
I wasn't born yesterday & I know (for example) their doctor Yvan Van Mol might as well have "Fuentes" tattooed on his forehead because they're cut from the same cloth. I mean I would bet anything they're doped up to their eyeballs (including Cavendish of course), so what's the catch? And why are there zero positives in the pro peloton these days when the race speed averages are so fast? (unlike let's say 10, 15 years ago when sooner or later, someone was always popped).
Maybe the "UCI covers for everyone" theory is pure conspiracy lunatic stuff (I have had a glass of wine so whatever), but there's definitely something going on.
The "UCI covers for everything" mantra has been the default position of the Clinic for years...
It was a common criticism of the UCI that the CADF, the sport's former anti-doping body, was not really independent from the UCI itself. Since the CADF was dissolved at the end of last year, an event that seems not to have provoked much in the way of journalistic comment, most of the staff went to the new cycling arm of the ITA, another Swiss-based independent organisation. But what really changed? After all, the sanctions are still decided by the UCI's own Disciplinary Committee.... The only question is how they get away with it, i.e. the UCI covering for them is one option among several.
And it's not a "conspiracy" when this has actually been proven to be true in the past.
Massive full on effort, then sudden backpedal effect as he locks wheel for victory salute. Try it.what about the chain keep popping off - even Sean 'sit on the fence' Kelly commented on it - why does it keep happening ?
Except he didn't go from "being narrowly beaten only by the very best due to poor placing" to "Tour domination". His starting point was "being barely able to finish races".I don't know why people are getting humpy over Cavendish.
Look who he has in his train. Classics winners and the world champion. Look at the other sprinters trains....and then notice that the actual sprinters on the end of them aren't even riding the tour. Even Sagan has gone. Ewen abandoned early. Groenewegen and Bennet didn't even start. Maybe Bouhanni and Colbrelli are near Cavendish, but they lack his train.
This is why he has 4 wins. Next year he will have none.
Morkov didn’t hold off and has said as much. He was going for the win. When Quickstep got swapped and Morkov separated from Ballerini and Cav from Morkov the two went for it. When Morkov goes on the front it is around 250 meters to go and the last time he looked back Cav wasn’t on his wheel.Don't believe me? Have another look at yesterday sprint finish and ask yourself why Mork held off on the line.