Classics Riders

[nhowson]

What do the people of The Clinic think of the current crop of classics riders? There's a lot of talk about the GTers, but let's switch things up and also maybe have a non-tribal discussion...

 

[blackcat]

al
a
sand
ro
bal
an

 

[nhowson]

I'll be more forward then.

Does the clinic think Cancellara is doping? Van Avermaet? Sagan? Vanmarcke? Gerrans?

 

[Ferminal]

Yes.

10char

 

[Dear Wiggo]

F) All of the above.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'll be more forward then.

Does the clinic think Cancellara is doping? Van Avermaet? Sagan? Vanmarcke? Gerrans?

By "doping" do you mean to levels of never tested positive? Because that's not doping.

How about if the UCI produces a TUE? Over 90 podium urinalyses in 2013 had TUEs.

How about if the Anti doping authority doesn't open a case on a positive? That's not doping either.

On the face of the IOC's 4/1 T/E ratio, you can be sure there is doping.

 

[Echoes]

What do the people of The Clinic think of the current crop of classics riders? There's a lot of talk about the GTers, but let's switch things up and also maybe have a non-tribal discussion...

90% of them don't know that classics exist, I guess.

 

[nhowson]

90% of them don't know that classics exist, I guess.

It's all climber talk, and this thread just shows it. No one is looking at OPQS and jumping up and down with the same fervour they have for Sky...

 

[the sceptic]

It's all climber talk, and this thread just shows it. No one is looking at OPQS and jumping up and down with the same fervour they have for Sky...

If Classics were clean, sky would be dominating. And Walsh has said that it is much easier to dope in classics than in grand tours. So everyone already knows classics are dirty, except for when Dan Martin wins. Then they become clean.

 

[blackcat]

If Classics were clean, sky would be dominating. And Walsh has said that it is much easier to dope in classics than in grand tours. So everyone already knows classics are dirty, except for when Dan Martin wins. Then they become clean.

irony, Walsh is right. It is harder to dope, post-Motoman, post-EditaRumsas. but wrong in one respect. you can game the system here, like Armstrong had the benefit of protection and the benfit of the harder crackdown on Mayo, on Hamilton, on Floyd

but ironic, if you have the correct system, this becomes a significant advantage, you can have the doping, your competitors does get the advantage of your recovery doping

 

[Archibald]

By "doping" do you mean to levels of never tested positive? Because that's not doping.

How about if the UCI produces a TUE? Over 90 podium urinalyses in 2013 had TUEs.

How about if the Anti doping authority doesn't open a case on a positive? That's not doping either.

On the face of the IOC's 4/1 T/E ratio, you can be sure there is doping.

neither's motorising your bike or planting/paying spectators to knock out your competition on the pave

 

[nhowson]

If Classics were clean, sky would be dominating. And Walsh has said that it is much easier to dope in classics than in grand tours. So everyone already knows classics are dirty, except for when Dan Martin wins. Then they become clean.

I never said Classics were clean, but why are we then not talking about the doping that would then enable teams to stop Sky from dominating?

 

[Granville57]

What do the people of The Clinic think of the current crop of classics riders?

 

[Master50]

The analysis of the contents of that vial was benign. No doping products.

 

[The Hitch]

to the op. There has been a lot of talk about classics riders in here. Not as much as gts because classics are smaller than gts and recently their champions have not been as controversial.

Still cancellara has had a lot of discussion. I don't think there's a single person who believes that gts are rife with doping that doesn't think cancellara doped. There's even some who claim (for fanboy reasons) that gts are clean that go full hypocrite and say he doped.

And of course the performances of Gilbert in 2011 were just as widely scrutinized. Most came around to the opinion that there was no way Gilbert could be clean, especially since he beat all the dopers times on cauberg and mur. Fw itself is seen as a joke with every year the winner being faster than guys like rebllin were.

Both Gilbert and boonen got further attention after it came to.light that Dr Jose iburaugen taus was on their teams, during very succesful years for them (and both performed worse after he left).

So yes classics riders are discussed and most people, at least on my side, are consistent in their beliefs and acknowledge classics are hardly imune from doping.

It would be interesting to see what those who believe doping only works for mountains, and that track cycling and road cycling time trials are totally immune from doping, think on this issue..

 

[Netserk]

to the op. There has been a lot of talk about classics riders in here. Not as much as gts because classics are smaller than gts and recently their champions have not been as controversial.

Still cancellara has had a lot of discussion. I don't think there's a single person who believes that gts are rife with doping that doesn't think cancellara doped. There's even some who claim (for fanboy reasons) that gts are clean that go full hypocrite and say he doped.

And of course the performances of Gilbert in 2011 were just as widely scrutinized. Most came around to the opinion that there was no way Gilbert could be clean, especially since he beat all the dopers times on cauberg and mur. Fw itself is seen as a joke with every year the winner being faster than guys like rebllin were.

Both Gilbert and boonen got further attention after it came to.light that Dr Jose iburaugen taus was on their teams, during very succesful years for them (and both performed worse after he left).

So yes classics riders are discussed and most people, at least on my side, are consistent in their beliefs and acknowledge classics are hardly imune from doping.

It would be interesting to see what those who believe doping only works for mountains, and that track cycling and road cycling time trials are totally immune from doping, think on this issue..

When did he leave Boonen?

 

[nhowson]

to the op. There has been a lot of talk about classics riders in here. Not as much as gts because classics are smaller than gts and recently their champions have not been as controversial.

Still cancellara has had a lot of discussion. I don't think there's a single person who believes that gts are rife with doping that doesn't think cancellara doped. There's even some who claim (for fanboy reasons) that gts are clean that go full hypocrite and say he doped.

And of course the performances of Gilbert in 2011 were just as widely scrutinized. Most came around to the opinion that there was no way Gilbert could be clean, especially since he beat all the dopers times on cauberg and mur. Fw itself is seen as a joke with every year the winner being faster than guys like rebllin were.

Both Gilbert and boonen got further attention after it came to.light that Dr Jose iburaugen taus was on their teams, during very succesful years for them (and both performed worse after he left).

So yes classics riders are discussed and most people, at least on my side, are consistent in their beliefs and acknowledge classics are hardly imune from doping.

It would be interesting to see what those who believe doping only works for mountains, and that track cycling and road cycling time trials are totally immune from doping, think on this issue..

Thanks for such a reasonable and thought out reply Hitch. I guess it also comes up less when the classics season ends in April and the most recent GT was in September.

Road TTs are anything but immune in terms of doping, that is, in terms of the fact that doping benefits TT riders just as much as GT riders, it's a little ludicrous that anyone thinks doping makes no difference in any of the many disciplines where wheel lengths are the margins between victory and failure.

EDIT: I managed to forget Lombardia existed because I'm an idiot.

 

[Echoes]

They strictly talk about doping in classics, in April, the rest of the time, it's GT, GT, GT and GT all over again because they don't know that other races exist and matter.

Also when an affair re a classic rider is in development like regarding Hoste, for example, they don't care about it. No mention on this section, whatsoever. While when we are talking about dope, we should talk about facts and not speculations, right? Otherwise it's defamatory. Obviously most posts on this section are defamatory.

Even regarding past dopers, like Museeuw, just one or two posts here or there compared to the 12 or 36 volumes of Armstrong threads.

Just insane! This section is a real mad house.

 

[Netserk]

Thanks for such a reasonable and thought out reply Hitch. I guess it also comes up less when the most recent monument was in April and the most recent GT was in September.

Road TTs are anything but immune in terms of doping, that is, in terms of the fact that doping benefits TT riders just as much as GT riders, it's a little ludicrous that anyone thinks doping makes no difference in any of the many disciplines where wheel lengths are the margins between victory and failure.

I know Lombardia has been bad the last few years, but to lose it's monument status!?

 

[blackcat]

Thanks for such a reasonable and thought out reply Hitch. I guess it also comes up less when the most recent monument was in April and the most recent GT was in September.

Road TTs are anything but immune in terms of doping, that is, in terms of the fact that doping benefits TT riders just as much as GT riders, it's a little ludicrous that anyone thinks doping makes no difference in any of the many disciplines where wheel lengths are the margins between victory and failure.

GT tts are much different. Most riders want to make the time cut and have a day off. How many go au blok, or au bloc? 5%? Out of those 5%, how many can win? 50% of those 5%.

That is why, a rider who wants to peak for the GT tts, can cherry pick them.

Sergei Gonchar. Schumacher. Martin. Cancellara, they can always pick up the two wins by peaking for them, and soft pedalling the previous days.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

They strictly talk about doping in classics, in April, the rest of the time, it's GT, GT, GT and GT all over again because they don't know that other races exist and matter.

Also when an affair re a classic rider is in development like regarding Hoste, for example, they don't care about it. No mention on this section, whatsoever. While when we are talking about dope, we should talk about facts and not speculations, right? Otherwise it's defamatory. Obviously most posts on this section are defamatory.

Even regarding past dopers, like Museeuw, just one or two posts here or there compared to the 12 or 36 volumes of Armstrong threads.

Just insane! This section is a real mad house.

Or, or or or, Hoste's career had tailed off to the point of his being more or less irrelevant at the time that took place. Cancellara doesn't get ignored by the Clinic, nor did Gilbert's miracle year or OPQS' resurgence the following year when Ibarguren jumped ship. Do you honestly, genuinely think people have ignored Mapei's Roubaix or Gewiss-Ballan at Flèche Wallonne as iconic doping performances?

Also, because the Classics are one-day races, there's an element of luck on the day - you're feeling good, others aren't, weather, crashes, and so on - that often evens itself out over the course of a GT, which doesn't in the Classics. I would therefore argue that it is more reasonable to make the assumption that a Classic can be won clean than that a GT can be won clean.

The Armstrong threads went postal because of the enormity of his profile in the sport, which dwarfs that of Museeuw, regardless of your attitudes to the races he won (I despised his "all for the TdF and nothing else" calendar just as much as you, btw) or didn't win now... and because this is an Anglophone forum. Sky similarly get that kind of attention now. And guess what: specialist cycling media in the "new" countries is biased in coverage towards the Grand Tours - Le Tour in particular - so it's no wonder that that gets the majority of the attention, in that it is the first exposure to the sport that most fans have. Even in some traditional countries, the same happens. Would you argue, for example, that Spain is not a traditional cycling country? Yet they have very little history of Classics racing, and their calendar has historically revolved almost entirely around stage racing and single-day races finishing on mountaintops (Subida al Naranco, Subida a Urkiola, Subida a Arrate and so on).

It is true that the Tour, and GT riders in general, are over-represented in the attention given in this forum. And at times this does annoy me, when you get one of those threads for the best this, or most memorable that, and everything nominated is from the Tour or the Giro. It's frustrating when you can't get a conversation going when you want to talk about the Tour of Luxembourg, or the Peace Race, and I wish that some of my favourite small races like the GP Plumelec or the Frankfurt Maitagrennen got more coverage and attention. However, at the same time, I resent the implication that all of us on the forum, with the exception of the enlightened Echoes, are mouth-breathing ignoramuses for not focusing all of our attention on the Classics to the exclusion of all else, because we don't remember that back in the 70s the Scheldeprijs wasn't the worst race in the entire cycling calendar and can't quote Jempy Monseré's palmarès outside of the Worlds by heart, and because we have the temerity to enjoy a multi-stage racing event which has climbs over 4km in length.

You're a good and informative poster most of the time, doing good work to bring some attention to the historical prestige of many races and introduce fans to some strong riders whose achievements shouldn't have been buried, and your work on globalization in cycling through the ages in particular has been of great value and interest to me as somebody greatly interested in the Course de la Paix and Ostbloc cycling as a whole. Please don't turn this into a crusade.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The analysis of the contents of that vial was benign. No doping products.

The analysis was performed by the UCI at their longtime co-conspirator Marital Saugy's lab.

What incentive would they have to publish anything but benign contents?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Or, or or or, Hoste's career had tailed off to the point of his being more or less irrelevant at the time that took place. Cancellara doesn't get ignored by the Clinic, nor did Gilbert's miracle year or OPQS' resurgence the following year when Ibarguren jumped ship. Do you honestly, genuinely think people have ignored Mapei's Roubaix or Gewiss-Ballan at Flèche Wallonne as iconic doping performances?

Also, because the Classics are one-day races, there's an element of luck on the day - you're feeling good, others aren't, weather, crashes, and so on - that often evens itself out over the course of a GT, which doesn't in the Classics. I would therefore argue that it is more reasonable to make the assumption that a Classic can be won clean than that a GT can be won clean.

Element of luck really doesn't properly convey the number of factors out of the control of an athlete and his teammates required to podium one-day classics. But, yeah, good post.

 

[Benotti69]

...snipped....

Even regarding past dopers, like Museeuw, just one or two posts here or there compared to the 12 or 36 volumes of Armstrong threads.

Just insane! This section is a real mad house.

I think you will find few posters to defend the Museeuw, Boonen, Cancellara, Pelizzotti, or other classic riders.

Plenty of people still trying to defend Armstrong's doping including Armstrong himself.

Similar in the Sky threads. Sky's riders doping is as obvious yet plenty trying to convince others that they are clean.

 

[The Hitch]

Or, or or or, Hoste's career had tailed off to the point of his being more or less irrelevant at the time that took place. Cancellara doesn't get ignored by the Clinic, nor did Gilbert's miracle year or OPQS' resurgence the following year when Ibarguren jumped ship. Do you honestly, genuinely think people have ignored Mapei's Roubaix or Gewiss-Ballan at Flèche Wallonne as iconic doping performances?

Also, because the Classics are one-day races, there's an element of luck on the day - you're feeling good, others aren't, weather, crashes, and so on - that often evens itself out over the course of a GT, which doesn't in the Classics. I would therefore argue that it is more reasonable to make the assumption that a Classic can be won clean than that a GT can be won clean.

The Armstrong threads went postal because of the enormity of his profile in the sport, which dwarfs that of Museeuw, regardless of your attitudes to the races he won (I despised his "all for the TdF and nothing else" calendar just as much as you, btw) or didn't win now... and because this is an Anglophone forum. Sky similarly get that kind of attention now. And guess what: specialist cycling media in the "new" countries is biased in coverage towards the Grand Tours - Le Tour in particular - so it's no wonder that that gets the majority of the attention, in that it is the first exposure to the sport that most fans have. Even in some traditional countries, the same happens. Would you argue, for example, that Spain is not a traditional cycling country? Yet they have very little history of Classics racing, and their calendar has historically revolved almost entirely around stage racing and single-day races finishing on mountaintops (Subida al Naranco, Subida a Urkiola, Subida a Arrate and so on).

It is true that the Tour, and GT riders in general, are over-represented in the attention given in this forum. And at times this does annoy me, when you get one of those threads for the best this, or most memorable that, and everything nominated is from the Tour or the Giro. It's frustrating when you can't get a conversation going when you want to talk about the Tour of Luxembourg, or the Peace Race, and I wish that some of my favourite small races like the GP Plumelec or the Frankfurt Maitagrennen got more coverage and attention. However, at the same time, I resent the implication that all of us on the forum, with the exception of the enlightened Echoes, are mouth-breathing ignoramuses for not focusing all of our attention on the Classics to the exclusion of all else, because we don't remember that back in the 70s the Scheldeprijs wasn't the worst race in the entire cycling calendar and can't quote Jempy Monseré's palmarès outside of the Worlds by heart, and because we have the temerity to enjoy a multi-stage racing event which has climbs over 4km in length.

You're a good and informative poster most of the time, doing good work to bring some attention to the historical prestige of many races and introduce fans to some strong riders whose achievements shouldn't have been buried, and your work on globalization in cycling through the ages in particular has been of great value and interest to me as somebody greatly interested in the Course de la Paix and Ostbloc cycling as a whole. Please don't turn this into a crusade.

Echoes is not going to respond to your post. He came in here to whine (once again) about less people watching classics than post gt criteriums, and rip off a bunch of insults at the enemy (essentially everyone who posts on here but himself)