Most riders are clean. I don't think everyone is clean, but most are.
You guys are ruling out some basic things in cycling: talent, form and experience and development, both of rider and of equipment.
Some riders have more talent than others. Contador is more gifted than, for example, Offredo. Which is simply nature, and has nothing to do with doping. Look at football for example. The benchwarmer at Sunderland doesn't have as much talent as Kaka of Real Madrid. You can say he just have to learn the moves and tricks Kaka has, but he never will. Which is the same with cycling, some riders are gifted with more power than others.
Form is of equal importance. The general level in races these days is so high that a form drop of 5% can mean you end up 40 places backwards. This is the exact reason why you can't say of Evans he rode clean this year in le Tour and he doped other years. He didn't have the good form he did have other years. Which can happen, there are various reasons for this. And when a rider feels he doesn't have the top form, his morale will not be as high as before, and he will lose more places. The same works the other way around, ask it Le Mevel. Normally he doesn't have the capacities to do a top - 10 in le Tour, but this year he could because of a small time gift in the race, which boosted his morale sky high, and so he was able to battle for his place with the last piece of energy he had. This is the explanation why cyclists can be inconsistent, and it has nothing to do with doping.
Experience is another factor. In the past, when Valverde was feeling very well, he would just sprint and waste energy in every way he could. And afterwards be dropped on a rainy friday afternoon. This year he spended his energy more economically. He didn't climb better than other years, he simply was more consistant. And this is what can happen with riders, they, believe it or not, can grow during their careers, both physically and mentally. This is what Valverde proved during the Vuelta on the mental part. The physical part is even more obvious. A rider needs seven or eight years of cycling before he really has the strength to compete consistenly on the highest level. Some cyclists thus make huge steps even when they're 28 or 29.
Development, both of training methods and equipment is another vital factor in the cycling of today. Till two years ago, Rabobank for example just didn't care about super thight training programs and didn't have interest in what riders were doing. Now they have, and they can, with all the knowledge there is, make cyclists much better. Cycling is a very traditional sport, in which riders did what they thought was good to do. Only in the last five years, I would actually say with Lance Armstrong in '99, the details of the training methods were beginning to get covered. I see this fact as the main reason why French cyclists were performing so poor in recent years. Its not because they didn't have the talent, its not because they didn't have the doping (at least this are not the only reasons), but they didn't have the professional help of the teams, which other riders did have. It is not for nothing that Laissez Faire is a French word and this is noticable in every part of their society, and also in cycling. Only now they're going to catch up. I see a very good example in Sicard. He was a good talent in his French years, but not the spectacular rider it was last year. He could improve so much because of the professional guidance he got at the Basque Orbea team. I followed the guy closely since january and read some interview with him back then, and when he was asked about the biggest advantage from Orbea, he was totally stunned about the guidance he got. And that's only a youth team...
The slow turn from the cyclingworld towards professionalism is also spottable through the good results of the Anglo Saxon riders. They are relatively new to cycling and don't have to endure this process, but start with a professional attitude right away. I see that as a major reason for the victories they get now.
And then there are more things, like the bikes they ride on. They are better every year, so it is totally normal that riders can ride faster every year. That's why I am so unimpressed with the statements of LeMond that Contador was riding so quick. There is a development all the time. Lets look at football again. In the '80 the game was so much slower than it is nowadays. Is that because of doping? No, its because of development of visions about football and because of the increasing interest in and money for the game. It is no different for cycling.
Finally, look at the following facts: Italians are not winning as much as in the past. In the '90 they were winning everything, now they don't. They have some top riders and many average riders, which is normal. In the past they had very many top riders, which wasn't normal.
Go and buy some DVD from cycling in the nineties and early years of this century. What a spectacle. Attack after attack, gaps of many minutes, all because there was a clear division between riders who doped and riders who doped heavily. Now all cyclists are equal (though some may possibly be more equal than others
) and the racing is logical. One attack, and it is over for nearly every rider, except for the four or five big talents there are around.
As a last point I want to point out that Schumacher was a good rider, till suddenly he owned more than any other rider during the Tour. He was caught.
Kohl was an average rider till he suddenly was third in le Tour. Then he was caught.
Rebellin started riding very attractively the last years, despite getting old. He was caught.
Di Luca attacked and attacked in the Giro, while I was thinking "he has to crack every moment". He was caught.
Ricco did some marvellous things out of the blue in the Tour of 2008. He was caught.
Thomas Dekker rode very good in the classics of 08 after having a serious injury in winter. He was caught.
Mazzoleni came home third in the Giro. He was caught.
And I can go on and on. So what can we learn of this? If a rider performs extraordinary well compared to other years, he is doped in many cases. And if he was not caught? Well it might just be the talent or the development of the rider.
So coming to the end of the story I notice that I forgot to talk about the increasing testing and the presence of the biological thing, which makes doping more difficult than ever before. Some rich guys might still be able to cope with the controls, but most won't.
And as a very last sort of sentence I want to say that I have to laugh cynically when I read here which riders you think are clean. Besides that I think you shouldn't make such firm statements about the other riders, because you don't know them and their situation, I think that's totally illogical. British riders are performing better than ever in the current peloton and still they are the cleanest riders? Tell me the logic. Beware I don't say Wiggins doped, but when I have to choose between the believability of Contador versus Wiggins I would choose for Contador instantly.
I hope you take my post seriously because it took quite a long time to type this all and I think I can reject your doping insinuations about the current peloton for 95% with my reasoning.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram