Clean Cyclists ?

[Arnout]

I searched for PED on Google and didn't find anything of interest so I guess it is not an offical abbreviation. Still, thanks for your thoughts.

And of course past dopers are embraced. How deep can the morale in our society sink if we do not give dopers a second chance (just as we do with thieves, bank directors and other criminals)? I find that attitude of not giving dopers second chances disgusting.

You talk about Jaksche and Kohl. Well that are stupid boys, especially Kohl who is leaking towards the German tabloids every now and then and three days after denying he said that. You don't make yourself popular with that. I know the cycling world is very closed, and I know there is still much wrong with it, but that does not directly imply 95% is wrong. I by the way think DSs are much more worried about the past then about present.

Those 10 names were the first names which popped in my mind, just to give the statement that all riders are negative until there is reasonable proof they're positive (either drugs tests, blood values or other stuff).

And there isn't. And don't come up with Puerto. AC is Angel Casero.

Please react on the last part of my post, on what I say about Contador. That was the best part of my argument actually.

And I dunno how you can say the big names are still the same? Most of the Ullrichs and Hamiltons of this world have disappeared, and the second violins like Sastre and Evans are on top of the board these days.

 

[Escarabajo]

...

And there isn't. And don't come up with Puerto. AC is Angel Casero.

Please react on the last part of my post, on what I say about Contador. That was the best part of my argument actually.

.

I am not sure if you are correct about that. Here read this:

http://www.velonews.com/article/12964

 

[Arnout]

Thats an article of 2007, come on. And he was just winning the Tour, so there had to be some doping rumours to boost sales. Don't take that seriously. Angel Casero is AC, that is the general consensus.

And come on, that's no evidence whatsoever. That's just "trying to be interesting" of the VeloNews guys.

 

[python]

arnout and ludwig. i enjoyed your conversation. you both seem fine guys who love cycling. disagree you do but you speak politely. trhat is a rarity here when an a heated argument is going on.

 

[luckyboy]

OK that list is straight up ridiculous. There is no way in hell that Contador is clean. Some of those names I'm not familiar with, but I don't believe it's possible that Cunego, Martin, or Moncoutie rode without PEDs this year. These guys were most prolific in the most notoriously doped events==ie Dauphine, TdS, the Vuelta. Sorenson rides for CSC=not clean.

Moncoutie won't even touch vitamins, and he hasn't suddenly started winning. If there is one rider I'd trust to be clean, it is him.

There were riders on Festina who were clean, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss people because they ride for a certain team either.

Also, I have never heard anyone talk about 'the most notoriously doped events' before

 

[pmcg76]

Well, the most devastating evidence of widespread doping remains the attitude of the peloton towards doping and how easily they embrace confessed and/or convicted dopers. This, combined with extreme aggression towards any rider who spills the beans on how doping works etc. But more pertintently, Puerto established the big names in the sport were doping and not getting caught. At this time, the big names are pretty much the same and they work with the same DSes. If you want to assert that the sport has miraculously cleaned itself up, while continuting to have the same leadership and the same lead riders, then the burden of proof is on you.

But seriously, if you were trying to ride clean in this sport, would you be happy that virtually all of the DSes are former dopers and that riders like Vino are embraced, while whistle blowers like Jaksche and Kohl are ostracized? It doesn't add up.



I realize you probably aren't a native English speaker, but given that you don't know such an elementary term maybe you should hestitate before lecturing others and posing an authority. PEDs=performance enhancing drugs.



OK that list is straight up ridiculous. There is no way in hell that Contador is clean. Some of those names I'm not familiar with, but I don't believe it's possible that Cunego, Martin, or Moncoutie rode without PEDs this year. These guys were most prolific in the most notoriously doped events==ie Dauphine, TdS, the Vuelta. Sorenson rides for CSC=not clean.



Well, I pretty much accept that omerta on doping is inevitable and the problem cannot be easily solved. Hence I share your disgust with threads popping up accusing a rider of doping every time a rider wins a race. But what I can't stomach are the lies and misinformation. By posting here we are mainly trying to put the facts out there for anyone who is interested in the truth. If one wants to keep one's head in the sand, then there's no need to enter The Clinic.

Is this not returning to the old nugget that it is impossible to win without taking drugs. This is like the top 10 or Top 50 are definitely drugged. Cycling is not clean but I dont like this definite attitude if you win this or finish in this position, you are definitely doping. Yes I think a lot of the top guys(mainly stage races) are doping but there are always exceptions.

Moncoutie has been considered a clean rider for a time, his win at the Vuelta came about because he got in a break which gained a lot of time and was strong enough to hold on up Sierra Nevada. He had a massive lead because I was there and saw it with my own eyes. The next day to Pandera, he was in the gruppeto at the back, 15-20mins down. This is hardly consistent of a performance of a doped rider. If he had battled the top guys on Sierra Nevada and was up there on La Pandera, I would be more suspicious.

Cunego went well the first week winning a stage but was in the back group 30+ mins down to Sierra Nevada. Similar to Moncoutie, he got in a break to La Pandera and had a huge lead before the final climb. There were a lot of successful breaks at the Vuelta. Sounds more like opportunism than doping.

Christophe LeMevel finished Top 10 at the Tour this year and for some this means automatic doping but fact is he got lucky in a break that propelled him into the Top 10. Le Mevel rides for Fdjeux, considered by posters on here as among the Top 2 cleanest teams in the peloton.

I just dont like this attitude that as soon as somebody wins, they are automatically doping, especially in one day races or individual GT stages. Perhaps a rider Y who is naturally better cleaner than another X but this guy X is now doping, then perhaps Y could beat the doper if Y is on a super day and the doper X is on a bad day. Circumstances also play a role as I illustrated above, breaks, strategies, relative importance in race etc.

Yes there are some performances, Sella last year and Di Luca this year and a few others that are hard to swallow but it is unjust to label every single victor with the same brush. As somebody else pointed out, with doping, its hard to gauge the natural ablilites of riders but perhaps a super strong clean guy can beat a weaker rider who is doped up occasionally, who knows.

 

[Mambo95]

Well, the most devastating evidence of widespread doping remains the attitude of the peloton towards doping and how easily they embrace confessed and/or convicted dopers. This, combined with extreme aggression towards any rider who spills the beans on how doping works etc. But more pertintently, Puerto established the big names in the sport were doping and not getting caught. At this time, the big names are pretty much the same and they work with the same DSes. If you want to assert that the sport has miraculously cleaned itself up, while continuting to have the same leadership and the same lead riders, then the burden of proof is on you.

But seriously, if you were trying to ride clean in this sport, would you be happy that virtually all of the DSes are former dopers and that riders like Vino are embraced, while whistle blowers like Jaksche and Kohl are ostracized? It doesn't add up.



I realize you probably aren't a native English speaker, but given that you don't know such an elementary term maybe you should hestitate before lecturing others and posing an authority. PEDs=performance enhancing drugs.



OK that list is straight up ridiculous. There is no way in hell that Contador is clean. Some of those names I'm not familiar with, but I don't believe it's possible that Cunego, Martin, or Moncoutie rode without PEDs this year. These guys were most prolific in the most notoriously doped events==ie Dauphine, TdS, the Vuelta. Sorenson rides for CSC=not clean.



Well, I pretty much accept that omerta on doping is inevitable and the problem cannot be easily solved. Hence I share your disgust with threads popping up accusing a rider of doping every time a rider wins a race. But what I can't stomach are the lies and misinformation. By posting here we are mainly trying to put the facts out there for anyone who is interested in the truth. If one wants to keep one's head in the sand, then there's no need to enter The Clinic.

You should have said name five riders that you think are clean, regardless of evidence or opinion within the peleton.

In that case:

My mate Chris who does Ironmans - but you can't finish them clean, right?
My friend Neil - but he won a race once, so dirty in your book
Nicole Cooke - no chance, eh?
The guy in the Discovery jersey I see most mornings - but Discovery are dirty, so he must be too.
Boris Johnson

The thing with you is you smugly seem to think that you are 100% correct - with knowledge that the lesser informed can't ever comprehend. You are 'in the know' and others are beneath you in their delusions.

You deride people for having 'their head in the sand' but sadly it is you who is way off the mark. Your prejudices have gone so far, that it's you who is the delusional one - much like conspiracy theorists you find on the net. You use a lot of the same argueing techniques and language. You also make ridiculous statements such as you can't finish in the top ten in any pro race clean.

There are plenty of clean cyclists out there, whole teams, and some of them are doing very well. There have always been clean cyclists.

You think Moncoutie is doping for goodness sake. You won't find anyone in the peleton who agrees with you.

Here's a better challenge - you name five pro cyclists you think are clean (I'm sure they'll be suitably obscure).

 

[ludwig]

The faulty assumption here is that x amount of riders must be doping and that x amount of riders are not doping. People go on to assume that say 10 or 20% are doping etc, and this is of course consistent with what the UCI propaganda machine churns out. Cycling's leadership understands that police/media investigations will continue to bring doping rings to light--their best bet is to cultivate the impression that the doping is only carried out by a desperate few and that the majority are still clean. Hence you have the ridiculous spectacle practiced by many in The Clinic of tarring and feathering every convicted doper without grasping the bigger picture that Kohl, Jaksche, and Manzano have painted.

But on closer inspection it doesn't add up. For one thing it's absurd that a clean majority would just sit back and accept defeat in race after race. Doubly absurd would be ostracizing the whistle blowers (like Jaksche and Kohl) who attempt to expose the doping practices.

Let's take Moncoutie and Cunego as examples. Let's say they were clean. How would this work? First off, they have to pull off the physiological feat of defeating doped up riders on mountain stages. But where is the precedent for this? We have no precedent--all of the main climbers of the 1992-05 era were known dopers, so we have no precedent of a clean climber beating doped climbers. If we accept that doping conveys significant physiological advantages (and the evidence on this point is overwehlming) then the only way to explain a climbing performance is clean is to assert that the competition as whole has cleaned up. But on its face, this is very unlikely--if the competition has suddenly cleaned up in the past several years then why are the competitions dominated by the same riders as pre 2007? Look at the names in the major Tours--Schleck, Armstrong, Menchov, Di Luca, Kloeden, Sanchez, Valverde, Evans, Vino, Contador, Basso, Pellizotti, Sastre...all major players in 05-06 (which everyone agrees were super-doped). We are supposed to believe that despite preparation regimes being drastically altered the same riders are dominating? This would be surprising indeed.

Cunego I find particularly hard to believe in because his performances are so consistent with doping, and his past associations (Mazzoleni, Lampre) are suspicious. Nor does it seem psychologically plausible that he would be riding clean and say nothing while losing the GTs to dopers. To me he is Rebellin #2--the pattern of his accomplishments is almost exactly the same. It's typical of cycling fans that when a rider sports a silly tattoo they believe in him unconditionally--you can be sure no one in the peloton is so easily fooled. Actually, Cunego's fan base is very similar to Evans'--both Cunego and Evans have too much honor to suggest that they are clean while others are doping, but their fans routinely come to this conclusion by taking their statements out of context.

Moncoutie....ok in his favor the protagonists of the Cofidis ring claimed he was the lone clean rider...the problem is none of these guys are particularly credible, and it wouldn't be the first time a doping bust went down and everybody involved tried to protect the young talent. Moreover, how is it credible that Moncoutie would focus on the Vuelta year after year if he was a clean rider? Why wouldn't he aim for the Tour, where (if he was really clean) he would be embraced as a hero by the sporting public? Could it be he doesn't want to risk the kind of exposure that would go along with taking Tour stages or contesting the climber's jersey? This is the only explanation that makes any real sense. Finally, that he rides for a French team means little to nothing--French riders may be "cleaner" but that is a long way from being PED-free. The only team that is PED-free is Amore e Vita.

If Moncoutie turns out to be clean it would be a very pleasant surprise, and it would indicate that doping conveys much less of an advantage than previously thought. But it seems extremely unlikely.

 

[ChrisE]

Lance is clean.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Lance is clean.

Hah, good one.

 

[Mambo95]

Look at the names in the major Tours--Schleck, Armstrong, Menchov, Di Luca, Kloeden, Sanchez, Valverde, Evans, Vino, Contador, Basso, Pellizotti, Sastre...all major players in 05-06 (which everyone agrees were super-doped).

Ok, lets look at those names:

Contador, Schleck did nothing at all in the GCs those years - but let's not let the truth get in the way of your delusions.

Sanchez and Pellizotti managed top tens but weren't really challengers.

Vino and Basso were busted and don't look the same riders. DiLuca is gone. So not quite the big players you make them out to be.

Valverde, Armstrong, Kloden and Menchov, I'll grant you have big question marks above their heads.

And then there's Evans and Sastre left - nothing tangible against either of them.

So that arguement is full of nonsense as is a lot the rest.

I'm not stupid enough to think that there isn't a lot of doping going on. But I'm able to look at the evidence without prejudice to see that it's on a lesser scale the before and clean riders are winning some big races.

Sadly for you, for whatever reason, you are blinded by your own prejudices. You seek out evidence to validate yourself and ignore contrary evidence.

You're unfortunately not alone.

 

[Ripper]

Hah, good one.

With your user name, not you

 

[Ripper]

Lance is clean.

With that Avatar, not you

 

[luckyboy]

Moreover, how is it credible that Moncoutie would focus on the Vuelta year after year if he was a clean rider? Why wouldn't he aim for the Tour, where (if he was really clean) he would be embraced as a hero by the sporting public?

The Tour has a tougher field (& more PEDs) than the Vuelta? It is widely regarded as the weaker of the three GTs as riders use it to train for the World's etc..

Could it be he doesn't want to risk the kind of exposure that would go along with taking Tour stages or contesting the climber's jersey?

Finally, that he rides for a French team means little to nothing--French riders may be "cleaner" but that is a long way from being PED-free. The only team that is PED-free is Amore e Vita.

The French Fed are a lot more stringent with testing than other Feds (read up on what they did post-Festina)

 

[ludwig]

There are plenty of clean cyclists out there, whole teams, and some of them are doing very well. There have always been clean cyclists.
.

Ok, first off, you need to can the ad hominems and personal insults. I'm not interested in a flame war; keep it civil please.

Secondly, put up or shut up. Who are these clean cyclists and how can we support them?

But I'm able to look at the evidence without prejudice to see that it's on a lesser scale the before and clean riders are winning some big races.

Again...enlighten us. Who are these clean riders? I await reasoned arguments rather than blanket unsubstantiated statements.

 

[ludwig]

The Tour has a tougher field (& more PEDs) than the Vuelta? It is widely regarded as the weaker of the three GTs as riders use it to train for the World's etc..

Tougher field...maybe. More PEDs...probably not. There's definitely a lot more scrutiny and almost certainly better testing at the Tour.

 

[VeloCity]

You should have said name five riders that you think are clean, regardless of evidence or opinion within the peleton.

In that case:

My mate Chris who does Ironmans - but you can't finish them clean, right?
My friend Neil - but he won a race once, so dirty in your book
Nicole Cooke - no chance, eh?
The guy in the Discovery jersey I see most mornings - but Discovery are dirty, so he must be too.
Boris Johnson

The thing with you is you smugly seem to think that you are 100% correct - with knowledge that the lesser informed can't ever comprehend. You are 'in the know' and others are beneath you in their delusions.

You deride people for having 'their head in the sand' but sadly it is you who is way off the mark. Your prejudices have gone so far, that it's you who is the delusional one - much like conspiracy theorists you find on the net. You use a lot of the same argueing techniques and language. You also make ridiculous statements such as you can't finish in the top ten in any pro race clean.

There are plenty of clean cyclists out there, whole teams, and some of them are doing very well. There have always been clean cyclists.

You think Moncoutie is doping for goodness sake. You won't find anyone in the peleton who agrees with you.

Here's a better challenge - you name five pro cyclists you think are clean (I'm sure they'll be suitably obscure).

Who's been proven right more often the past couple of decades, those who believe that doping is prevalent in the peloton or those who believe it's mostly clean? I don't think there's any question that the evidence supports the former view.

 

[python]

With that Avatar, not you

u mean he she dentally oops mentally unsound?

 

[Arnout]

Again...enlighten us. Who are these clean riders? I await reasoned arguments rather than blanket unsubstantiated statements.

And that's what you're saying?? Cannot believe my eyes. You are the one who is randomly accusing riders from using drugs, you are the one which comes up with the loose connections, the stories and the vagueness to "prove" everyone is doping. And then you're accusing us that we make things up? We state things which are proved (most cyclists don't get banned), you are saying things you like to believe and then this is what you can come up with? Come on, grow up, seriously.

I gave in my first post in this topic an extensive argument, and I also gave 10 - random - names. So I am sorry to say, but I cannot take you very serious anymore.

And I agree so much with the first post of Mambo95, I couldn't have states it better.

 

[Galic Ho]

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.

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.

Long post. Thanks for that. I don't agree with most of it but appreciate your contribution. The comparison of lower EPL players with Kaka and a guy like Van Hummel to Contador is misleading. Football/soccer is a game of finesse, tact, guile and above all technical skill and ability. Professional road cycling is aerobic in nature. It is all about muscular strength (lower body), cardiovascular and lung capacity. Yes there is a techinical component for the ITT and cadence and rhythmn but at the pro level that is negligible. Did you watch your countrymen take on mine the other day in Australia? Australia footballer players on a physical scale are arguably the most aggressive and fittest squad around. Technically we are not that great, our on ball control and passing and spacial awareness are not on par with our world ranking. But we can sure muscle the opposition around. Ability in football requires entirely different dynamics than cycling. Cycling is all physical capacity, football has that same element which provides a much needed benefit to teams, but the technical side is what makes a great player, not the ability to run faster or for longer intervals.

Take a look at the Puerto black book. 200 names, only cyclists named...35 in total. The other 165...La Liga and pro tennis players. The sport is full of dopers and widespread system use. Thankfully FIFA and UEFA can pull their financial weight and tell WADA to get stuffed otherwise cycling would look clean. Example, the program run at AC Milan. Go there and increase your playing years by 5! No...a good doping program, nothing more. They certainly have the money to afford it, more so than cyclists. That is why football is faster, no doping controls and better drug knowledge.

 

[53 x 11]

Lance is clean.

Well.......he's clean now....after he used a cream on that rash he contracted of the Olsen girl

 

[craig1985]

Long post. Thanks for that. I don't agree with most of it but appreciate your contribution. The comparison of lower EPL players with Kaka and a guy like Van Hummel to Contador is misleading. Football/soccer is a game of finesse, tact, guile and above all technical skill and ability. Professional road cycling is aerobic in nature. It is all about muscular strength (lower body), cardiovascular and lung capacity. Yes there is a techinical component for the ITT and cadence and rhythmn but at the pro level that is negligible. Did you watch your countrymen take on mine the other day in Australia? Australia footballer players on a physical scale are arguably the most aggressive and fittest squad around. Technically we are not that great, our on ball control and passing and spacial awareness are not on par with our world ranking. But we can sure muscle the opposition around. Ability in football requires entirely different dynamics than cycling. Cycling is all physical capacity, football has that same element which provides a much needed benefit to teams, but the technical side is what makes a great player, not the ability to run faster or for longer intervals.

Take a look at the Puerto black book. 200 names, only cyclists named...35 in total. The other 165...La Liga and pro tennis players. The sport is full of dopers and widespread system use. Thankfully FIFA and UEFA can pull their financial weight and tell WADA to get stuffed otherwise cycling would look clean. Example, the program run at AC Milan. Go there and increase your playing years by 5! No...a good doping program, nothing more. They certainly have the money to afford it, more so than cyclists. That is why football is faster, no doping controls and better drug knowledge.

That was Juventus and they were cleared. Their excuse was for the amount of games that they played perseason. Another Italian club Parma, when they were good, were playing a UEFA Cup final were videotaped taking dope, to which their defender (and captain of Italy) Fabio Cannavaro was quoted as saying "they a re slowly killing me".

 

[Escarabajo]

Most riders are clean. I don't think everyone is clean, but most are.

...

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.

I am just curious, what do you think is the percentage of clean riders in the current Peloton?
(Including recuperation meds.)

 

[poupou]

That was Juventus and they were cleared. Their excuse was for the amount of games that they played perseason. Another Italian club Parma, when they were good, were playing a UEFA Cup final were videotaped taking dope, to which their defender (and captain of Italy) Fabio Cannavaro was quoted as saying "they a re slowly killing me".

There is a lot of footballer who got SLA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis ) like Stefano Borgonovo, at a rate of 4 times of normal population.
A lot of retired clacio player are still worried.

 

[poupou]

To get a good picture of what happen at Vuelta we need to have some power measure or a comparaison of climbing time.