craig1985 said:
Read news about Cannavaro getting "cleared" not long ago? Something to do with a treatment for a bee sting or something!
-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Read news about Cannavaro getting "cleared" not long ago? Something to do with a treatment for a bee sting or something!
Arnout said:
Again--drop the ad hominems. You need to take a step back and reexamine your mantras--we are the ones being patient with your naive assumptions. The names you offered as clean riders demonstrates how little you know...maybe it's time for you to read this....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
That most cyclists don't get banned proves nothing--Festina, Puerto, Humanplasma, Telekom and a host of other scandals has proven without a shadow of a doubt that the vast majority of doping is not detected by testing.
All I'm saying is if you're going to insist that you know certain riders are clean, then the burden of proof is on you. Cycling does not have the credibility to insist that everyone be considered clean on its face. Show me the money--how do you know any cyclist is clean (and yes, your perception that the peloton 'looks' cleaner does not count as evidence).
ludwig said:
It is also up to you to prove that 95% of riders riders are not clean, you admitted you dont know all the riders on that list but you are saying it is a stupid list. Why? Yes there are a few I would have doubts about but there are mostly guys who have had no connection with anything and if you dont know them, how can you judge them. It is fine to believe 95% of the peloton are doping but unfair to actually accuse 95% of doping without a shred of evidence. Make it clear that is what you believe as opposed to that is what is actually happening.
If a rider is connected with the drugs affairs you mentioned or there are rumours regarding them, fair enough, sling all the mud you want. I tend to lose faith once people are connected with something like that and I know there are probably more but to state uncategorically that somebody is doping without any evidence is unfair.
People tend to label riders because they were on such a team or connected with such a manager and this is very often true but how many people believe Liquigas are clean yet Ivan Fanini(Amore E Vita manager) said at the start of the season Kjell Carlstrom was a rider he had total faith in not to be a doper. Do you remember Carlstrom setting the pace on the climbs at the Vuelta for Basso. Surely he must be doped to be setting the pace like that and he is Finnish champion so how did he win.
Bassons was the perfect example of an exception to the rule and he won a Dauphine stage which you earlier claimed was a massively doped race. How did that happen.
I am not saying you are wrong in believing 95% of the peloton are doping and I am not saying I believe 95% of the peloton are clean. We can believe what we want but we do not know so we cannot be sure either way.
I am also not taking the Mountain Goat line where he acknowledges the evidence but still rejects it because it hasnt been proven in cort. I am talking about somebody like Moncoutie who has absolutely no evidence against them other than winning!!, how anybody can say 100% sure that he is doping is beyond me.
My policy on judging riders is innocent until connected with something, anything or when a rider starts suddenly performing way above expectations, Hoogerland for example. Not necessarily guilty but the alarm bells are ringing and my suspicions are raised. There are so many circumstances, injuries, personal problems etc that can hinder riders that its too simple to connect improvements with just doping.
It is the one thing I dont like on this forum, the unjustified definite claim that this many riders are doping. Rumours, blood profiles, power profiles, watts, links to dodgy doctors, sudden performance improvements, etc all are acceptbale in my book as evidence of doping. If you have the evidence fine, otherwise respect a riders innocence.
Fair enough pmcg. I'm stating beliefs--I think that is pretty self-evident, but there you have it. There is a big difference between a proven offense that merits a suspension and the high liklihood that certain riders are doping. When I talk about 95% of the peloton I'm talking about the mountains of circumstantial evidence that doping is rampant--I'm not talking about bannable offenses. This is not a court of law--this is a discussion forum. We are talking about what can reasonably be believed given the facts on the ground.
Re. individual riders, I'm arguing based on liklihoods--I think that given the state of the peloton it is highly unlikely that undoped riders are winning mountain stages clean. Take Moncoutie for instance--I'm sure he's less doped than many climbers and I sincerely hope he is clean....but I also believe the science of performance enhancing drugs gives us plenty of reason to believe riders cannot win without PEDs. Indeed, I challenge you to look at this history of cycling from 1992-2006 and come up with a GT mountain stage won by a clean rider.
I don't agree with the statement that any rider not associated with a doping scandal deserves the assumption that he is clean....that may not be fair, but life isn't fair, and cycling doesn't have the credibility to merit that assumption. Doping is a systemic problem, not an ethical/individual problem, and must be treated as such. Unless we are capable of examining the problem in its full context rather than with regard to individual cases, then we are likely to be duped repeatedly. And every indicator I'm aware of points to renewed full-scale omerta and the high probability of widespread doping.
This thread is about clean riders on Pro Tour teams. What I've been saying is I don't know of any Pro Tour riders who can credibly claim to be clean. My antagonists on this thread repeatedly state that they 'know' certain riders are clean....but where is the evidence? If there are clean riders, why aren't they making an effort to prove it?
Re. individual riders, I'm arguing based on liklihoods--I think that given the state of the peloton it is highly unlikely that undoped riders are winning mountain stages clean. Take Moncoutie for instance--I'm sure he's less doped than many climbers and I sincerely hope he is clean....but I also believe the science of performance enhancing drugs gives us plenty of reason to believe riders cannot win without PEDs. Indeed, I challenge you to look at this history of cycling from 1992-2006 and come up with a GT mountain stage won by a clean rider.
I don't agree with the statement that any rider not associated with a doping scandal deserves the assumption that he is clean....that may not be fair, but life isn't fair, and cycling doesn't have the credibility to merit that assumption. Doping is a systemic problem, not an ethical/individual problem, and must be treated as such. Unless we are capable of examining the problem in its full context rather than with regard to individual cases, then we are likely to be duped repeatedly. And every indicator I'm aware of points to renewed full-scale omerta and the high probability of widespread doping.
This thread is about clean riders on Pro Tour teams. What I've been saying is I don't know of any Pro Tour riders who can credibly claim to be clean. My antagonists on this thread repeatedly state that they 'know' certain riders are clean....but where is the evidence? If there are clean riders, why aren't they making an effort to prove it?
Because they would be kicked out immediately? I am sure Moncoutie wants to keep riding his bike because that's what he loves. Same with others.ludwig said:
Your reasoning is not logical and is against all the law we came up with the last 2000 years or so.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
So what do they do to show it? They get tested 20 times a year and don't get caught!
They are saying they are clean.
Some of the riders are publishing blood values (though I agree that should be done more often).
How can you ever do more to prove you're clean? I don't have a clue. That said, they even don't have to prove they're clean, because they're clean until proven otherwise.
So you have to come up with the evidence. You're the one who's saying everyone is doping.
And there are many mountainstage winners of the past year which were most likely clean, the first name which pops in my mind is Sastre in 2003. And many of the other guys don't race anymore, so you simply cannot compare the present with the past.
I don't understand why you take all vague indications of doping (such as good performance) as a reliable doping test and refuse to take the actual doping tests seriously. Doping tests which are getting better every month. You only have to look to the Dekkercase to see that.
And be very carefull with watts and stuff. I remember Contador having a surprisingly good performance at Verbier, but that stage was in no way the same as a mountainstage 3 years ago. It was the only climb that day (apart from some little hills), and it was a shorter climb than usual. Always see such things in perspective.
But I guess you, ludwig, are German, and Germans are making a mess of cycling right now, so I understand you're biased.
And please, give one piece of evidence that there is systematical doping. I didn't see any of it, you're only shouting about it. I cannot do anything with sentences like "When I talk about 95% of the peloton I'm talking about the mountains of circumstantial evidence that doping is rampant". Please defend this sentence, by saying other things than "they did it in the past". Germany and the Netherlands were on war in the past, but now they aren't anymore.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
So what do they do to show it? They get tested 20 times a year and don't get caught!
They are saying they are clean.
Some of the riders are publishing blood values (though I agree that should be done more often).
How can you ever do more to prove you're clean? I don't have a clue. That said, they even don't have to prove they're clean, because they're clean until proven otherwise.
So you have to come up with the evidence. You're the one who's saying everyone is doping.
And there are many mountainstage winners of the past year which were most likely clean, the first name which pops in my mind is Sastre in 2003. And many of the other guys don't race anymore, so you simply cannot compare the present with the past.
I don't understand why you take all vague indications of doping (such as good performance) as a reliable doping test and refuse to take the actual doping tests seriously. Doping tests which are getting better every month. You only have to look to the Dekkercase to see that.
And be very carefull with watts and stuff. I remember Contador having a surprisingly good performance at Verbier, but that stage was in no way the same as a mountainstage 3 years ago. It was the only climb that day (apart from some little hills), and it was a shorter climb than usual. Always see such things in perspective.
But I guess you, ludwig, are German, and Germans are making a mess of cycling right now, so I understand you're biased.
And please, give one piece of evidence that there is systematical doping. I didn't see any of it, you're only shouting about it. I cannot do anything with sentences like "When I talk about 95% of the peloton I'm talking about the mountains of circumstantial evidence that doping is rampant". Please defend this sentence, by saying other things than "they did it in the past". Germany and the Netherlands were on war in the past, but now they aren't anymore.
ludwig said:
I still dont agree with your reasoning. Your claim is that because of cyclings history, the onus is on the current riders to prove they are all clean. What can a pro do to prove they are clean. Cunego sports a stickers saying he is dope free and he is laughed at, he also made a few thinly veiled remarks in regards to doping at the Giro this year yet you have no faith in him.
A group of English speaking riders have signed up to Bikepure, a group fighting for a cleaner sport and yet most people are very cynical about the whole thing. Look at Garmin, they have copped some flak on this site for shouting about their anti-doping stance because a lot of people on here believe they are doping also. Basically, if you say you are clean, nobody believes you anyway and you become a pariah. Ask David Millar.
I hear what you are saying about speaking out and ometra but when you have powerful guys like Lance around, what do you expect. Paul Kimmage mentioned in his now infamous interview at the start of the year that a lot of riders who had been more open about doping had retreated back into their shells once Lance returned. Look at poor Simeoni, Bassons. I also believe Ometra is the big barrier to eradicating doping but it is incredibly complicated.
A lot of riders are in a catch-22 position. They might know what is going on in their own team and even then, not always but can only suspect, as we do, at what is happening at other teams. If a rider throws accusations without evidence, they would end up in court very quickly.
Also you have to be careful at pointing the finger at somebody on another team if you have somebody on your own team doing as well. It like double standards. I think quite a few pros will speak about doping off the record but dont like seeing their thought being paraded around in public. Yes, that plays to the ometra but I think the cycling world has become more private and individual in regards to doping so its harder to know who is doing what.
Team friendships, popularity and camradie also play a role in ometra, I think most people have friends or workplaces that do things that are unethical or illegal. Are we running to the authorites to report them, if you know your friend is cheating on his wife, girlfriend, husband etc, would you tell the cheated spouse. It gets complicated when friendship is involved and I would imagine cycling is no different and that it plays a huge roll in enforcing ometra.
They could all offer up their blood profiles and it would be a start but that is like a public trial with accusations flying without definite proof. Wiggins put his blood profile up post Tour and there were people on here questioning it, even though experts had said there was no obvious indication of manipulation. What you get is amateur experts with limited knowldge making their minds up and throwing unbackable accusations.
Another common thing on here is calculating watts, I am not that scinetific minded but I dont understand how somebody can accuartely calculate a figure by looking at a rider on a climb on TV and then call it out as impossible without doping. Maybe it is possible but is it accurate enough to label somebody. To me it doesnt allow for circumstances the same way that you do not allow for riders gaining massive time in breaks on mountain stages and then being able to hold on to win. Do you remember Eros Poli. This is as old as cycling itself.
What is your attitude to other sports, nowhere near the same level as testing, scrutiny so nowhere near the same level as people caught. Do you take the guilty until proven innocent attitude with other sports. If not, why not.
I think you will stick with your opinion, I think its unfair even though I understand why you feel that way. I just cannot agree.
Ferminal said:
He tested positive for cortisone after a wasp sting. Remember JV at the 2001 Tour when he riding with a swollen face after having a bee sting, but he couldn't take any cortisone for it, and Roger Legeay refused to allow it to be used by saying JV had a knee problem. Apparently other riders were mocking him and Credit Agricole for it.
Somehow I think if a rider tested positive for cortisone and said it was for a wasp sting, I don't think that excuse will get very far, even if it were legit.
This is a mountain of thought to sift through. My first post on the forum was certainly an interesting one. Im not 'in the know' enough to really make any judgements.
ludwig said:
I somehow missed this last post. You are asking us to show the evidence that a rider is clean and I guess we are asking you to show us the circumstantial evidence that 95% of the peloton is doping. What are you basing this on, because Ometra is still in place or something more solid.
I have heard Amore E Vita quoted as the only clean team, then why does none of their riders speak out about other riders doping. Why is it only ever Fanini. Its not like they going to lose their place on the team so why do we never hear anything from them. If they are so horrified by others doping and upstanding, then surely they should speak out.
pmcg76 said:
Hmm this is a very big question and I don't have the time to discuss it in detail this very second. But you are correct that the continued omerta on doping is a big part it--how is one to believe in the sport if no one is allowed to speak frankly on doping? Over the years the biggest factor in convincing me that the sport is dope-ridden has been the testimony of whistle blowers (mainly Manzano, Jaksche, and Kohl, but others too), who I find a far more credible than UCI propaganda. If anyone who speaks to the media on doping in cycling is promptly ostracized from the sport, then the sport has a hard time credibly claiming it is addressing the problem in good faith.
Well for one thing no one really cares what they think. For another most of those guys would probably like to ride for a Pro Tour team some day, so they don't want to sabotage their careers. It's notworthy that no Pro Tour DS has the credibility of a Fanini on doping... and its a fact that most of the DSes have histories as dopers themselves. Successful and driven individuals like Riis and Vaughters eventually tire of lies and have voluntarily outed themselves, or like Bruyneel, Stephens, Echevarri etc they are hopelessly associated after years of enabling the doping. None of these guys are capable of explaining how a non-doper could beat a doper because they know better--so they stick to the talking point that the sport has dramatically changed in the recent past.
Wow good post. I agree with much of what you say, but let me try to reply point by point.
I think Cunego and others like him (in this sense I think of Evans, Sastre, etc) are in a tough position. They are sportsmen--all they want to do is practice their sport. Lying and misinformation are contrary to their nature. But it is also essential that he be perceived as clean, especially when every other major Italian rider has been under the radar. Thus I no longer find it surprising when he finds his best form in the Classics, the Tour de Suisse, the Vuelta, etc. This way, he is able to pursue his passion without being scrutinized to no end--he doesn't want to end up like Di Luca.
I'm not specifically aware of which quotes you are referring to, but my impression has always been that people are eager to take his quotes out of context and blow them up into something huge. I'm sure he has too much honor to accuse his competitors of doping; nor would he assert he is cleaner than the competition.
Well, I think Garmin and Millar are full of ****, but I can certainly understand why they go through the trouble to create a fan base that believes in them. There is definitely a big difference between someone like Millar (who admitted to doping a few times but was promptly welcomed back into the sport) and a Kohl (who Millar has publicly attacked). Millar is more like a Basso. But who knows...I think he rides pretty clean except for special occasions like the Dauphine and the Vuelta where its safe to come out and play (admittedly that's just my pet theory--I hypothesize that alot of riders feel safe at those events).
Yeah this is one of the reasons I feel the sport has backslided a bit of late on the doping issue. But frankly, more and more I understand the position of Lance enablers like McQuaid--whatever you say about Lance he brings fans and sponsorship to the sport and in the end that is McQuaid's top priority. The series of debacles at the Tour (Flandis, Rasmussen, Kohl, Schumi) emanating from a more serious anti-doping policy were a public relations catastrophe.
Well, cycling is my fav sport, but it seems clear enough that baseball is hopelessly dope ridden, and football as well. Unfortunately dope will always be a big deal in endurance sports because of the benefits it provides.
pmcg76 said:
I think Cunego and others like him (in this sense I think of Evans, Sastre, etc) are in a tough position. They are sportsmen--all they want to do is practice their sport. Lying and misinformation are contrary to their nature. But it is also essential that he be perceived as clean, especially when every other major Italian rider has been under the radar. Thus I no longer find it surprising when he finds his best form in the Classics, the Tour de Suisse, the Vuelta, etc. This way, he is able to pursue his passion without being scrutinized to no end--he doesn't want to end up like Di Luca.
I'm not specifically aware of which quotes you are referring to, but my impression has always been that people are eager to take his quotes out of context and blow them up into something huge. I'm sure he has too much honor to accuse his competitors of doping; nor would he assert he is cleaner than the competition.
Well, I think Garmin and Millar are full of ****, but I can certainly understand why they go through the trouble to create a fan base that believes in them. There is definitely a big difference between someone like Millar (who admitted to doping a few times but was promptly welcomed back into the sport) and a Kohl (who Millar has publicly attacked). Millar is more like a Basso. But who knows...I think he rides pretty clean except for special occasions like the Dauphine and the Vuelta where its safe to come out and play (admittedly that's just my pet theory--I hypothesize that alot of riders feel safe at those events).
Yeah this is one of the reasons I feel the sport has backslided a bit of late on the doping issue. But frankly, more and more I understand the position of Lance enablers like McQuaid--whatever you say about Lance he brings fans and sponsorship to the sport and in the end that is McQuaid's top priority. The series of debacles at the Tour (Flandis, Rasmussen, Kohl, Schumi) emanating from a more serious anti-doping policy were a public relations catastrophe.
Well, cycling is my fav sport, but it seems clear enough that baseball is hopelessly dope ridden, and football as well. Unfortunately dope will always be a big deal in endurance sports because of the benefits it provides.
This is a legal construct, an instrument of legal process. It actually has nothing to do with guilt or otherwise. Furthermore it is not a universal legal concept.Arnout said:
It would be more appropriate to say legally not guilty until found legally guilty. Of course the world is swarming with the legally not guilty who are a guilty as hell.
I am really enjoying the discussion on here - this has become the best thread to date in The Clinic. Special kudos to the master debaters (*ahem*) pmcg76 and ludwig - your dissections of the argument are really enjoyable, as is the respect you show each other's opinions and your refusal to drag it down to either petty pedantry or personal mudslinging.
Interesting debate here and for once it has stayed amicable although I must say that ludwig I do not agree with you.
It is not up to anyone to prove a rider is clean but the burden of proof is on those who wish to prove guilt. Anything else makes a mockery of sport and lets face it life in general. You may call me naive or whatever I do not really care but I do and will continue to give people the benefit of the doubt.
There are some on here though that are utterly convinced that most or all riders are doped up to the eyeballs, my question for them would be why do you follow pro cycling? Whats the point? Are they just jaded or cynical about everything?
If I ever get to be that sceptical I would like to think I would follow something else.
It is not up to anyone to prove a rider is clean but the burden of proof is on those who wish to prove guilt. Anything else makes a mockery of sport and lets face it life in general. You may call me naive or whatever I do not really care but I do and will continue to give people the benefit of the doubt.
There are some on here though that are utterly convinced that most or all riders are doped up to the eyeballs, my question for them would be why do you follow pro cycling? Whats the point? Are they just jaded or cynical about everything?
If I ever get to be that sceptical I would like to think I would follow something else.
lanternrouge said:
As others have pointed out, we are just talking here. This is not a court of law, nobody is being judged. We are simply trying to pursue the truth in good faith, nothing more. When I talk about clean riders, I'm talking about riders that can credibly claim to be clean given the full context of the sport. Since that context is marred by doping and a code of silence on doping, I have a hard time believing in clean riders in this environment--the credibility factor is lacking....
As for grasping the reality of the doping culture and still loving cycling....for me this is the true test of passion for the sport. No doubt, there is a strong dose of irrationality in this...not unlike the cyclists who heroically risk their health and bodies pursuing glory year after year. Either way, these are the kinds of fans that stick with the sport year after year. There are many of these kinds of fans on this forum--they are not naturally cynical (I, like you, once believed in clean cyclists, in Armstrong and Ulle, and all the rest); they are knowledgeable about cycling and love it anyway. You may not respect their passion, but you should respect the knowledge they have to offer.
That said, I would like to be able to recommend this sport to my friends without feeling like I'm setting them up for disappointment...therefore I do wish the sport would either clean itself up or simply drop the spectacle of lies/omerta. Sadly, the latter is the more realistic option....but since it would cost the sport sponsorship, it is unlikely to ever happen.
Polish
BANNED
Cheating in Sports
Lantern, it IS possible to believe there is doping yet still enjoy the sport.
Heck, it occasionally adds an extra level of excitement to the spectacle sorry
And there are truly stunning and audacious exploits that completely
overshadow the doping. Think Fausto or Eddy.
And there are also dorks like Kohl. Sorry again
Sure, I wish there were no cheating in sports. I also wish for world peace.
I would also like to ride a unicorn - with gene doping I may get THAT wish
But c'mon, there will be a cure for some cancers before the
day comes where there are Clean Sports. Gosh, at least I hope so!
Lantern, it IS possible to believe there is doping yet still enjoy the sport.
Heck, it occasionally adds an extra level of excitement to the spectacle sorry
And there are truly stunning and audacious exploits that completely
overshadow the doping. Think Fausto or Eddy.
And there are also dorks like Kohl. Sorry again
Sure, I wish there were no cheating in sports. I also wish for world peace.
I would also like to ride a unicorn - with gene doping I may get THAT wish
But c'mon, there will be a cure for some cancers before the
day comes where there are Clean Sports. Gosh, at least I hope so!
luckyboy said:Also, I have never heard anyone talk about 'the most notoriously doped events' before
Everyone knows that you only need to dope for certain events. There is only so much blood that you can get during the course of a year, so you have to conserve it for when it is needed the most. If you're riding lesser known races like the Tour of Poland, then there is no need to waste the good blood. You keep it in the fridge until it comes time for the Tour and then you whip it out to put a hurting on everyone.
Highlander said:
Just like Elaine might not find a man "sponge worthy," riders may not find a race "blood worthy."
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
I too have enjoyed the debate on this thread - it is a very interesting insight in to where the sport currently stands.
My natural reaction would be to share PMCG76's view - and give the benefit of innocence to any athlete. However unbelievable variations in performance, association with corrupt teams, Doctors etc are often enough to reevaluate a riders innocence.
I think Ludwig's comment - highlighted below - is an accurate yet terrible indictment on our sport.
However I do think it is possible for a 'clean' rider to be competitive in the current peloton. They may not thrive, but they can survive.
In 1998 Bassons was prepared to ride the Tour essentially on bread and water. This was as the height of EPO abuse as there was no test and the only 'control' of its usage was the 50% rule.
I am a stern critic of the Biological Passport - as it has great potential but has not been utilised to its capabilities - but it has narrowed the usage of PED's and in particular blood boosters. Riders are no longer able to 'jack up' as they did before and therefore I don't believe riders are gaining the same increases in performance from blood boosting as they did 2 years ago.
This may have narrowed the gap between the 'clean' riders and the dopers.
To answer 'LanternRouges" comment - if I believed that 100% of the Pro riders were on PED's, than I would stop following Pro racing.
However as long as I believe there is a Bassons within the current peloton I will continue to highlight the failings and inadequacies of those charged with protecting and growing our sport.
My natural reaction would be to share PMCG76's view - and give the benefit of innocence to any athlete. However unbelievable variations in performance, association with corrupt teams, Doctors etc are often enough to reevaluate a riders innocence.
I think Ludwig's comment - highlighted below - is an accurate yet terrible indictment on our sport.
ludwig said:
However I do think it is possible for a 'clean' rider to be competitive in the current peloton. They may not thrive, but they can survive.
In 1998 Bassons was prepared to ride the Tour essentially on bread and water. This was as the height of EPO abuse as there was no test and the only 'control' of its usage was the 50% rule.
I am a stern critic of the Biological Passport - as it has great potential but has not been utilised to its capabilities - but it has narrowed the usage of PED's and in particular blood boosters. Riders are no longer able to 'jack up' as they did before and therefore I don't believe riders are gaining the same increases in performance from blood boosting as they did 2 years ago.
This may have narrowed the gap between the 'clean' riders and the dopers.
To answer 'LanternRouges" comment - if I believed that 100% of the Pro riders were on PED's, than I would stop following Pro racing.
However as long as I believe there is a Bassons within the current peloton I will continue to highlight the failings and inadequacies of those charged with protecting and growing our sport.
yep
i agree 100% with the doctor of fast italian cars. seems like ludvig has been hurt by cycling and, similar to those who have have been hurt, is a little gun shy with respect to trust. of course we can only speculate as to what is really going on. there is no "right" answer, only opinions based on limited evidence. for what its worth, i think the peloton is cleaner than it has been for years, but only the riders (and their doctors?) know the answer for sure. Despite this i still think the athletic achievements of the riders are unbelievable and heroic and should be admired, esp those on bread and water alone.
i agree 100% with the doctor of fast italian cars. seems like ludvig has been hurt by cycling and, similar to those who have have been hurt, is a little gun shy with respect to trust. of course we can only speculate as to what is really going on. there is no "right" answer, only opinions based on limited evidence. for what its worth, i think the peloton is cleaner than it has been for years, but only the riders (and their doctors?) know the answer for sure. Despite this i still think the athletic achievements of the riders are unbelievable and heroic and should be admired, esp those on bread and water alone.
Dr. Maserati said:
I don't think that even the belief that 100% are currently doping would cause me to not be a fan. In fact if 100% are doping that would level the playing field more than anything else.
However that belief, if it brings along with it the desire to agitate for some sort of change in the way pro cycling is run might just be what will save pro cycling.
Even though the field is leveled for the current competitors that does not mean it wouldn't be a much more ideal situation if future stars didn't have to resort to the same sorts of manipulations to be successful.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Top 10 current cyclists outside of the 'big 6'
- Started by cyclingfan3
- Replies: 38
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 23K
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram