Dan Martin - "Now I know you can win clean"

[martinvickers]

I am sad to inform you the only nerve being torn here is your love for Sky and their obvious doping being called out in this 'echo chamber'.

Twang, indeed.

My 'love' for Sky, eh? When in doubt, just scream "Fan boi!", what? nothing like a good ad hominem when the truth starts to sting.

Still, settle down, Violet. You'll make yourself ill.

Duke of Wellington a hero of yours?

He's an Irishman who was desperate to be English. I can think of little worse.

good for a telling quote, though.

 

[Benotti69]

Twang, indeed.

My 'love' for Sky, eh? When in doubt, just scream "Fan boi!", what? nothing like a good ad hominem when the truth starts to sting.

Still, settle down, Violet. You'll make yourself ill.

Keep telling yourself "sky are clean sky are clean........"

The only thing screaming fanboy are your posts.

He's an Irishman who was desperate to be English. I can think of little worse.

good for a telling quote, though.

He was English. Birthplace does always not denote what one's nationality is.

 

[martinvickers]

He was English. Birthplace does always not denote what one's nationality is.

:facepalm: Read the quote I quoted.

Irony is simply lost on some people.

 

[Netserk]

Play the ball. Not the man.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

BINGO. Just because I believe things are going well right now, doesn't mean i think it's going to stick, if we don't see some big improvements in the structure of anti-doping and the resources at its disposal. Big improvements.

I don't think it's really fair for you to cheat by posting what you actually think here. It's much more fun to have some of our wilder posters have a pop at you while ignoring your actual views.

 

[Ferminal]

Isn't the problem here with your definition of clean riders though?

Off the top of my head Andy Schleck won the Tour in 2010, and podiumed the tour and the Giro in previous years. Is he a clean rider or not?

Carlos Sastre won the tour in 2008 - is he a clean rider or not?

Brad Wiggins podiumed the tour in 2009 - is he (or was he then if you prefer) a clean rider or not?

These are questions which we don't honestly know the answers to. All have links to greater or lesser extents with dopers (Frank Schleck, Riis, Leinders) so of course they might be dirty, but to assume that they definitely were, and then extrapolate from that no one clean did anything meaningful is a bit of a stretch. In my opinion.

Well if Sastre/Andy were clean then there's nothing to say that Contador 2008, Menchov 2009, Contador/Andy 2009, Valverde 2009, Basso 2010 weren't either.

 

[blackcat]

You and me both.... Were your tweets LA related? I miss the Tanman.

I think i was just contesting the fact that he has this public see no evil hear no evil ignorance on doping.

i called him on it.

plus my twitter avatar was tanman in his blue velvet blazer.

he might have taken offense to that

 

[blackcat]

had two convo's with tomalaris at respective cycling soirees, and tell him to get with the fricken program. he has been in france in july, and still is doing cycling101 liggett senile days

 

[Big Doopie]

Sometimes I wonder how Vaughters manages to engage here...

Zinoviev Letter, your posts here have been extraordinarily good.

Cheers.

 

[RownhamHill]

Duke of Wellington a hero of yours?

Of course he's a hero of Martin's. The Duke was an Irishman after all. . .






[That was a joke]

EDIT: That was already made redundant by the later exchange between Martin and Benotti, sorry will read the whole thread next time before posting!

 

[RownhamHill]

Well if Sastre/Andy were clean then there's nothing to say that Contador 2008, Menchov 2009, Contador/Andy 2009, Valverde 2009, Basso 2010 weren't either.

Well, yeah, that's kind of the point I'm making, isn't it?

 

[Ferminal]

Well, yeah, that's kind of the point I'm making, isn't it?

Yep, and given what we know about those riders and races it would be a pretty limited position to hold.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It is certainly still possible to dope, and there are certainly many still doing it, but it has to be done much more carefully, in much smaller amounts, with much more discipline, at much more risk. Make things more complex and riskier, and the available advantages smaller, and you change the risk/reward calculation - which is more important than hoping for a moral revolution.

In fact, correct me if I am wrong, there is only one way to dope in cycling and that is through blood is what you implie here?

Lets all forget Balco.

I don't think it's really fair for you to cheat by posting what you actually think here. It's much more fun to have some of our wilder posters have a pop at you while ignoring your actual views.

Yeah, that must be what he was talking of when he met with Besnati/Menuet/Mantovani and all of those anti - doping crusaders at MPCC.

 

[ljpoyz]

I called him out on similar, when he said along the lines of "I will have to see what is in the USADA report before stringing up Lance..."
Gimme a spell!
I'd quite like to get the pic of TanMan in the blue velvet blazer, I cant find it anywhere!

I think i was just contesting the fact that he has this public see no evil hear no evil ignorance on doping.

i called him on it.

plus my twitter avatar was tanman in his blue velvet blazer.

he might have taken offense to that

 

[Hawkwood]

Please read this and educate yourself to prevent further insult and arrogance

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute

The article states that for 5 or 6 hundred years Ireland was called `Scotia' or in modern terms Scotland! I now feel even more confused by my confused ancestry.

 

[martinvickers]

The article states that for 5 or 6 hundred years Ireland was called `Scotia' or in modern terms Scotland! I now feel even more confused by my confused ancestry.

Be careful of Wikipedia on that subject...there are a fair number of cultists there....oddly familiar, actually...

The idea of nationality would have been all but meaningless to those peoples. I doubt the Belgii for example, had a binational, bi (or is it tri) lingual federsl state in mind. They eere just belgii. And the franks were german, as were both the angles and saxons, etc, etc.

Bet they all doped, mind.

 

[martinvickers]

The article states that for 5 or 6 hundred years Ireland was called `Scotia' or in modern terms Scotland! I now feel even more confused by my confused ancestry.

Be careful of Wikipedia on that subject...there are a fair number of cultists there....oddly familiar, actually...

The idea of nationality would have been all but meaningless to those peoples. I doubt the Belgii for example, had a binational, bi (or is it tri) lingual federsl state in mind. They eere just belgii. And the franks were german, as were both the angles and saxons, etc, etc.

Bet they all doped, mind.

 

[Ferminal]

I was sure I'd read that post before

 

[sublimit]

I also think that there's a difference in the way that Garmin and Sky are perceived, for a few reasons, not all of them necessarily fair. It can be easy to lump them in together, but while I don't by any means assume that Sky are wrong 'uns, a few aspects of their success skirt a bit closer to the boundaries of credibility than Garmin's does. The development pattern of a Chris Froome for instance sticks out as more of a historical anomaly than that of a Dan Martin, and given the history of the sport, fairly or unfairly, that's always going to lead to a few more raised eyebrows.

There are also differences which are rather easily explained, too - like Sky's budget allowing them to hire on a bunch of domestiques on wages that Garmin's leaders would probably envy.

On the other hand Garmin sign up Alex Rassmussen, Thomas Dekker , haven't fired Zabriskie etc.

The headline of winning races clean or whatever it is can be taken with a pinch of salt methinks.

 

[Hawkwood]

Be careful of Wikipedia on that subject...there are a fair number of cultists there....oddly familiar, actually...

The idea of nationality would have been all but meaningless to those peoples. I doubt the Belgii for example, had a binational, bi (or is it tri) lingual federsl state in mind. They eere just belgii. And the franks were german, as were both the angles and saxons, etc, etc.

Bet they all doped, mind.

As proven by some graffiti in Pompey: What am I on I'm on my chariot...'

 

[enrecul]

Wouldn't Dan have known he could win clean after his triumphs at the Vuelta, Poland and second at Lombardia?

I guess the difference here is that people actually listened to what he said because he won the big one.

In my view, Dan is an incredible talent who has been working hard in the background. It was only a matter of time. No major improvements etc
Seems like a good kid as well and has above average intelligence.....doesn't strike me as the kind to be easily led

 

[Benotti69]

I'd be tempted to say that it takes a special kind of obtuseness to present a list of four guys who have been banned (well three and one awaiting the end of his process) as evidence of the complete ineffectuality of the anti-doping regime. But really, even that is put in the shade by your complete dedication to responding to posts which repeatedly point out that the "cleaner cycling" argument does not for a second imply that there is no doping by pointing out the existence of dopers.

Who runs anti doping? UCI. Now point to where change has been made.

Sometimes I wonder how Vaughters manages to engage here without getting an aneuryism.

JV barely engages in between his studies for his MBA. You wouldn't want to be waiting for JV to learn much about pro cycling.

The whole point is that differing circumstances change the definition of "stupidity". In 1998, you practically had to be stupid enough to inject your eyeballs with EPO while waiting to take a slash beside a test chaperone. Stupidity now encompasses a whole range of what used to be perfectly sensible doping practices. It is certainly still possible to dope, and there are certainly many still doing it, but it has to be done much more carefully, in much smaller amounts, with much more discipline, at much more risk. Make things more complex and riskier, and the available advantages smaller, and you change the risk/reward calculation - which is more important than hoping for a moral revolution.

Can you point to what changed in the anti doping fight? The only people who seem intent of fighting doping are the Italian authorities and USADA.

So what is to stop the teams doping? Not biopassport, not the race tests, not ooc testing, so what is it? McQuaid's threats?

Sorry I dont believe in your miracles.

 

[RownhamHill]

What I mean to say is that no clean riders achieved anything meaningful 2008-2010

Isn't the problem here with your definition of clean riders though?

Off the top of my head Andy Schleck won the Tour in 2010, and podiumed the tour and the Giro in previous years. Is he a clean rider or not?

Carlos Sastre won the tour in 2008 - is he a clean rider or not?

Brad Wiggins podiumed the tour in 2009 - is he (or was he then if you prefer) a clean rider or not?

These are questions which we don't honestly know the answers to. All have links to greater or lesser extents with dopers (Frank Schleck, Riis, Leinders) so of course they might be dirty, but to assume that they definitely were, and then extrapolate from that no one clean did anything meaningful is a bit of a stretch. In my opinion.

Well if Sastre/Andy were clean then there's nothing to say that Contador 2008, Menchov 2009, Contador/Andy 2009, Valverde 2009, Basso 2010 weren't either.

Well, yeah, that's kind of the point I'm making, isn't it?

Yep, and given what we know about those riders and races it would be a pretty limited position to hold.

So, let me get this straight.

You make an absolute statement based on nothing more than your own assumptions of guilt.

I point out that your entire argument is based on unverifiable assumptions, and as such it's a stretch.

You respond by giving a bunch more names, all of whom you're sure are doping, based on 'what we know' about them. (ie another bunch of unverifiable assumptions).

And from that extra level of assumption you conclude that my position is 'pretty limited', without even bothering to address the point I made.

What you essentially seem to be saying is that you think some riders doped (probably true), and so therefore you think everyone else must have as well (h'mmm, not sure that follows but still), and while this is all based on nothing else than your own belief, nevertheless it's strong evidence that no clean riders achieved anything meaningful in that period, and therefore the wider theory Zinoviev Letter put forward (which was, you know, based on actual observable evidence) is fundamentally flawed.

Yep, I see it now. I've got the limited position. . .

 

[Ferminal]

It's pretty easy to work out that those riders 2008-2010 doped at some point in their careers, though there is not evidence that they did in the years they won.

If you can't call those performances doped it's impossible to call anyone who doesn't test positive in that race doped so yeh, we are limited by actual positives/sanctions in the specific race. Obviously in that world there's no doubt that you can win GTs and Monuments clean today.

This isn't really the thread to get into specifics as to why I think Menchov or Contador doped in 2009.

 

[RownhamHill]

It's pretty easy to work out that those riders 2008-2010 doped at some point in their careers, though there is not evidence that they did in the years they won.

If you can't call those performances doped it's impossible to call anyone who doesn't test positive in that race doped so yeh, we are limited by actual positives/sanctions in the specific race. Obviously in that world there's no doubt that you can win GTs and Monuments clean today.

This isn't really the thread to get into specifics as to why I think Menchov or Contador doped in 2009.

But I'm not asking you to get into individual specifics about why Menchov or Contador doped in 2009, I'm quite happy to believe they both did (nb this is belief or a 'best guess', not knowledge).

What I am questioning is whether your suspicions that some riders were doping in that period but weren't caught, is strong enough evidence to conclude, in absolute terms, that no clean riders achieved anything meaningful in 2008/09/10 (which is what you suggested). And as such the suggestion, based on observation of climbing data, test data etc, that there was a reduction in the efficacy and uptake of doping after the Blood Passport is fundamentally flawed.

So yeah, of course, in general terms its naive to claim that it's impossible to call anyone who doesn't test positive in a given race doped. But that doesn't mean as a result that there were effectively only two types of rider racing in 2008/09/10: those who doped and tested positive; and those who doped and didn't test positive. But that's currently the logic of your position. And it's a stretch.