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

[armchairclimber]

How was Moreno's win on the Mur de Huy of the FW not a sign of clean cycling? He's never been mentioned in any investigation, and yet I haven't heard him say that his victory was a sign clean riders can win now.

Double standards much? Are Garmin riders feeling so superior to others that they constantly brag about how they won 'clean'? While other equally 'clean' teams/riders don't feel the need to do that? Garmin are following Sky in that regard, claiming to have zero-tolerance, but as a result only getting asked more and more questions.

The fact that Martin won didn't surprise me at all, but the moment he mentioned how he won 'clean', he lost it. And then this thread explodes. Garmin still have a lot of questions unanswered, and it'd be good if JV would take some time to visit the Clinic again.

Well he could, I suppose, provide blood values etc that go some way towards demonstrating that Dan Martin rides clean. Personally, I don't feel the need to see them....I believe JV and believe that Garmin are clean, but I fully understand why others might need more.

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

But Dan's reputation is pretty good on the doping issue. And given that my country has to bear the blame for McQuaid, I'm quite happy to have someone like Dan riding for us. It levels the thing out!

No it doesn't. We have McQuaid, Kelly, Roche and the d!ckheads in CyclingIreland!

 

[JimmyFingers]

Foreigners?

Well I don't know about anyone else but I LOLed

 

[armchairclimber]

Well I don't know about anyone else but I LOLed

Yup. Me too.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ah the old "I won clean and therefore cycling is clean" PR BS.

I wonder if Johan Brailsford has had a word

"Come on Dan, lets get a message about clean cycling, our boys fail to get my memo's.......come on, for your English Cousins"

Pretty sure Geraint Thomas flatted in a classic recently and the Garmin car stopped to give him a new wheel ;-)

 

[Frosty]

Pretty sure Geraint Thomas flatted in a classic recently and the Garmin car stopped to give him a new wheel ;-)

I thought he fell off and the Garmin people stood next to where he fell gave him a hand with his bike?

 

[Hawkwood]

His father was a prince of Greece and Denmark though, going wildly OT

Phil the Greek is from a minor German royal family.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I thought he fell off and the Garmin people stood next to where he fell gave him a hand with his bike?

Thanks. I just saw the vision of them helping him - didn't realise he'd crashed.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

There are precisely two "risk factor" boxes that Martin ticks: (1) He is a professional cyclist. (2) He sometimes wins pro races. There are some here for whom that is enough to damn anyone, although really I'm not sure why anyone who takes that line bothers commenting about individual riders rather than simply posting "everyone's a doper" and then leaving.

Other than being a good pro, Martin is pretty much, at least from the information available to us, completely devoid of the kind of risk factors that cause people to raise their eyebrows. His pattern of development is pretty much the textbook "norm" we'd expect from a gifted rider, with no drastic and unexpected transformations. He says the right things. He's been on a self-proclaimed clean team for his whole career. He's never been seen riding around Italy with any dubious doctors, nor paid any gynaecologists for training plans.

Pillorying him for talking up clean cycling is ridiculous.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Pillorying him for talking up clean cycling is ridiculous.

I have no problem with him talking his clean self up. I agree with your points.

I dislike him doing a Millar and taking the opportunity of the lime light to proclaim Sky - in isolation, and in particular Wiggins - are clean. Like they are the only 2 clean teams in the rest of the dirty, dirty peloton.

It would be better if he said the peloton is clean, that's why the clean guys can win.

But he can't say that. Because it's either not true, or he doesn't believe it's true.

So the clean guys are beating dirty, dirty dopers.

Which is where the logic of it all starts to unravel.

 

[DirtyWorks]

There are precisely two "risk factor" boxes that Martin ticks: (1) He is a professional cyclist. (2) He sometimes wins pro races. There are some here for whom that is enough to damn anyone, although really I'm not sure why anyone who takes that line bothers commenting about individual riders rather than simply posting "everyone's a doper" and then leaving.

Other than being a good pro, Martin is pretty much, at least from the information available to us, completely devoid of the kind of risk factors that cause people to raise their eyebrows. His pattern of development is pretty much the textbook "norm" we'd expect from a gifted rider, with no drastic and unexpected transformations. He says the right things. He's been on a self-proclaimed clean team for his whole career. He's never been seen riding around Italy with any dubious doctors, nor paid any gynaecologists for training plans.

Pillorying him for talking up clean cycling is ridiculous.

That's about where we're at with Mr. Martin. Since this is pro cycling, time will tell the degree of cleanliness in his career/wins.

The fundamental problem is Ryder's miraculous blood values over the entirety of his Giro win are not well explained and we know the UCI suppresses positives. Equating one-day wins with Grand Tour wins is perilous.

The worst part fans like me interested in a cleaner, legitimate game are easily cast as crackpots because there appear to be clean one-day wins while the Grand Tour podium performances remain suspect.

 

[JV1973]

That's about where we're at with Mr. Martin. Since this is pro cycling, time will tell the degree of cleanliness in his career/wins.

The fundamental problem is Ryder's miraculous blood values over the entirety of his Giro win are not well explained and we know the UCI suppresses positives. Equating one-day wins with Grand Tour wins is perilous.

The worst part fans like me interested in a cleaner, legitimate game are easily cast as crackpots because there appear to be clean one-day wins while the Grand Tour podium performances remain suspect.

That's an impressive misunderstanding of basic hematology. Good lord. As a rule of thumb, commenting on things you aren't educated in tends to strengthen the argument of your adversary.

 

[The Hitch]

Nows a good time for another one of those Libertine Seguros posts demonstrating the difference between what sky claim to have done in the name of clean cycling, what they promised, and what they actually have done.

 

[rhubroma]

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...alk-about-links-to-banned-doctor-ferrari.html

Compare Dan's words today with Kreuziger's

And does this for you signify that Dan has a credibility Kreuziger doesn't based on the one saying what people want to hear and the other's silence being louder than an actual admission of guilt?

Just curious to know your take on the Irishman. Is he credible and on what basis?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

That's an impressive misunderstanding of basic hematology. Good lord. As a rule of thumb, commenting on things you aren't educated in tends to strengthen the argument of your adversary.

An interesting thing for someone with no basic understanding of hematology to post.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Nows a good time for another one of those Libertine Seguros posts demonstrating the difference between what sky claim to have done in the name of clean cycling, what they promised, and what they actually have done.

In the Dan Martin thread?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

There are precisely two "risk factor" boxes that Martin ticks: (1) He is a professional cyclist. (2) He sometimes wins pro races. There are some here for whom that is enough to damn anyone, although really I'm not sure why anyone who takes that line bothers commenting about individual riders rather than simply posting "everyone's a doper" and then leaving.

Other than being a good pro, Martin is pretty much, at least from the information available to us, completely devoid of the kind of risk factors that cause people to raise their eyebrows. His pattern of development is pretty much the textbook "norm" we'd expect from a gifted rider, with no drastic and unexpected transformations. He says the right things. He's been on a self-proclaimed clean team for his whole career. He's never been seen riding around Italy with any dubious doctors, nor paid any gynaecologists for training plans.

Pillorying him for talking up clean cycling is ridiculous.

Good point, but lets take a look at the last ten years of la Doyenne:

2012:
Maxim Iglinsky
Heralded by Vino for going to Tenerife, maybe the most ridiculous winner of la Doyenne all time.

2011:
Phillipe Gilbert.
Never trust the man with the blonded hair.

2010:
Vino himself.

2009:
Andy Schleck. That was a real nice solo from Roche au.

2008:
Valverde. Doesnt need an intro.

2007:
Danilo Cera di Luca.

2006:
Valverde.

2005:
Vino.

2004:
Davide Rebelllin, same as Gilbert.

2003:
Hamilton.

Do you really think it is strange people are not always very sure the outcome of la Doyenne is purely down to hard work, focus and team spirit?

I like Dan Martin a lot, he is a much more credible winner than last year.

That's an impressive misunderstanding of basic hematology. Good lord. As a rule of thumb, commenting on things you aren't educated in tends to strengthen the argument of your adversary.

Havent seen your credentials as a hema, I only read you had the fastest time on Ventoux

 

[DirtyWorks]

That's an impressive misunderstanding of basic hematology. Good lord. As a rule of thumb, commenting on things you aren't educated in tends to strengthen the argument of your adversary.

Reading your posts over time, it's obvious you aren't going to relent on this one. So, lets just leave it at the following:

#1 It's not *me* saying the blood values were suspicious. I tend to ask questions if I post anything at all about blood metrics.
#2 My belief in the matter may be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time and right/wrong doesn't matter. What matters is eventually getting to some correct facts of the matter.
#3 Take Ryder's win out of the set of post-EPO wins and history of doped Grand Tour podiums is still there. <cough> Wiggo! <cough> Froome! <cough>

As I just posted, this is the perfect example of clean winners mixed in with doped winners and then easily casting fans that want a more legitimate game as crackpots. That's me, crackpot.

 

[will10]

Pretty sure Geraint Thomas flatted in a classic recently and the Garmin car stopped to give him a new wheel ;-)

There were Garmin soigneurs at the side of the road there, the car didn't stop.

 

[Race Radio]

And does this for you signify that Dan has a credibility Kreuziger doesn't based on the one saying what people want to hear and the other's silence being louder than an actual admission of guilt?

Just curious to know your take on the Irishman. Is he credible and on what basis?

I put far more credence in the fact that Dan has never been a Ferrari customer....can't say the same about Kreuziger

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Do you really think it is strange people are not always very sure the outcome of la Doyenne is purely down to hard work, focus and team spirit?

Not for a second. Cycling has a very dirty record, and the biggest races have the most accumulated dirt.

I do however think that even pro cyclists deserve to be assessed on their own actions. When Martin goes up Alpe D'Huez at 6.8 watts/kg, or suddenly starts time trialling like Cancellara, or starts visiting gynaecologists, warning sirens should go off. When a talented rider, with an apparently squeaky clean reputation and no even tenuous known links to anything dodgy wins the big race on the calendar most perfectly suited to his abilities? That doesn't trouble me.

 

[Benotti69]

Reading your posts over time, it's obvious you aren't going to relent on this one. So, lets just leave it at the following:

#1 It's not *me* saying the blood values were suspicious. I tend to ask questions if I post anything at all about blood metrics.
#2 My belief in the matter may be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time and right/wrong doesn't matter. What matters is eventually getting to some correct facts of the matter.
#3 Take Ryder's win out of the set of post-EPO wins and history of doped Grand Tour podiums is still there. <cough> Wiggo! <cough> Froome! <cough>

As I just posted, this is the perfect example of clean winners mixed in with doped winners and then easily casting fans that want a more legitimate game as crackpots. That's me, crackpot.

Anybody who dares question JVs cleanER peloton is a crackpot!

Still have not heard any explanation how, why, where and when things got cleanER. Only Armstrong and Bruyneel not in the peloton anymore but that doesn't make it cleanER.

 

[ustabe]

When a talented rider, with an apparently squeaky clean reputation and no even tenuous known links to anything dodgy wins the big race on the calendar most perfectly suited to his abilities? That doesn't trouble me.

The words of a reasonable man.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Still have not heard any explanation how, why, where and when things got cleanER.

Yes you have. Repeatedly.

Do we really need to post the chart with the suspicious blood readings by year yet again? You may remember it. It shows a sudden change in blood values consistent with a large scale shift from EPO to blood bags once the EPO test arrives. Something that also fits with the evidence provided by Hamilton etc. And then it shows an equally sudden decline in suspicious readings indicative of large blood transfusions once the passport arrives. And this in turn is correlated with a drastic reduction in the number of truly superhuman performances we see on the climbs when people do the w/kg sums.

So doping still happens, but the risks have increased and the amounts you can use have decreased. Which makes clean riders, in theory, competitive in a way that they haven't been since 1990. Not because the pre-1990 peloton was clean but because the advantages doping could give you pre-EPO were relatively marginal.

It's not that complex an argument. And you've heard it repeatedly. It's one thing to believe that there are problems with that line of argument. It's quite another to pretend that nobody has ever explained it.

Personally, I wish that sceptics were more interested in furthering the argument by gathering data on suspicious climbing (and TTing) performances and less interested in general sneering about winners.

 

[JV1973]

Reading your posts over time, it's obvious you aren't going to relent on this one. So, lets just leave it at the following:

#1 It's not *me* saying the blood values were suspicious. I tend to ask questions if I post anything at all about blood metrics.
#2 My belief in the matter may be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time and right/wrong doesn't matter. What matters is eventually getting to some correct facts of the matter.
#3 Take Ryder's win out of the set of post-EPO wins and history of doped Grand Tour podiums is still there. <cough> Wiggo! <cough> Froome! <cough>

As I just posted, this is the perfect example of clean winners mixed in with doped winners and then easily casting fans that want a more legitimate game as crackpots. That's me, crackpot.

Not saying you're a crackpot. Just saying the blood profile was almost exactly what you should see in a clean rider. The analysis by Dr. Mike Puchowicz, known as veloclinic on twitter or capn', pretty much said the same thing. Drop him a line, if you think my interpretation is wrong.

And yes, you are correct, that the biggest issue facing cycling now is that it's difficult to believe anyone about anything. I get that.