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

[sniper]

So if i get it right, Vaughters was pretty much the only one who thought Martin was clean when he contracted him.
Probably crunched his numbers and knew he was legit.

 

[Cycle Chic]

So he has a SERETIDE INHALER - what a surprise !!
He,s taken TRAMADOL and SALBUTAMOL.

And he says he's clean.

 

[sniper]

Re:

So he has a SERETIDE INHALER - what a surprise !!
He,s taken TRAMADOL and SALBUTAMOL.

And he says he's clean.

Says he's never taken anything to get an "unfair advantage".
So I guess EPO, AICAR and a motor are all ok, as long as the rest are using it too.

Kimmage was kind, by the way, not to inquire about his girlfriend's transformation one or two years ago.

 

[yaco]

I look at the interview differently - DM was very subtle in his digs at alleged doper's in the peleton, though this will make him unpopular with some of the peleton - His comments about Froome were cutting,direct and left no doubts - Problem is some who inhabit this forum missed the nuances in the article,and of course don't understand the laws of libel - DM did as much as he could in the article ( considering legal constraints ) to discuss doping in the peleton - And we must take into account most riders will not speak to Kimmage for good reason.

 

[Benotti69]

Martin said "I won't take anything to gain an unfair advantage."

Then admitted to taking Tramadol and Salbutamol.

 

[kingjr]

That seems to suggest he doesn't think that there's anything unfair about those

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re:

Martin said "I won't take anything to gain an unfair advantage."

Then admitted to taking Tramadol and Salbutamol.

As his respiratory issues are extremely well known and were occasionally crippling and certainly not of the "exercise induced" variety, it would be shocking if he hadn't tried salbutamol.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Martin said "I won't take anything to gain an unfair advantage."

Then admitted to taking Tramadol and Salbutamol.

As his respiratory issues are extremely well known and were occasionally crippling and certainly not of the "exercise induced" variety, it would be shocking if he hadn't tried salbutamol.

Perhaps, if you have respiratory issues, you shouldn't be a professional cyclist. Rather than taking drugs to assist with the 'issue'.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I sometimes think some people posting here view athletes as little more than machines yet expect them to act like the most morally upright humans ever.

In 2010 Dan Martin was what, 23? He describes the Giro that year as "a race that nearly killed me [...] I have never been that dead. I limped through the last four days and was absolutely on my knees" and notes how is haematocrit fell from 46/47 to 39. Of his use of Tramadol, we get this exchange:

DM: I took Tramadol once and it scared the crap out of me.
PK: When?
DM: The 2010 Giro. I pushed so hard, and made myself so sick that it really terrified me.
PK: A time trial?
DM: No, a long mountain stage. I didn't know what Tramadol was before that race but again, it's the cultural thing, "Try this." I didn't feel happy doing it.
PK: Because the only reason you were taking it was to enhance your performance?
DM: Yeah.
PK: That's the only reason you were doing it?
DM: Yeah.
PK: Everybody gets pushed there.
DM: Yeah, eventually. But since then, no, apart from when I was lying in a hospital bed in agony with a broken collarbone (his Giro crash in 2014).

He's on his knees, he's 23, someone says take this, it's not on the banned list, there's not even much by way of chatter about it - we hadn't become such Puritans yet that even things you don't need a TUE for were considered proof of being a doper - and for some that's reason enough to hang the guy? Seriously, what do you really want, silence from everyone on everything? Because that's the upshot if you win, that's what's going to happen if someone can't say "yes, used that, didn't like it, haven't use it since."

And at the same time you just ignore his comment about cortisone?

DM: I had picked up a knee problem two weeks before, and could have had (it treated with) a jab of cortisone but I didn't want to do that.
PK: On ethical grounds?
DM: Yeah, although there was no issue with the rules. I was only 22. The cortisone would degenerate the tendon and I didn't want problems later in my career.

Seriously people, what do you really want? You don't want Simon Pures, you refuse to believe that they could possibly exist. Will the only thing to satisfy you be every single interview the rider saying yes, they're a doper, they've always been a doper, they've never not doped? That's what it looks like.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

I sometimes think some people posting here view athletes as little more than machines yet expect them to act like the most morally upright humans ever.

In 2010 Dan Martin was what, 23? He describes the Giro that year as "a race that nearly killed me [...] I have never been that dead. I limped through the last four days and was absolutely on my knees" and notes how is haematocrit fell from 46/47 to 39. Of his use of Tramadol, we get this exchange:

DM: I took Tramadol once and it scared the crap out of me.
PK: When?
DM: The 2010 Giro. I pushed so hard, and made myself so sick that it really terrified me.
PK: A time trial?
DM: No, a long mountain stage. I didn't know what Tramadol was before that race but again, it's the cultural thing, "Try this." I didn't feel happy doing it.
PK: Because the only reason you were taking it was to enhance your performance?
DM: Yeah.
PK: That's the only reason you were doing it?
DM: Yeah.
PK: Everybody gets pushed there.
DM: Yeah, eventually. But since then, no, apart from when I was lying in a hospital bed in agony with a broken collarbone (his Giro crash in 2014).

He's on his knees, he's 23, someone says take this, it's not on the banned list, there's not even much by way of chatter about it - we hadn't become such Puritans yet that even things you don't need a TUE for were considered proof of being a doper - and for some that's reason enough to hang the guy? Seriously, what do you really want, silence from everyone on everything? Because that's the upshot if you win, that's what's going to happen if someone can't say "yes, used that, didn't like it, haven't use it since."

And at the same time you just ignore his comment about cortisone?

DM: I had picked up a knee problem two weeks before, and could have had (it treated with) a jab of cortisone but I didn't want to do that.
PK: On ethical grounds?
DM: Yeah, although there was no issue with the rules. I was only 22. The cortisone would degenerate the tendon and I didn't want problems later in my career.

Seriously people, what do you really want? You don't want Simon Pures, you refuse to believe that they could possibly exist. Will the only thing to satisfy you be every single interview the rider saying yes, they're a doper, they've always been a doper, they've never not doped? That's what it looks like.

Great post FMK, thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy that cycling fans have somehow arrived at in the past few years. I hope this message reaches a wide audience.

Cheers

 

[thehog]

Re:

I sometimes think some people posting here view athletes as little more than machines yet expect them to act like the most morally upright humans ever.

In 2010 Dan Martin was what, 23? He describes the Giro that year as "a race that nearly killed me [...] I have never been that dead. I limped through the last four days and was absolutely on my knees" and notes how is haematocrit fell from 46/47 to 39. Of his use of Tramadol, we get this exchange:

DM: I took Tramadol once and it scared the crap out of me.
PK: When?
DM: The 2010 Giro. I pushed so hard, and made myself so sick that it really terrified me.
PK: A time trial?
DM: No, a long mountain stage. I didn't know what Tramadol was before that race but again, it's the cultural thing, "Try this." I didn't feel happy doing it.
PK: Because the only reason you were taking it was to enhance your performance?
DM: Yeah.
PK: That's the only reason you were doing it?
DM: Yeah.
PK: Everybody gets pushed there.
DM: Yeah, eventually. But since then, no, apart from when I was lying in a hospital bed in agony with a broken collarbone (his Giro crash in 2014).

He's on his knees, he's 23, someone says take this, it's not on the banned list, there's not even much by way of chatter about it - we hadn't become such Puritans yet that even things you don't need a TUE for were considered proof of being a doper - and for some that's reason enough to hang the guy? Seriously, what do you really want, silence from everyone on everything? Because that's the upshot if you win, that's what's going to happen if someone can't say "yes, used that, didn't like it, haven't use it since."

And at the same time you just ignore his comment about cortisone?

DM: I had picked up a knee problem two weeks before, and could have had (it treated with) a jab of cortisone but I didn't want to do that.
PK: On ethical grounds?
DM: Yeah, although there was no issue with the rules. I was only 22. The cortisone would degenerate the tendon and I didn't want problems later in my career.

Seriously people, what do you really want? You don't want Simon Pures, you refuse to believe that they could possibly exist. Will the only thing to satisfy you be every single interview the rider saying yes, they're a doper, they've always been a doper, they've never not doped? That's what it looks like.

Suddenly he remembers his haematocrit again?

 

[yaco]

My view is that some use the term 'doping' in too wide a sense - Many professional athletes will take any new hot substance if it's sold as an aid to improve performance - I am referring to substances that are not on the WADA prohibited list - Now some of these substances may in the future end up as prohibited substances, but the athlete is doing nothing illegal - There is a world of difference from taking substances that are banned by the WADA code. and substances that are not banned.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Suddenly he remembers his haematocrit again?

Maybe that race made an impact on him for some reason. Like, oh, I don't know, it was "a race that nearly killed me". Cause, like, you know, unlike machines that remember everything, with humans memories get laid down in odd ways. Some events linger longer in the memory than others.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

My view is that some use the term 'doping' in too wide a sense

Wow, man! If only Paul Kimmage had thought of that when he asked about how Dan Martin defined clean. Oh, hang on a minute, that was exactly the point he was making!

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Suddenly he remembers his haematocrit again?

Maybe that race made an impact on him for some reason. Like, oh, I don't know, it was "a race that nearly killed me". Cause, like, you know, unlike machines that remember everything, with humans memories get laid down in odd ways. Some events linger longer in the memory than others.

Naturally and because he wasn't doping at the Baby Giro he didn't remember it

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

Martin said "I won't take anything to gain an unfair advantage."

Then admitted to taking Tramadol and Salbutamol.

As his respiratory issues are extremely well known and were occasionally crippling and certainly not of the "exercise induced" variety, it would be shocking if he hadn't tried salbutamol.

Perhaps, if you have respiratory issues, you shouldn't be a professional cyclist. Rather than taking drugs to assist with the 'issue'.

You can make an argument that people with respiratory problems shouldn't be allowed to treat them and work as pro cyclists (as you can with diabetics or people with back problems etc etc) but the rules then and now say otherwise. If we are going to talk about riders getting treatment to deal with respiratory problems, I would suggest that starting with someone whose problems in that regard are uncontroversial but who has nevertheless never had a TUE isn't the obvious approach to take.

 

[Valv.Piti]

What do you guys honestly expected he'd say? That he was doping? I mean, seriously...

I think he said some interesting things, especially the thing about Froomey. Without saying it he is certainly implying that something fishy was going on and thats more than other cyclists.

 

[ontheroad]

I thought it was a well constructed interview. Kimmage was very fair with his questions but still managed to ask the important questions that needed asking. I think it was also the first time I have seen him raise the issue of motors. That was the one glaring ommission from his interview with Froome a few years back that he failed to ask. Dan neatly side stepped the issue by veering off into a conversation about drafting behind motorbikes. Other than that I felt he was quite open about plenty of issues, whether you believe the answers fully is subjective and I don't think Kimmage gave any indication as to where he stands on whether Martin is believable, basically asked the questions and let the reader make up their own minds. Martin does deserve some credit for actually agreeing to do the interview in the first place and I'd have more respect for him now after doing that.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

I thought it was a well constructed interview. Kimmage was very fair with his questions but still managed to ask the important questions that needed asking. I think it was also the first time I have seen him raise the issue of motors. That was the one glaring ommission from his interview with Froome a few years back that he failed to ask. Dan neatly side stepped the issue by veering off into a conversation about drafting behind motorbikes. Other than that I felt he was quite open about plenty of issues, whether you believe the answers fully is subjective and I don't think Kimmage gave any indication as to where he stands on whether Martin is believable, basically asked the questions and let the reader make up their own minds. Martin does deserve some credit for actually agreeing to do the interview in the first place and I'd have more respect for him now after doing that.

I'd like to have seen more focused questions on Quickstep. What changed training/preparation wise since Martin moved there compared with Garmin? Why has Gilbert suddenly become great again? etc... General statements about Froome or Valverde - where Martin would surely have no knowledge anyway if they were doping - is a bit pointless. Whereas more detailed questioning about his team and teammates could reveal some more interesting information. But he would probably just put up the shutters then.

I guess though, if there is one thing we have learnt over the years, it's that what riders say in interviews and publically is completely worthless in trying to assess how clean a rider is. Dopers say exactly the same thing as non-dopers - they both pay lip service to how dopers are bad, how the sport is getting cleaner, how they know it's possible to win clean because they have done it, etc...

It's completely unreliable evidence either way. Even so, Martin's claim that Valverde is probably clean now because he can nearly keep up with him (even though he can't), is absolutely laughable.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Even so, Martin's claim that Valverde is probably clean now because he can nearly keep up with him (even though he can't), is absolutely laughable.

Martin doesn't say that Valverde is probably clean now. Here's what he actually said:

DM: The thing about Valverde is this - in my mind, because (I finished) so close to him, I have to believe he's not doping still. But we don't know about the effects doping has long-term.
PK: You mean the benefits?
DM: Yeah. Has it made him stronger?
PK: I would say it has.

There are many things in this life that I have to believe are such and such, but that is not the same as saying that I do believe they are such and such. In fact, that choice of wording - I have to believe - generally indicates a degree of doubt on the part of the speaker.

Athletes - unlike many here - cannot and do not spend their whole day thinking about how others are doping. They don't need the stress, they don't need the open acknowledgement of doubt. To function, there are things they have to believe. Martin can choose to believe that Valverde is riding clean because that means he can choose to believe he can beat him. If he opens the door to believing that Valverde is still doping, then he is basically telling himself he will never beat him.

Athlete psychology is not very hard. But clearly it defeats many here.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Even so, Martin's claim that Valverde is probably clean now because he can nearly keep up with him (even though he can't), is absolutely laughable.

Martin doesn't say that Valverde is probably clean now. Here's what he actually said:

DM: The thing about Valverde is this - in my mind, because (I finished) so close to him, I have to believe he's not doping still. But we don't know about the effects doping has long-term.
PK: You mean the benefits?
DM: Yeah. Has it made him stronger?
PK: I would say it has.

There are many things in this life that I have to believe are such and such, but that is not the same as saying that I do believe they are such and such. In fact, that choice of wording - I have to believe - generally indicates a degree of doubt on the part of the speaker.

Athletes - unlike many here - cannot and do not spend their whole day thinking about how others are doping. They don't need the stress, they don't need the open acknowledgement of doubt. To function, there are things they have to believe. Martin can choose to believe that Valverde is riding clean because that means he can choose to believe he can beat him. If he opens the door to believing that Valverde is still doping, then he is basically telling himself he will never beat him.

Athlete psychology is not very hard. But clearly it defeats many here.

Nice projection of your own interpretation on what Matin says, but it's pure speculation, and most probably nonsense.

Martin wouldn't say so in an interview like that if he did think Valverde was still doping - so you have no idea what he really thinks or what his psychology is. Like other riders in similar interviews, he's just flat batting away the questions. And Martin has beaten plenty of known dopers throughout his career, so why would believing that Valverde is still doping suddenly make him unbeatable?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Nice projection of your own interpretation on what Matin says, but it's pure speculation, and most probably nonsense.

Martin wouldn't say so in an interview like that if he did think Valverde was still doping - so you have no idea what he really thinks or what his psychology is. Like other riders in similar interviews, he's just flat batting away the questions. And Martin has beaten plenty of known dopers throughout his career, so why would believing that Valverde is still doping suddenly make him unbeatable?

So let me get this straight: you can "project" your interpretation of what Martin says, but no one else can? Really, we all have to bow down to your "projections"? Christ on a bike...

I note with admiration Martin's "flat batting away" of questions when it came to his use of Tramadol...well played, that man. Easily a boundary.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Nice projection of your own interpretation on what Matin says, but it's pure speculation, and most probably nonsense.

Martin wouldn't say so in an interview like that if he did think Valverde was still doping - so you have no idea what he really thinks or what his psychology is. Like other riders in similar interviews, he's just flat batting away the questions. And Martin has beaten plenty of known dopers throughout his career, so why would believing that Valverde is still doping suddenly make him unbeatable?

So let me get this straight: you can "project" your interpretation of what Martin says, but no one else can? Really, we all have to bow down to your "projections"? Christ on a bike...

I note with admiration Martin's "flat batting away" of questions when it came to his use of Tramadol...well played, that man. Easily a boundary.

I think that in your self-righteousness you've misunderstood, I'm not projecting any interpretation. I'm simply saying that his interview was worthless as evidence as to his views on riders doping, or to his own potential doping.

Like most cyclist interviews, it offers no real insight, because of all the smoke and mirrors around. If Martin was doping and knew half the peloton were also, he would give an interview like this. If he is clean and fully believed most of the peloton are now, he would also give an interview like this. It's just a puff piece. Poor questions by Kimmage really, he should have drilled down into more specifics re Quickstep/Garmin.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I'm not projecting any interpretation.

ROFLMFAO.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

I'm not projecting any interpretation.

ROFLMFAO.

OK, I see you have nothing useful to add (plus ca change), so have resorted to derailing the conversation. I'm out.