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

[DirtyWorks]

Oh - and btw, I'm sad to see the Cap'n has decided to move on to greener pastures, as it were. Not sure if it was b-cuz they offered better blue moldy stuff over in those "greener pastures", or what. Jes sayin - sorry to see him movin on.

Cheers!

Whuuuuut??? I believe the Cap'n is now veloclinic. http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/

 

[blackcat]

Bring back Tanman ava.

well, i protest.

tanman blocked me on twitter. i could not reconcile of the gumption of the man in the blue velvet blazer

 

[DirtyWorks]

If it ever turns out that they lied, their hypocrisy only deepens their disgrace, but it should not stop clean winners from promoting clean riding.

Is the sport corrupted from top to bottom? Yes.
Is Garmin/Sharp some exception to the corruption? Probably.
Is it possible he did it clean? Yes.
Is it likely he, unlike other recent winners did it clean? Yes.

All very favorable indications Mr. Martin did it clean.

We've also had riders blame their ephemeral twin on doping anomalies. My recollection is one rider blamed their dog for being caught doping. Perhaps you can pity me for not believing as another rider once said about their wins.

For some, Dan needed to prepare a bit more. I would have advised similarly. But, understand that the sport is so corrupted at this point a cleaner rider selling "cleanest peloton ever" line is immediately suspect.

 

[Benotti69]

Aldo Sassi said much similar things along the lines of JV and Sky yet not many took him seriously and no one here quotes him in the Garmin/JV or Sky threads pointing to a cleanER sport or think any of the teams/riders he worked with are clean.

I think if Garmin or Sky were Belgian, Italian, Spanish, German, Kazak or Russian more people would not believe their PR.

I dont see much of a difference between Garmin, Sky or any other pro team apart from the afore mentioned 2 proclaiming they do it clean, while the others get on with the 'business' of racing. Yet the 'clean' teams are beating the non declared 'clean' teams.

I think what Ullrich said is right.

 

[cocteau_ireland]

Anyhow, I've learned my lesson, don't release blood profiles that are "negiglble risk" as the forum has a treasure trove of self proclaimed experts that are at the ready to do their analysis, which will differ greatly from the AMPU.

So, once again, you guys win. Bravo. Cycling: Everyone's doping. Especially Garmin.

Have at it.[/QUOTE]

On the problem of armchair experts, in whatever sphere. http://t.co/H9mMaQUkdP

 

[ljpoyz]

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

well, i protest.

tanman blocked me on twitter. i could not reconcile of the gumption of the man in the blue velvet blazer

 

[Catwhoorg]

That guy, whats his name, uhh, Damsgaard, what is he up to these days...

Funny thing about releasing blood values, do people know how much an individual rider must have screwed up to come near that nice 133 index score? Even the supposed blood transfusion[s?] of Armstrong in the 2009 Tour de France didnt get his off score above 100.

6/17/2009 HGb 16 HCT 45 Ret% 0.79 Off score 106.4
6/18/2009 HGB 16 HCT 45.7 Ret 0.68 Off score 112

Were his two highest offscores on the 2008-2011 data. Which compared against the points around them, clearly indicate taking a blood bag.

Incidentally it is my understanding that the scores now are compared against the 133, but against the riders own expected baseline.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

6/17/2009 HGb 16 HCT 45 Ret% 0.79 Off score 106.4
6/18/2009 HGB 16 HCT 45.7 Ret 0.68 Off score 112

Were his two highest offscores on the 2008-2011 data. Which compared against the points around them, clearly indicate taking a blood bag.

Incidentally it is my understanding that the scores now are compared against the 133, but against the riders own expected baseline.

So, the Tour is now in june? That explains...


The 133 is individually Catwhoorg...

 

[Catwhoorg]

So, the Tour is now in june? That explains...


The 133 is individually Catwhoorg...

I'm guessing recovery from the Giro, and the beginning of a program of partial bags throughout the tour. His ret% was 0.5x and 0.6x through the whole period of the tour. Clearly suppressed compared to his own averages.

But yeah heading way off topic here.

Congrats to Dan, and I believe he won clean.

 

[RownhamHill]

And here's, in my view, the crux of the issue. The poor fan whose belief is shattered.

What comes across is the embarrassment, and the anger at the embarrassment. The feeling you were 'made a fool of' - that someone, somewhere, is laughing at your gulliblity and naivite. and by god, we'll never let that happen again; even if we have to assume the worst of every possible rider.

It's the emotional equivalent of taking the brace position.

For me, personally, I won't do that. If a rider cons me, it's not because I'm some kind of gullible chump, it's because he's a cheating b"stard. And the guilt lies on him, not me. And in refusing to take on guilt or embarrassment that doesn't belong to me, it frees me to enjo the sport, and believe in certain riders. and if i'm wrong to, fine. I don't live and die by it - it's not a comment on me, but on the rider.

This.

Back on topic, I'm happy to believe in Dan Martin, it's pretty obvious to me he's clean. After all he's from England.

 

[sublimit]

I think if Garmin or Sky were Belgian, Italian, Spanish, German, Kazak or Russian more people would not believe their PR.

I dont see much of a difference between Garmin, Sky or any other pro team apart from the afore mentioned 2 proclaiming they do it clean, while the others get on with the 'business' of racing. Yet the 'clean' teams are beating the non declared 'clean' teams.

I think what Ullrich said is right.

Yeah but say Moviestar or Astana for instance came out with a similar "winning races clean" headline everybody would just fall about laughing. Sky or Garmin can get away with it apart from people raising their eyebrows on certain individual riders IMO.

 

[mattghg]

I think what Ullrich said is right.

What thing he said are you referring to?

 

[mattghg]

And here's, in my view, the crux of the issue. The poor fan whose belief is shattered.

What comes across is the embarrassment, and the anger at the embarrassment. The feeling you were 'made a fool of' - that someone, somewhere, is laughing at your gulliblity and naivite. and by god, we'll never let that happen again; even if we have to assume the worst of every possible rider.

It's the emotional equivalent of taking the brace position.

For me, personally, I won't do that. If a rider cons me, it's not because I'm some kind of gullible chump, it's because he's a cheating b"stard. And the guilt lies on him, not me. And in refusing to take on guilt or embarrassment that doesn't belong to me, it frees me to enjo the sport, and believe in certain riders. and if i'm wrong to, fine. I don't live and die by it - it's not a comment on me, but on the rider.

This.

I also agree.

 

[gobuck]

LBL played out like the masters races we do. It was nice to see guys crack. They may still be doing drugs but the effects are less powerful. I enjoyed that for a change!

 

[Benotti69]

What thing he said are you referring to?

"If you look back at what happened and still can't put two and two together, then you are beyond my help" - Jan Ullrich ...


I am still waiting for the Garmin/Sky fans to point to where, when and how doping got so small that clean riders are able to beat the doping?

Nothing has changed in the personal in the sport. I have no doubt Ferarri is working as much as he was before as well as all those other doping docs who never were sanctioned, banned or were caught.

New PED on the scene that cannot be tested for seems to be the likeliest explanation for so called 'clean' teams winning. Not cheating if it is not on a list or some such BS.

 

[hiero2]

Whuuuuut??? I believe the Cap'n is now veloclinic. http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/

Thanks - the last time I was on Cap'n's blow blog, he had a post up said he was quitting - tired of trying to write the semi-literate goop that he had been using or something like that.

Sorry, I've been drifting OT.

I saw a lot of comments about how much work Ryder did - but did anybody notice that Garmin had a two-pronged attack going with Ryder up the road? Good tactics. If the lead group don't respond, Ryder wins. If the lead group did respond, they've got Dan in there to see how his legs are. And, if they do respond, that response makes a selection right there. Good tactics, looked like to me.

 

[mattghg]

I am still waiting for the Garmin/Sky fans to point to where, when and how doping got so small that clean riders are able to beat the doping?

The introduction of the passport?

I don't know if that's true but it's what I've heard people say before; I would be surprised if you hadn't too.

 

[Ferminal]

Didn't help in 2008, 2009 or 2010.

(With condolences to Mr Clean).

Edit: From a GT perspective anyway, though think L-B-L results sheet is similar.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Yeah but say Moviestar or Astana for instance came out with a similar "winning races clean" headline everybody would just fall about laughing. Sky or Garmin can get away with it apart from people raising their eyebrows on certain individual riders IMO.

It's also worth noting that nobody gets too irate when a team like FDJ emphasise their anti-doping policies. If anything, the French teams get an easier ride here than the English speaking ones or anyone else.

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.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

"If you look back at what happened and still can't put two and two together, then you are beyond my help" - Jan Ullrich ...


I am still waiting for the Garmin/Sky fans to point to where, when and how doping got so small that clean riders are able to beat the doping?

Nothing has changed in the personal in the sport. I have no doubt Ferarri is working as much as he was before as well as all those other doping docs who never were sanctioned, banned or were caught.

New PED on the scene that cannot be tested for seems to be the likeliest explanation for so called 'clean' teams winning. Not cheating if it is not on a list or some such BS.

The assumption is that while past years have been competitions among best responders (not always exclusive of best talents), the effect of doping control has been to equalize the playing field. The personnel have not changed, but the extent to which they are leveraging their best response-ness against natural talent has.

Being able to win clean is different than proclaiming a clean field.

I am a clean athlete, but that doesn't mean I will loose a race to every challenger on a program.

 

[Benotti69]

And here's, in my view, the crux of the issue. The poor fan whose belief is shattered.

What comes across is the embarrassment, and the anger at the embarrassment. The feeling you were 'made a fool of' - that someone, somewhere, is laughing at your gulliblity and naivite. and by god, we'll never let that happen again; even if we have to assume the worst of every possible rider.

It's the emotional equivalent of taking the brace position.

For me, personally, I won't do that. If a rider cons me, it's not because I'm some kind of gullible chump, it's because he's a cheating b"stard. And the guilt lies on him, not me. And in refusing to take on guilt or embarrassment that doesn't belong to me, it frees me to enjo the sport, and believe in certain riders. and if i'm wrong to, fine. I don't live and die by it - it's not a comment on me, but on the rider.

(and while we are on the subject, is that not what all the fanboi nonsense is at the end of the day - group sneering at the supposed naivite of others, because we are so mature, and so knowing, and we'll never be fooled again, no sir...)

What derogatory BS, 'poor fan', 'embarrasment', 'gullible chump', got anymore abuse to post?

Some fans want to see where the sport got cleanER. Simple point to where and how doping became so small that the so called 'clean' teams are able to beat doping teams. And if the doping is that small why are they bothering. Might as well call the sport clean now.

Millar probably has a relatively good read on sky, given his connections with them. Not 100% by any means. But a damn sight more than some in here. Why he backed Contador is beyond me, though.

Millar, what a sad pathetic figure he is, playing politics and making himself a self proclaimed anti doping knight. F*cker got caught. He was facing jail unless he got down and begged forgiveness from the French law authorities.

As for Garmin lauding 'clean' cycling, how's that curious? It' their raison d'etre for pete's sake, of course they're gonna talk about it.

The 1999 TdF was called the Tour of Redemption FFS.

Garmins' raison d'etre is to win raises and entertain while promoting their sponsors. Vaughters knows that pro cycling is business. Raison d'etres change like the wind in business

Dont believe the hype.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

"I am still waiting for the Garmin/Sky fans to point to where, when and how doping got so small that clean riders are able to beat the doping?

This is getting tedious at this point. In this very thread you've had the argument outlined to you in some detail, yet instead of actually trying to poke holes in it you've simply ignored it.

See the graph posted earlier. See the correlation in suspicious blood values with first the EPO/blood bag switch (ie a switch we know from Hamilton etc did actually happen), then with the later decline in climbing times. That's your "where, when and how" and as theories go it has the merit of in no way relying on changes in personnel, merely on different factors altering the immediate interests of that personnel. There's no moral revolution involved.

I'm not necessarily wedded to the "Vaughters thesis", but its critics almost never try to engage with it head on. They either ignore it, like you, or they concentrate on irrelevant sniping about how dopers are still about. That last part is irrelevant, by the way, precisely because the argument assumes that there's still doping going on, just less of it and less effectively.

It's also worth pointing out that the argument doesn't necessarily assume a continued progression towards cleaner and cleaner cycling. If the testing regime doesn't get bigger and better, more and more exploits will be found over time and we will get a reversion to the 90s/00s mean.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Didn't help in 2008, 2009 or 2010.

Pointing out that an individual winner may have been a doper doesn't actually engage with an argument that assumes that there is still doping going on.

 

[Ferminal]

Pointing out that an individual winner was a doper doesn't actually engage with an argument that assumes that there is still doping going on.

Of course it does, it shows that a talented rider doping can still have success over other talented riders doping. Maybe since then better talent has emerged who don't need to dope to reach the same level.

Edit: What I mean to say is that no clean riders achieved anything meaningful 2008-2010 so either something happened around 2010/2011 to make people reduce their doping or new riders emerged who were clean yet able to match the dopers (or both).

 

[Benotti69]

The assumption is that while past years have been competitions among best responders (not always exclusive of best talents), the effect of doping control has been to equalize the playing field. The personnel have not changed, but the extent to which they are leveraging their best response-ness against natural talent has.

Being able to win clean is different than proclaiming a clean field.

I am a clean athlete, but that doesn't mean I will loose a race to every challenger on a program.

What doping control? blood tests are down. UCI are not interested in clean cycling. The French and German Federations appear to be the only ones who are serious in the fight against doping.

When did UCI start taking anti doping seriously? How do we know Sky dont have a USPS like deal with UCI?

Testing didn't work with a few exceptions, most notably Contador and we know UCI were trying to cover it up till a German journalist broke the story.

So what, where and how has it changed?