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

[pmcg76]

you should know it as well as anyone, that's how forums/debate works. The vast majority of calm moderate views in the middle are drowned out by the vehemence of extremes on either side. you can wine about it all you want, it ain't gonna change a thing. each of us chooses to HTFU or go away.



No, you can't and neither can I (make requests). None of us are any better than the others. This "teaming" which leads to group bias is especially disruptive lately. You're welcome to continue your bromance via PM tho.

Back on topic. LBL is a seriously long and difficult race. It's also a one day event which makes it easy to slip through the antidoping noose. I'll spare the lecture on glow times, etc. I respect Vayer but I have serious doubts about winning LBL clean.

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment from Race Radio, I can more than handle myself as well. He is right about one thing though, I don't post here as frequently as I once did because there are just far too many posters of the type you describe, extremists that shout the loudest. I don't understand people who cling to a fixed position and are unwilling to move from that position regardless of what information is provided to them. People who dismiss stuff just because it doesn't fit their agenda.

Vayer is the perfect example, he is held up to the high heavens for calling out SKY but then is more or less dismissed because he says that things have changed and that clean riders are winning. What has Vayer got to gain by rider X is clean whilst at the same time saying Froome is dirty?

The same people who now dismiss what Vayer is saying were salivating at the mouth with excitement when Di Luca said 90% of the Giro field were doping. That was accepted by some as almost gospel even though Di Luca himself said doping had become a private matter and clearly has credibility issues.

I don't think Vayer has any credibility issues or Kimmage for that matter but certain posters will believe Di Luca over these guys because it fits their agenda.

I don't believe a good clean rider winning a one day race in the modern era is any less believable than LeMond winning the Tour de France against doped riders, yet there are posters who would defend LeMond to the grave but dismiss a one day success as impossible without doping. Ironically even LeMond himself once said that he still thought it possible for a clean rider to win a classic in the 90s EPO era.

I don't think people realise this but if you look at most PT teams, I would guess on average 50% of their rosters have turned pro in the last 5-6 years. Even DiLuca has admitted doping is now a private thing so I would imagine the young riders are not pressured by their peers or management to dope the way they once did. Anyone who has read Rough Ride would understand how open doping was in a team previously but that seem's to be all gone. If Kimmage had not felt the pressure to be one of the boys, would he have been as likely to have doped, I don't think so.

If riders believe things have gotten better, then they are less likely to feel the need to dope to keep up. After all a lot of doping is about psychology and again this is something Kimmage admitted in Rough Ride. It is hard to know where things are currently but based on a lot of things, it does seem to be a lot better. The only person to go against that tide has been Di Luca.

I have never believed there is just one side to this debate but unfortunately in the clinic, the minute you try to bring balance, you are usually subjected to the name-calling and sneering etc. There are plenty of people here who it is possible to have interesting and infromative discussion with, but sadly as you say most of them are drowned out by the idiots.

 

[Benotti69]

I don't think people realise this but if you look at most PT teams, I would guess on average 50% of their rosters have turned pro in the last 5-6 years. Even DiLuca has admitted doping is now a private thing so I would imagine the young riders are not pressured by their peers or management to dope the way they once did. Anyone who has read Rough Ride would understand how open doping was in a team previously but that seem's to be all gone. If Kimmage had not felt the pressure to be one of the boys, would he have been as likely to have doped, I don't think so.

Kimmage wouldn't have been able to stay in the sport because he wasn't doping. He talked about his final year as a pro and how really got his head and training together but still couldn't ride against the dopers.

When we see lots of riders voicing anti-doping comments and calling on UCI to do more testing and shouting down the dopers, I will then begin to think that the sport has turned a corner, but until then it is business as usual, sadly.

Watch O'Grady get a job in the sport, look at Jens, Horner, Contador, Piti, Sanchez, Scarponi, Kreuziger and on and on and on all still riding in the sport and all have a doping history(whether positive or not) and we are expected to believe clean riders can beat these type of guys in a monument.

Sorry.

To compare LeMond with the micro doping epo (and new drugs) era is apples and oranges. There has been along time to call out LeMond by someone with credibilty. The guy has put himself up there to be shot down but it hasn't happened. So that is what gives LeMond his credibilty.

 

[pmcg76]

Kimmage wouldn't have been able to stay in the sport because he wasn't doping. He talked about his final year as a pro and how really got his head and training together but still couldn't ride against the dopers.

When we see lots of riders voicing anti-doping comments and calling on UCI to do more testing and shouting down the dopers, I will then begin to think that the sport has turned a corner, but until then it is business as usual, sadly.

Watch O'Grady get a job in the sport, look at Jens, Horner, Contador, Piti, Sanchez, Scarponi, Kreuziger and on and on and on all still riding in the sport and all have a doping history(whether positive or not) and we are expected to believe clean riders can beat these type of guys in a monument.

Sorry.

To compare LeMond with the micro doping epo (and new drugs) era is apples and oranges. There has been along time to call out LeMond by someone with credibilty. The guy has put himself up there to be shot down but it hasn't happened. So that is what gives LeMond his credibilty.

Except Martin didn't beat all those guys to win a classic, you are also making the assumption that they are all doping currently. You also have no idea how much of an advantage current doping practices give over clean riders. Vayer stated clearly that the gap is not far apart but you don't want to hear that because it goes against your agenda.

Do you have any idea how stupid your argument is??

Kimmage couldn't stay in the sport becasue he wasn't doping but LeMond was winning the Tour clean at the exact same time.

Kimmage didn't stay in the sport because he didn't want to be average, he state that clearly in Rough Ride, he could have easily stuck with Roche and eked another 3-4 years out of his career but he chose not to becasue he couldn't handle being average, especially when he had a very good avenue to follow up in journalism. Doping played a role but really it was because Kimmage couldn't handle being just an average rider.

If you want me to get the quotes from Rough Ride I will put them straight up here.

 

[sniper]

Vayer stated clearly that the gap is not far apart but you don't want to hear that because it goes against your agenda.

the only thing with substance and empirical value in that interview was the point where vayer said that people from within the peloton tell him that certain guys are still going full gas.

 

[lean mean &green]

Exactly. No one, for instance, listens to Libertine.


I have no idea what you are even on about here.

here's help. posters are labled and lumped together. pro or anti Sky for instance, or the "everyone dopes" crowd. at that point we stop seeing that each poster's position is nuanced.

 

[pmcg76]

the only thing with substance and empirical value in that interview was the point where vayer said that people from within the peloton tell him that certain guys are still going full gas.

Because that is the only thing you want to see. Nobody denies there are still guys who are going full gas. But that still doesn'tchange his overall point that clean riders can win and are winning and that things have improved.

Did you see my post comparing doping to amateur racing? Can you comprehend that, what the differences and possibilities are?

 

[pmcg76]

here's help. posters are labled and lumped together. pro or anti Sky for instance, or the "everyone dopes" crowed. at that point we stop seeing that each poster's position is nuanced.

Sorry but there is nothing nuanced about taking a position and refusing to even entertain other possibilities or ignore valid evidence.

 

[sniper]

Because that is the only thing you want to see.

it's the only thing he mentioned having a source for.

But that still doesn'tchange his overall point that clean riders can win and are winning and that things have improved.

what sources did he have to back that up? He didn't give any insights as to why this would be the case. Cycling might be clean as crystal these days, but i won't believe it until somebody comes up with some legitimate, verifiable arguments. Just stating that it's clean aint good enough.

Did you see my post comparing doping to amateur racing? Can you comprehend that, what the differences and possibilities are?

not yet, will look it up.

 

[Race Radio]

nuanced.

Yup, nuance.....like "HTFU or go away"

It sounds like we agree, it is very difficult to have a nuanced discussion here.

 

[sniper]

it is very difficult to have a nuanced discussion here.

apparently it is very difficult for cycling to ostracize ex-dopers (except Lance, Landis, Jaksche and some other suckers) and apparently amazingly complicated also to provide a minimum of transparency.

For real, do you have any plausible explanation why Sky didn't provide Froome's pre-2011 data?
Let's not kid ourselves here.

 

[pmcg76]

it's the only thing he mentioned having a source for.

what sources did he have to back that up? He didn't give any insights as to why this would be the case. Cycling might be clean as crystal these days, but i won't believe it until somebody comes up with some legitimate, verifiable arguments. Just stating that it's clean aint good enough.

not yet, will look it up.

Claiming everyone is dirty without evidence is no different either.

I think you have reading difficulties or something. Read the article again please.

 

[the sceptic]

Yup, nuance.....like "HTFU or go away"

It sounds like we agree, it is very difficult to have a nuanced discussion here.

as evident by the harassing of those that dont think Armstrong is the master of all evil.

 

[red_flanders]

here's help. posters are labled and lumped together. pro or anti Sky for instance, or the "everyone dopes" crowed. at that point we stop seeing that each poster's position is nuanced.

Well said. Too much of that, even from the "reasonable" folks on the board. Broad characterizations that don't ring true. Some of it feels like complaining that others don't see one's particular point of view. Not helpful.

 

[pmcg76]

apparently it is very difficult for cycling to ostracize ex-dopers (except Lance, Landis, Jaksche and some other suckers) and apparently amazingly complicated also to provide a minimum of transparency.

For real, do you have any plausible explanation why Sky didn't provide Froome's pre-2011 data?
I have one very plausible explanation.

You just don't get it, do you. Vayer is talking about the sport as a whole yet every single time, the default repsonse is SKY or Contador or the same handful of guys.

You already posted about people telling Vayer some guys are still going full gas. Take a wild guess who they might be, Vayer knows this, thus the lack of faith in SKY. That still does not change his overall point that the sport is cleaner and clean guys can win. This is really not difficult to comprehend.

 

[sniper]

Claiming everyone is dirty without evidence is no different either.

sigh.
1. nobody's claiming this
2. there's plenty of evidence of cycling remaining a ped-sport:
-(ex)dopers staying in the game as DS
-(ex)dopers winning GTs, monuments.
-(ex)dopers lying us in the face (Zabel, ogrady, etc.)
-recent history of the sport (of which I thought you knew a thing or two)
etc.

where's your evidence?
ah, vayer's statements. yep, empirically sound!

 

[Hugh Januss]

A large portion of this should be moved to the sidebar thread. This just serves point out the mess this place has become. It is almost impossible to discuss any topic with nuance, and Vayer has done. If you bring up the wind direction you are labeled a Skybot and hounded with nonsense. If you do not think Sky is USPS #2 you are an idiot.

Yes but that crowd serves to counterbalance the whole never tested + and they have a zero tolerance policy and they are Brits so they must be clean crowd.

 

[Race Radio]

as evident by the harassing of those that dont think Armstrong is the master of all evil.

True, I never understood when people would push that. Certainly a bad guy who did some stupid things but hardly the cause of all the sports issues. Either is JV, or Brailsford,......but this is the wrong thread for that discussion

 

[sniper]

You just don't get it, do you. Vayer is talking about the sport as a whole yet every single time, the default repsonse is SKY or Contador or the same handful of guys.

You already posted about people telling Vayer some guys are still going full gas. Take a wild guess who they might be, Vayer knows this, thus the lack of faith in SKY. That still does not change his overall point that the sport is cleaner and clean guys can win. This is really not difficult to comprehend.

fair. it might be cleaner over all, i don't deny that, never have (iirc ).
if it's cleaner, though, my guess is the dopers will still come on top and win the gts and monuments.

so let's return to the issue: whether dan martin is clean and whether or not there is any tangible evidence for that, or whether vayer is just taking a relatively safe guess (safe, in the sense that kimmage already gave martin his blessing).

 

[pmcg76]

sigh.
1. nobody's claiming this
2. there's plenty of evidence of cycling remaining a ped-sport:
-(ex)dopers staying in the game as DS
-(ex)dopers winning GTs, monuments.
-(ex)dopers lying us in the face (Zabel, ogrady, etc.)
-recent history of the sport (of which I thought you knew a thing or two)
etc.

where's your evidence?
ah, vayer's statements. yep, empirically sound!

What monument winner/GT winners, list them please. You do understand that GT winners/monument winners still represent a tiny portion of the peloton which by now I am tired pointing out to you. That still doesn't change Vayer's point.

I could put forward the stuff that has been put forward already, that graph way back in this thread that shows the huge drop in dodgy blood profiles. The average decrease in climing times and power outputs. Please do not put forward Froome as a counterpoint, he is not the average. The ban on needles etc.

 

[pmcg76]

fair. it might be cleaner over all, i don't deny that, never have (iirc ).
if it's cleaner, though, my guess is the dopers will still come on top and win the gts and monuments.

so let's return to the issue: whether dan martin is clean and whether or not there is any tangible evidence for that, or whether vayer is just taking a relatively safe guess (safe, in the sense that kimmage already gave martin his blessing).

Where do you get this idea that Vayer's opinion is based on what Kimmage said. Read the article again please.

 

[Benotti69]

Except Martin didn't beat all those guys to win a classic,

1 Daniel Martin (Irl) Garmin-Sharp 6:38:07
2 Joaquim Rodriguez Oliver (Spa) Katusha 0:00:03
3 Alejandro Valverde Belmonte (Spa) Movistar Team 0:00:09
5 Michele Scarponi (Ita) Lampre-Merida
7 Philippe Gilbert (Bel) BMC Racing Team
8 Ryder Hesjedal (Can) Garmin-Sharp
23 Vincenzo Nibali (Ita) Astana Pro Team
36 Christopher Froome (GBr) Sky Procycling 0:01:14
57 Alberto Contador Velasco (Spa) Team Saxo-Tinkoff
125 Roman Kreuziger (Cze) Team Saxo-Tinkoff 0:09:54


Some big name dopers there that Dan Martin beat.

 

[red_flanders]

TBH I think it is more relevant to look at the bigger picture he paint's rather than focus on just Dan Martin. It would seem as though things are a lot better according to Vayer and that has been the general message over the last few years.

...

No disagreement. I also think if you're going to say "hey, this one guy is clean" it would be good to show the evidence like he does when he says he thinks someone is doping. Just my personal curiosity.

I do think in general things have gotten better. I also think it's a fragile truce and when one or a couple teams are pounding everyone, eventually there's going to be a reaction and send us backwards.

Cleaner is a thin-ice proposition given the culture and the history. More than anything young riders need to feel sure that things have in fact changed. Illustrating that with evidence would help.

When I see the horse manure a young guy like Talansky (presumably from the generation that should think they can do it clean) spouts all too often, it becomes clear that there is a loooong way to go before we are having real conversations around the topic in the sport. He's got a lot to learn. The problem is that he doesn't seem atypical in any way.

 

[pmcg76]

1 Daniel Martin (Irl) Garmin-Sharp 6:38:07
2 Joaquim Rodriguez Oliver (Spa) Katusha 0:00:03
3 Alejandro Valverde Belmonte (Spa) Movistar Team 0:00:09
5 Michele Scarponi (Ita) Lampre-Merida
7 Philippe Gilbert (Bel) BMC Racing Team
8 Ryder Hesjedal (Can) Garmin-Sharp
23 Vincenzo Nibali (Ita) Astana Pro Team
36 Christopher Froome (GBr) Sky Procycling 0:01:14
57 Alberto Contador Velasco (Spa) Team Saxo-Tinkoff
125 Roman Kreuziger (Cze) Team Saxo-Tinkoff 0:09:54


Some big name dopers there that Dan Martin beat.

Well if you think some of those guys were in top form for L-B-L then that shows how clueless you are. Hesjedal was riding for Martin so that leaves Valverde and Scarponi. So Martin beating two dopers in a race is conclsuive proof, wow amazing stuff.

Must be like LeMond in 89

1.LeMond
2.Fignon
3.Delgado
4.Theunisse
7.Alcala
8.Rooks
9.Kelly
10.Millar
11.Bugno

or how about LeMond in 1990
1.LeMond
2.Chiappucci
3.Breukink
4.Delgado
7.Bugno
8.Alcala
10.Indurain

Just becasue someone is doped does also not make them infallible on a given day. Even jacked up Armstrong had bad days at the Tour, Landis had his bad day, there were very few doped riders who didn't have bad days. The thing is in a three week Tour, it is possible to get away with it. In a one day race, not so much; With the benefits of doping limited, it is far more plausible for a clean guys to beat a doped rider in a one day race. In a GT, not so much, thus why Martin struggled when he came up against these guys in the Tour.

 

[pmcg76]

No disagreement. I also think if you're going to say "hey, this one guy is clean" it would be good to show the evidence like he does when he says he thinks someone is doping. Just my personal curiosity.

I do think in general things have gotten better. I also think it's a fragile truce and when one or a couple teams are pounding everyone, eventually there's going to be a reaction and send us backwards.

Cleaner is a thin-ice proposition given the culture and the history. More than anything young riders need to feel sure that things have in fact changed. Illustrating that with evidence would help.

When I see the horse manure a young guy like Talansky (presumably from the generation that should think they can do it clean) spouts all too often, it becomes clear that there is a loooong way to go before we are having real conversations around the topic in the sport. He's got a lot to learn. The problem is that he doesn't seem atypical in any way.

Vayer said he is in close contact with several riders and team director's and he clearly believes in several riders. I don't know why he singled Martin out but I would assume that it might be because Martin is the 'biggest' winner he believes in. Saying things are better and picking out some guy winning mid-ranking races doesn't have the same message.

I get the concept of the arms race but I think that depends on the convictions of the teams and their staff. For example I believe Fdjeux went straight after Festina and have remained that way since, even though they spent a decade losing out to heavily doped riders. Their fortunes have improved over the last few seasons which is another positive sign but I think Madiot has kept things in check and he was a doper too of course. If more teams followed suit, it would be great.

I like the look of Giant-Shimano, they have very little staff with doping links, only Rudi Kemna and he admitted on his own accord I think. I like that team and they have had a good start to the season.

 

[red_flanders]

Vayer said he is in close contact with several riders and team director's and he clearly believes in several riders. I don't know why he singled Martin out but I would assume that it might be because Martin is the 'biggest' winner he believes in. Saying things are better and picking out some guy winning mid-ranking races doesn't have the same message.

Yep, I tend to take what he's saying at face value, and makes sense that he points out Martin. Would just like to hear more about why he thinks that all the same.