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

[Benotti69]

Restricted is different than regulated. Regulated microdosing is easier for a clean rider to overcome competitively than unregulated full diesel. I would say those guys have dropped off. It doesn't need to be a question of clean vs. dirty.

Even if Valverde is still on the 94 octane, he isn't the Valverde of Casissee dEpargne days, when he won everything, who was riding on diesel. Scarponi is riding into the sunset after his "win" in 2011. Horner didn't ride LBL. Rodriguez may be top shelf, but spilled it with his early attack bring DM to the line. Nibali may also not have taken that step down, but he was waiting until May to really fire.

DM beat dopers, but even you can't say that these guys are riding like they used to.

I never made the point that the peloton is on a epo no holds barred era levels. But Ashenden has shown that micro doping is undetected by the BP. That can increase a riders level by up to 10%. A clean rider has to be extremely talented to beat guys who have a 10% benefit from micro doping epo never mind anything else they are taking to assist their performances.

That epo is an old PED, over 20 years old, and has been 'upgraded', ie CERA and others, means that was is being taken now is more potent and effective.

Anti doping is still a low level IQ test.

 

[Benotti69]

Indeed Horner is a good example, isnt he so suspicious because he stands out?

Horner stands out due to his age. If he was 10 years younger he would be another Wiggins, Scarponi, Piti etc all suspicous for varying reasons.

 

[Netserk]

Are they? As in 'much faster'?
We are getting way off topic, but if you wish we can take it to an appropriate thread.
I am happy to stand corrected if you have something to back that up. (And why just 92?)

Because 1992 was used earlier in this thread.

So why are they faster today? Back then they could dope with impunity.

 

[sniper]

All controls, the collective.
In the early 90's a rider could dope with impunity.

Indeed the BP is flawed - as are many other controls, regardless they have frustrated the dopers who have to use lower doses of PEDs, or less effective methods.
Therefore that lessens the advantage a doper would get.

agreed that it has certain disadvantages.
but there is the (imo valid) opposite suggestion by Kohl and in benotti's posts that it can also give advantages, in that the BP gives you a target to dope up to a certain limit.
At least that's one suggestion and i find it not implausible.
If that's the case, it means the BP probably favors the richer teams.

 

[Benotti69]

But my overall point - to all of you - do you agree with the overall point that doping has been somewhat restricted over the years? Yes or no.

If people want to argue or discuss the specifics then we can perhaps take it to an appropriate thread.

The only thing that has made doping restrictive is the levels of EPO consumed due to testing. But that hasn't stopped riders doping just not to the HcT levels of Pantani or Riis. But that doesn't mean clean riders can get near a podium in a race, especially not a monument (or GT), IMO.

But that has not stopped teams searching for other PEDs to assist them along with microdoping.

The oh so clean Garmin were looking at Xenon as a 'legitimate' (hahahaha) PED.

 

[SundayRider]

Are they? As in 'much faster'?
We are getting way off topic, but if you wish we can take it to an appropriate thread.
I am happy to stand corrected if you have something to back that up. (And why just 92?)


Why give a site that just mentions all dopers throughout the last 10+ years?
Indeed Horner is a good example, isnt he so suspicious because he stands out?


The BP question - I dont know, but not enough.

But my overall point - to all of you - do you agree with the overall point that doping has been somewhat restricted over the years? Yes or no.

If people want to argue or discuss the specifics then we can perhaps take it to an appropriate thread.

Yes, restricted if compared to many years ago. However vast majority of the front of the peloton is doped IMO.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I never made the point that the peloton is on a epo no holds barred era levels. But Ashenden has shown that micro doping is undetected by the BP. That can increase a riders level by up to 10%. A clean rider has to be extremely talented to beat guys who have a 10% benefit from micro doping epo never mind anything else they are taking to assist their performances.

That epo is an old PED, over 20 years old, and has been 'upgraded', ie CERA and others, means that was is being taken now is more potent and effective.

Anti doping is still a low level IQ test.

Micro dosing can increase a riders level by 10%?
Is that opinion or have you a link?

Because 1992 was used earlier in this thread.

So why are they faster today? Back then they could dope with impunity.

Pre 1997 you could dope with impunity, and even in 97 it was just the 50% limit.
Who is "faster today"? Are you discussing individuals, overall numbers etc?
And yes - you can back it up please.

Yes, restricted if compared to many years ago. However vast majority of the front of the peloton is doped IMO.

I would broadly agree - but the current discussion appears around how much of an advantage they can now get over clean riders. IMO it is a lot less than they could even 10 years ago (let alone 20).

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I never made the point that the peloton is on a epo no holds barred era levels. But Ashenden has shown that micro doping is undetected by the BP. That can increase a riders level by up to 10%. A clean rider has to be extremely talented to beat guys who have a 10% benefit from micro doping epo never mind anything else they are taking to assist their performances.

That epo is an old PED, over 20 years old, and has been 'upgraded', ie CERA and others, means that was is being taken now is more potent and effective.

Anti doping is still a low level IQ test.

Everything you said is true, and I agree. But that doesn't make the fact that DM beat dopers, evidence that he himself is a doper. Thats my point, in response to a DW post last night. The sophisticated dopers weren't targetting that day (Nibali, Froome, Horner), and the experienced dopers are on their slide down.

As a reminder, this is the argument:

... but Dan Martin needed to dope to win L-B-L in 2013. And do not feel hypocritical at all. If LeMond-level talent, believably clean, won L-B-L in 2013, I could believe it, and would agree that it would be hypocritical to say it was not possible.

LeMond was an outlier in terms of talent. Dan Martin is no LeMond. Doping back then was a haphazard, sledge hammer approach. Doping now is a finessed, artistic and scientific endeavour with leaps in protocol and testing.

 

[SundayRider]

Micro dosing can increase a riders level by 10%?
Is that opinion or have you a link?


Pre 1997 you could dope with impunity, and even in 07 it was just the 50% limit.
Who is "faster today"? Are you discussing individuals, overall numbers etc?
And yes - you can back it up please.


I would broadly agree - but the current discussion appears around how much of an advantage they can now get over clean riders. IMO it is a lot less than they could even 10 years ago (let alone 20).

Only thing is we don't know what 'new stuff' is out there right now and how effective it is. Probably won't know until a relatively high level rider gets popped for this 'new stuff'.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Only thing is we don't know what 'new stuff' is out there right now and how effective it is. Probably won't know until a relatively high level rider gets popped for this 'new stuff'.

Well, what new options are there?

The most effective way to boost performance in cycling is to raise red blood cells, so is still EPO and some slight variations of that are the most effective. There has not been a fundamental change there.
As an example Xenon - that appears to have little to no advantage and the downsides are not yet known.

The only major change I have seen over the years is how lean/skinny the riders can get while not losing power or having bad days. If there is 'new' stuff, I believe thats where it is.

 

[red_flanders]

I am talking about the pro level, not junior or amateur. Would LeMond have still been the superstar he was if he had been turning pro in 1993?? Would he have been able to win the Tour for example from 93 onward.

I don't know. His best form was pre-accident. He was diminished in the early 90s-overweight and struggling.

He would have been in the conversation but I don't see how he could have beaten EPO-durian in the Tour even with his '86 form.

 

[SundayRider]

Well, what new options are there?

The most effective way to boost performance in cycling is to raise red blood cells, so is still EPO and some slight variations of that are the most effective. There has not been a fundamental change there.
As an example Xenon - that appears to have little to no advantage and the downsides are not yet known.

The only major change I have seen over the years is how lean/skinny the riders can get while not losing power or having bad days. If there is 'new' stuff, I believe thats where it is.

Yeah agreed, that would be the most likely stuff. Either it can't be tested for or has very fast clearance rates.

 

[Netserk]

Pre 1997 you could dope with impunity, and even in 97 it was just the 50% limit.
Who is "faster today"? Are you discussing individuals, overall numbers etc?
And yes - you can back it up please.

I already wrote that.

You can start answering my question. If anti-doping has progressed since 1992 (which imho is obvious), why are they not slower now? Because doping has progressed as well (imho equally obvious).

Do you agree?

 

[SundayRider]

I already wrote that.

You can start answering my question. If anti-doping has progressed since 1992 (which imho is obvious), why are they not slower now? Because doping has progressed as well (imho equally obvious).

Do you agree?

BBs still as widely used in stage races?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I already wrote that.

You can start answering my question. If anti-doping has progressed since 1992 (which imho is obvious), why are they not slower now? Because doping has progressed as well (imho equally obvious).

Do you agree?

I asked you to back up this view that (top) riders are now faster.
I am not disputing it, but until I see something specific I will not agree with that, as I simply do not know.

As for doping and anti-doping, they have both evolved and IMO
the methods are essentially the same, but now anti-doping frustrates it somewhat.

 

[Armchaircyclist]

I never made the point that the peloton is on a epo no holds barred era levels. But Ashenden has shown that micro doping is undetected by the BP. That can increase a riders level by up to 10%. A clean rider has to be extremely talented to beat guys who have a 10% benefit from micro doping epo never mind anything else they are taking to assist their performances.

That epo is an old PED, over 20 years old, and has been 'upgraded', ie CERA and others, means that was is being taken now is more potent and effective.

Anti doping is still a low level IQ test.

-----------

As to the last point, calling it a low level IQ-test might be a bit harsh. Recently caught skier Duerr was surprised that he got caught at the olympics, as he had taken twice the dosage before without getting caught. He claims to have been on epo since may last year, so basicly all the season.

There has been nothing said about his blood passport. Obviously it is not working to catch anybody when a guy doping all season is not caught by it.

 

[jens_attacks]

I am talking about the pro level, not junior or amateur. Would LeMond have still been the superstar he was if he had been turning pro in 1993?? Would he have been able to win the Tour for example from 93 onward.

yes. if he used epo of course. a lot.


he still could have won big races after 1992 if he would have made the same choices as moreno argentin or perico delgado.or roche. all of them were roughly same age

 

[Benotti69]

Everything you said is true, and I agree. But that doesn't make the fact that DM beat dopers, evidence that he himself is a doper. Thats my point, in response to a DW post last night. The sophisticated dopers weren't targetting that day (Nibali, Froome, Horner), and the experienced dopers are on their slide down.

I dont believe that any rider in the peloton has a 'meh' attitude to monuments. Armstrong did, but I doubt any rider today would not try and win a monument if possible. Gilbert managed to target a whole season of monuments(except ParRoubaix) in 2011 and had a decent TdF.

As a reminder, this is the argument:

The LeMond argument is a misnomer and not really helpful as Dan Martin is not an LeMond type of rider in talent or ability.


I dont believe Garmin are a clean team. I have no evidence that they currently are a doping team. They have a hell of a lot of doping experience. They spend a lot of money making sure their riders dont test positive. Riding at the pointy end of the sport is not possible, IMO, on bread and water. Their Doctor talked about how they looked into using Xenon. What do they use? Why would a team that is clean use anything apart from training and diet?

 

[Benotti69]

-----------

As to the last point, calling it a low level IQ-test might be a bit harsh. Recently caught skier Duerr was surprised that he got caught at the olympics, as he had taken twice the dosage before without getting caught. He claims to have been on epo since may last year, so basicly all the season.

There has been nothing said about his blood passport. Obviously it is not working to catch anybody when a guy doping all season is not caught by it.

Well those who have been caught and admitted it in the 2 wheeled sport have always pointed to their error and stupidity for getting caught not to the fact that the testing was bang on. Di Luca using it at the wrong time, he had 5 more hours of glowtime before he would've been ok, Thomas Frei aswell admitting he messed up. Look at Horner, who apparently has been target tested yet managed to win a GT at 42.

Ashenden pointed to the BP allowing micro doping. Times for GTs are getting faster. Ferrari was still working with athletes, why not cyclists? Doping is still, IMO, part of teams racing preparation, whether its use is more pervasive in training or race day it is still what teams ensure they are using to get the win.

I dont see Garmin as any different from any other pro team and hence a Garmin rider winning a monument is not achieved on bread and water.

 

[SundayRider]

Well those who have been caught and admitted it in the 2 wheeled sport have always pointed to their error and stupidity for getting caught not to the fact that the testing was bang on. Di Luca using it at the wrong time, he had 5 more hours of glowtime before he would've been ok, Thomas Frei aswell admitting he messed up. Look at Horner, who apparently has been target tested yet managed to win a GT at 42.

Ashenden pointed to the BP allowing micro doping. Times for GTs are getting faster. Ferrari was still working with athletes, why not cyclists? Doping is still, IMO, part of teams racing preparation, whether its use is more pervasive in training or race day it is still what teams ensure they are using to get the win.

I dont see Garmin as any different from any other pro team and hence a Garmin rider winning a monument is not achieved on bread and water.

If the general consensus is that the peloton is getting cleaener then for some riders there will be even more reason to dope - greater advantage to be gained and then the 'arms race' starts again. This is what I believe happened in 2012-now.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I dont believe that any rider in the peloton has a 'meh' attitude to monuments. Armstrong did, but I doubt any rider today would not try and win a monument if possible. Gilbert managed to target a whole season of monuments(except ParRoubaix) in 2011 and had a decent TdF.

But there are many monuments - you cannot target them all, even Gilbert.
I know there is a new narrative in here about peaking all season long. It is a myth.
Take a race like LBL - there are about 20 riders capable of winning that race, those riders who have targeted that block of time at end of April will be the protagonists.

The LeMond argument is a misnomer and not really helpful as Dan Martin is not an LeMond type of rider in talent or ability.


I dont believe Garmin are a clean team. I have no evidence that they currently are a doping team. They have a hell of a lot of doping experience. They spend a lot of money making sure their riders dont test positive. Riding at the pointy end of the sport is not possible, IMO, on bread and water. Their Doctor talked about how they looked into using Xenon. What do they use? Why would a team that is clean use anything apart from training and diet?

If Garmin are doping - as you believe, then I assume its EPO or BBs, why bother looking at something like Xenon? Which appears pretty ineffective.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well those who have been caught and admitted it in the 2 wheeled sport have always pointed to their error and stupidity for getting caught not to the fact that the testing was bang on. Di Luca using it at the wrong time, he had 5 more hours of glowtime before he would've been ok, Thomas Frei aswell admitting he messed up. Look at Horner, who apparently has been target tested yet managed to win a GT at 42.

Ashenden pointed to the BP allowing micro doping. Times for GTs are getting faster. Ferrari was still working with athletes, why not cyclists? Doping is still, IMO, part of teams racing preparation, whether its use is more pervasive in training or race day it is still what teams ensure they are using to get the win.

I dont see Garmin as any different from any other pro team and hence a Garmin rider winning a monument is not achieved on bread and water.

Firstly - you said earlier that micro-dosing offered an increase of 10%. Where did you get that figure from?

Nor is anyone suggesting that tests are "bang on", but that they frustrate an athlete from going all in.

As for the Austrian skiier mentioned earlier - he too though he got his glowtime right, and reduced his EPO usage to 'half doses' at Sochi because he knew he would be tested and he said:
“I’m stupid, but not that stupid,”
Turns out he was wrong.

 

[SundayRider]

But there are many monuments - you cannot target them all, even Gilbert.
I know there is a new narrative in here about peaking all season long. It is a myth.
Take a race like LBL - there are about 20 riders capable of winning that race, those riders who have targeted that block of time at end of April will be the protagonists.

If Garmin are doping - as you believe, then I assume its EPO or BBs, why bother looking at something like Xenon? Which appears pretty ineffective.

Teams that aren't doing BBs/EPO are probably still doing Testosterone, Cortisone etc.

 

[Benotti69]

But there are many monuments - you cannot target them all, even Gilbert.
I know there is a new narrative in here about peaking all season long. It is a myth.
Take a race like LBL - there are about 20 riders capable of winning that race, those riders who have targeted that block of time at end of April will be the protagonists.

It is a spring classic. Plenty of riders target it, more than 20. Plenty of riders have form at that time of year

Armstrong was never a GT rider, but managed to win a few with 'help'.......just like most of those who won LBL over the last 20 years.

If Garmin are doping - as you believe, then I assume its EPO or BBs, why bother looking at something like Xenon? Which appears pretty ineffective.

Because Xenon aint illegal doping yet.No positives for Xenon. But if Garmin aren't doping why are they looking

 

[Benotti69]

Firstly - you said earlier that micro-dosing offered an increase of 10%. Where did you get that figure from?

Ashenden

Nor is anyone suggesting that tests are "bang on", but that they frustrate an athlete from going all in.

We all agree it aint the 90s.

As for the Austrian skiier mentioned earlier - he too though he got his glowtime right, and reduced his EPO usage to 'half doses' at Sochi because he knew he would be tested and he said:
“I’m stupid, but not that stupid,”
Turns out he was wrong.

So he admits to his stupidity.