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

[cycladianpirate]

So what, LeMond could beat dopers, even EPO dopers such was his genetic superiority.

This is the sort of madness I just cannot understand.

X doped, but Y doped better and X still beat Y - what a hero X was.....

 

[roundabout]

This is the sort of madness I just cannot understand.

X doped, but Y doped better and X still beat Y - what a hero X was.....

welcome to the pmcg land of circular arguments

but even he himself doesn't know how talented Martin actually is despite his continued harping about LeMond

 

[Benotti69]

People believe that LeMond was such an incredibly superior talent that he could beat guys on EPO yet he wasn't always able to beat guys in one day classics in his own era.

So what, LeMond could beat dopers, even EPO dopers such was his genetic superiority.

Well, which is it?

Why go on and on about LeMond in a Dan Martin thread?

EPO wasn't perfected in its PED use till the mid 90s according to some.

 

[pmcg76]

welcome to the pmcg land of circular arguments

but even he himself doesn't know how talented Martin actually is despite his continued harping about LeMond

It's only circular becasue it shows up the utter hypocrisy of the arguments round here.

 

[roundabout]

Well, which is it?

Why go on and on about LeMond in a Dan Martin thread?

EPO wasn't perfected in its PED use till the mid 90s according to some.

Let me give you a brief rundown as I understood it

LeMond could beat some early EPO adopters in an early stage of a GT

Dan Martin can beat all possible dopers in a 1 day race in 2013.

Hmm, problem, LeMond is known to be extremely talented, while no reliable information is known about Martin.

How to solve this problem? Right, mention that he did not win major 1-day classics and that he was less good by 1991.

Problem solved. A rider less good than people think he is could compete against people on EPO so a rider of unknown talent can beat the dopers in 2013.

History's greatest spin doctors would approve.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is the sort of madness I just cannot understand.

X doped, but Y doped better and X still beat Y - what a hero X was.....

Who is X? And who said X doped?

welcome to the pmcg land of circular arguments

but even he himself doesn't know how talented Martin actually is despite his continued harping about LeMond

It is not Pmcg who is the one who is claiming Lemond is clean, but Martin is dirty.
I realise it is difficult to keep up - but you got that all wrong.

 

[roundabout]

It's only circular becasue it shows up the utter hypocrisy of the arguments round here.

It shows up nothing.

You have brought nothing that makes doubting Martin seem hypocritical

 

[roundabout]

Who is X? And who said X doped?

It is not Pmcg who is the one who is claiming Lemond is clean, but Martin is dirty.
I realise it is difficult to keep up - but you got that all wrong.

I am pretty sure I have got nothing wrong. But thanks for the "contribution".

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

I understand the counter-argument to be the following:
- "LeMond is known to be extremely talented" is based on his results before Massive EPO
- He lost out to the EPO generation in the end (why that happened is arguable)
- How can anyone be sure that LeMond would have had results if he came up (clean) after massive EPO?
LeMond may never have won a pro race if he'd been born 10 years later, for all we know?

 

[pmcg76]

I understand the counter-argument to be the following:
- "LeMond is known to be extremely talented" is based on his results before Massive EPO
- He lost out to the EPO generation in the end (why that happened is arguable)
- How can anyone be sure that LeMond would have had results if he came up (clean) after massive EPO?
LeMond may never have won a pro race if he'd been born 10 years later, for all we know?

Bingo, so then how can someone say LeMond is more talented than any current hypothetical clean rider if the belief is that doping is still on a level comparable to the 90s/early 00s.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I understand the counter-argument to be the following:
- "LeMond is known to be extremely talented" is based on his results before Massive EPO
- He lost out to the EPO generation in the end (why that happened is arguable)
- How can anyone be sure that LeMond would have had results if he came up (clean) after massive EPO?
LeMond may never have won a pro race if he'd been born 10 years later, for all we know?

The way I understood it:
LeMond was still beating people on EPO in 92, when there was no regulation.
Therefore as Martin won a Classic in 2013 when there are a lot more anti-doping controls that reduce PED usage somewhat, why can't he as a reasonably/very talented rider be clean?

 

[pmcg76]

It shows up nothing.

You have brought nothing that makes doubting Martin seem hypocritical

Really apart from the fact that certain people believe one athlete could beat guys on EPO but another cannot.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I understand the counter-argument to be the following:
- "LeMond is known to be extremely talented" is based on his results before Massive EPO
- He lost out to the EPO generation in the end (why that happened is arguable)
- How can anyone be sure that LeMond would have had results if he came up (clean) after massive EPO?
LeMond may never have won a pro race if he'd been born 10 years later, for all we know?

You can start with VO2max. It's not definitive, but it's definitely a start.

 

[pmcg76]

The way I understood it:
LeMond was still beating people on EPO in 92, when there was no regulation.
Therefore as Martin won a Classic in 2013 when there are a lot more anti-doping controls that reduce PED usage somewhat, why can't he as a reasonably/very talented rider be clean?

Exactly plus LeMond was past his best, 31 years of age and 9 days into a GT when guys not on EPO should be getting weaker and he did it in a TT, no tactics, no team-mates to help him to conserve energy.

Yet one is plausible, the other is not according to some.

Just to be clear, I believe both were possible on any given day. Over 3 weeks? no but in a one day context, yes.

Something ironically that LeMond agrees with.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Exactly plus LeMond was past his best, 31 years of age

31 is not past your best.

 

[blackcat]

31 is not past your best.

no., not now it aint.

but it was in the 80s when your natural hormones start to recede in your mid twenties, and hormones are so much a part of recovery

 

[More Strides than Rides]

You can start with VO2max. It's not definitive, but it's definitely a start.

By itself it is not useful. and I haven't been able to find any data on Martin anyway.

 

[SundayRider]

31 is not past your best.

Maybe it is not physically however once you have been around the block a few times it can be hard mentally to motivate yourself to train/compete at the level need to be at your 'true best'.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

By itself it is not useful. .

That's why I said it's a start. And not definitive.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Maybe it is not physically however once you have been around the block a few times it can be hard mentally to motivate yourself to train/compete at the level need to be at your 'true best'.

Professionals are different on a whole number of levels. Especially mentally. I can't accept LeMond (unless he has admitted it) losing motivation naturally at 31 when he could have won another tour or two except for the doping.

Horner's 41 remember?

 

[SundayRider]

Professionals are different on a whole number of levels. Especially mentally. I can't accept LeMond (unless he has admitted it) losing motivation naturally at 31 when he could have won another tour or two except for the doping.

Horner's 41 remember?

Everyone is different though aren't they - mentally and physically.

 

[Avoriaz]

Professionals are different on a whole number of levels. Especially mentally. I can't accept LeMond (unless he has admitted it) losing motivation naturally at 31 when he could have won another tour or two except for the doping.

Horner's 41 remember?

Bear in mind we are looking at different eras too. Riders retired a lot earlier 20-30 years ago because their racing programmes were (generally) packed from Spring through to the end of Autumn. There was less specific focus on races (e.g. Grand Tours).

Racing days today maybe less than 50 per year, but back in the 80s it would have been double that. That tires out the body, and many were probably looking forward to retiring at 31-33.

Lemond, admittedly, is a different case as toward the end of his career he did focus on specific races, and was possibly the pioneer of this

 

[Benotti69]

So people in here believe that anti doping is effective?

Yeah Piti really is clean, Horner, Froome, Wiggins all these guys are clean because the anti doping is so good that these guys dare not take anything.

That train of thought is worse than believing the peloton is 85% clean as JV claimed it was in 2005.

 

[blackcat]

So people in here believe that anti doping is effective?

Yeah Piti really is clean, Horner, Froome, Wiggins all these guys are clean because the anti doping is so good that these guys dare not take anything.

That train of thought is worse than believing the peloton is 85% clean as JV claimed it was in 2005.

but JV's Ventoux record was cos of his shoes, and he tested Nava on two random days Nava did not know and had to get on a plane within one hour and the day after his won the liege espoirs and ofcourse nava tested clean but he was allowed to wear his light shoes even on the ergo

 

[the sceptic]

Dan Martin "Now I know you can climb mur de huy faster than all the dopers of the past"

must have been a tailwind.