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

[ontheroad]

Read Dan Martin's piece and then try reconciling it with Floyd Landis' interview and you get 2 contrasting viewpoints. Martin reckons cycling has changed and now you can win clean but Floyd Landis claims that it is still the same game only with different players.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Read Dan Martin's piece and then try reconciling it with Floyd Landis' interview and you get 2 contrasting viewpoints. Martin reckons cycling has changed and now you can win clean but Floyd Landis claims that it is still the same game only with different players.

Indeed. The difference is that one of those is (relatively) free to speak his honest and open opinion about the situation; he doesn't have to be aware of the effect of his comments on his teammates, colleagues in other teams and future contract possibilites. The other one is not free to speak freely - he basically has to say that the sport is cleaner, not least because it kind of implicates him if he claims it is still dirty.

 

[thehog]

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.

FMK_ROL knows how the athletes think, you see. He knows above everyone else

 

[CyclingEnthusiast]

Re: Re:

Read Dan Martin's piece and then try reconciling it with Floyd Landis' interview and you get 2 contrasting viewpoints. Martin reckons cycling has changed and now you can win clean but Floyd Landis claims that it is still the same game only with different players.

Indeed. The difference is that one of those is (relatively) free to speak his honest and open opinion about the situation; he doesn't have to be aware of the effect of his comments on his teammates, colleagues in other teams and future contract possibilites. The other one is not free to speak freely - he basically has to say that the sport is cleaner, not least because it kind of implicates him if he claims it is still dirty.

Or, maybe one of them feels a sense of bitterness towards the sport for his Tour being taken away and wants people to think the sport will never change to better justify his own past.

Who knows? It doesn't really matter all the same.

At least Dan Martin straight up answered questions about doping. Has never used a TUE, he gave his haemoatocrit values, spoke about how he tried a product that there's a lot of controversy about, essentially implicated Froome, and Valverde wouldn't be too happy with what he has to say either. He spoke far more freely than many would be comfortable with in the cycling world, give him a break at the very least or props for speaking out.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Read Dan Martin's piece and then try reconciling it with Floyd Landis' interview and you get 2 contrasting viewpoints. Martin reckons cycling has changed and now you can win clean but Floyd Landis claims that it is still the same game only with different players.

One of them is speaking from within the sport, up close and personal, the other can't even be arsed watching the last few klicks of a stage. And yet who are people going to believe? The one who says what they already think.

 

[yaco]

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.

You live in a fantasy world like some in The Clinic - Kimmage drilled down as much as he could in the interview, while DM gave subtle answers which required you to read between the lines - Finally Kimmage's interviews can be ' heavy work ' because he has such a narrow focus - Kimmage is a talented wordsmith and story teller who doesn't get the best out of his craft because of his narrow focus.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Or, maybe one of them feels a sense of bitterness towards the sport for his Tour being taken away and wants people to think the sport will never change to better justify his own past.

Is funny how, for so many round here, once they get someone saying the things they agree with, they throw away their critical faculties and don't ask what's driving what's being said. (And see, I'm being really nice and kind and generous here and allowing that they might actually have critical faculties in other circumstances.)

 

[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.

You live in a fantasy world like some in The Clinic - Kimmage drilled down as much as he could in the interview, while DM gave subtle answers which required you to read between the lines - Finally Kimmage's interviews can be ' heavy work ' because he has such a narrow focus - Kimmage is a talented wordsmith and story teller who doesn't get the best out of his craft because of his narrow focus.

Right, so project your own interpretation onto it. As I said, interviews like that are worthless as evidence either way. Martin may be telling the truth, he may be implicating others, he might not know what is going on, or he may be lying. Dopers have said similar things in the past, clean riders have said similar things in the past. The whole thing is a waste of time without concrete assertions or facts - just a fluff piece.

 

[GraftPunk]

Until there's nothing to lose, or a book to shill, it will always be veiled insinuations at best.

 

[CyclingEnthusiast]

Re: Re:

Or, maybe one of them feels a sense of bitterness towards the sport for his Tour being taken away and wants people to think the sport will never change to better justify his own past.

Is funny how, for so many round here, once they get someone saying the things they agree with, they throw away their critical faculties and don't ask what's driving what's being said. (And see, I'm being really nice and kind and generous here and allowing that they might actually have critical faculties in other circumstances.)

I don't follow

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Or, maybe one of them feels a sense of bitterness towards the sport for his Tour being taken away and wants people to think the sport will never change to better justify his own past.

Is funny how, for so many round here, once they get someone saying the things they agree with, they throw away their critical faculties and don't ask what's driving what's being said. (And see, I'm being really nice and kind and generous here and allowing that they might actually have critical faculties in other circumstances.)

I don't follow

I don't think anyone follows. FMK tends to go on diversion now and then, talking to himself about how "everyone here" has lost their marbles. Let him go, he calms down after a while.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

FMK tends to go on diversion now and then, talking to himself about how "everyone here" has lost their marbles. Let him go, he calms down after a while.

Ok Hog, for you: this is the ball, this is the man. You play the ball, not the man. Got it?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

FMK tends to go on diversion now and then, talking to himself about how "everyone here" has lost their marbles. Let him go, he calms down after a while.

Ok Hog, for you: this is the ball, this is the man. You play the ball, not the man. Got it?

Still on your diversion? You'll run out of batteries.... eventually

 

[Benotti69]

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.

au contraire, i bet most of them spend the best part of their day thinking about what their competitors are taking and doing their own to try and beat them.

Just because Dan Martin is a nice guy, where does that that say non doper. He didn't read the CIRC report yet claims to know cycling is much cleaner. When a poster claims the sport is dirty as it always has been guys like Fmk come along demanding proof! Yet when has the sport ever being anything other than a cesspit of PED abuse?

So Martin says much cleaner, but offers no proof and has done no research and we are somehow to believe him. Why? He rides for a dirty team, rode for a known doper Vaughters whose team was full of known dopers and again Martin has no problems with that and we are all supposed to believe and that is cool!

I think Kimmage's article is great. Read between the lines.

No the sport is not black and white and my guess is we barely know the real truth to what is going on, let along PED abuse, races bought and sold, ASO's mafia like grip on the sport, UCI's shennagians.......

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

au contraire, i bet most of them spend the best part of their day thinking about what their competitors are taking and doing their own to try and beat them.

I know it's considered infra dig round here to ask for evidence, but do you have anything to back that up or is it just your opinion? Do you have any interviews - I'd guess with retired riders - where they speak of 24/7 thinking about what the other guy is using?

Just because Dan Martin is a nice guy, where does that that say non doper.

FWIW, I'm not sure I'd share the opinion that he's a particularly nice guy.

He didn't read the CIRC report yet claims to know cycling is much cleaner.

I read the CIRC report and, really, it wasn't all that. I have no problem with people not wasting their time reading it. The couple or three paras in it that just about justified the effort were widely reported anyway.

When a poster claims the sport is dirty as it always has been guys like Fmk come along demanding proof!

If you paid attention to what was said and not just who was saying it you might notice I never argue the sport was always clean. Do I say that the sport is currently clean? No, I do not.

Yet when has the sport ever being anything other than a cesspit of PED abuse?

I will, however, argue over wild characterisations such as a "cesspit of PED abuse."

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Not clen, I mean clean, and not a cesspool either. So, what then? Maybe cycling is a mud puddle?

I'm not really sure what you're basing that on. Is that just a hunch or do you have something to share wih us?

John Swanson

 

[Netserk]

Wasn't Armstrong pretty up to date on his competitors?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Wasn't Armstrong pretty up to date on his competitors?

Was he? I'd guess maybe Ty probly says he was pretty up to date on what he was doing, but then Ty would say that, cause he needs to put himself at the centre of things. Others?

 

[thehog]

Re:

Wasn't Armstrong pretty up to date on his competitors?

He was. Back in the day he’d carry his BlackBerry on training rides; he had set up a Google alert that each time his name was mentioned he’d get a notification and respond immediately.

He tracked all of his competitors; the USADA report details his obsession with Mayo’s program, where the now much quotable term “not normal” originated.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Wasn't Armstrong pretty up to date on his competitors?

He was. Back in the day he’d carry his BlackBerry on training rides; he had set up a Google alert that each time his name was mentioned he’d get a notification and respond immediately.

He tracked all of his competitors; the USADA report details his obsession with Mayo’s program, where the now much quotable term “not normal” originated.

What page of the USADA report is Mayo on?

 

[thehog]

Re:

Wasn't Armstrong pretty up to date on his competitors?

On his recent podcasts he talked about being up to date on competitors, Ullrich included. To add to the list...

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I will, however, argue over wild characterisations such as a "cesspit of PED abuse."

Lets hear your proofs.........

 

[GraftPunk]

It's safe to say rider's keep their ears to the ground re. competitors based on how quickly newly found PEDs flood sporting events in general. Think EPO in the late 80's, early 90's, and BALCO's THG in the aughts. It's not really up for debate that they pay attention, though you have supposed outliers like Lemond who claims to have missed the EPO boat.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

It's safe to say rider's keep their ears to the ground re. competitors based on how quickly newly found PEDs flood sporting events in general. Think EPO in the late 80's, early 90's, and BALCO's THG in the aughts. It's not really up for debate that they pay attention, though you have supposed outliers like Lemond who claims to have missed the EPO boat.

And yet even among those riders who have been open about doping, none of them actually know when EPO arrived. Odd that. Knowing about EPO in general wasn't hard: it was being reported in newspapers, it was being written about in books, it was being banned by the IOC and the UCI and other IFs. But move to more specific knowledge?

 

[thehog]

Re:

It's safe to say rider's keep their ears to the ground re. competitors based on how quickly newly found PEDs flood sporting events in general. Think EPO in the late 80's, early 90's, and BALCO's THG in the aughts. It's not really up for debate that they pay attention, though you have supposed outliers like Lemond who claims to have missed the EPO boat.

LeMond is always an outlier. Landis talked the same; saying be how the riders would openly talk about PEDs in the peloton, how many bloodbags they had left etc.