- Mar 29, 2011
Does cycling change for better? I mean clean racing surely.
slightly better but there are PROBABLY no clean winners of the big racesDazed and Confused said:Slightly better, but there are no clean winners of the big races at this point.
Clean winners and father Christmas.ebandit said:slightly better but there are PROBABLY no clean winners of the big races
at this point
but that's the issue....................as much as one can hope..........reality
can get in the way of the dream
so much is unknown............however we have 3 gt winners held up as being clean.......cadel ryder 'n brad............surely 1 was clean?
even if dirty deeds are still being done
No more options? You had 10 possibilities to add on.airstream said:Does cycling change for better? I mean clean racing surely.
Other people simply shared a GT pie instead of Bruyneel. Faces change, system works. In my view, the main problem is the best riders (30-40 best guys) and their directors are strongly for doping, because doping entails sense of one's superiority and no one can predict what relation of forces we could see in a completely clean peloton. Nowadays cycling superstars realize a better doping products is a significant part of their success. That's like a hierarchical pyramid. It is extremely tough to get on top being just a good rider just because one has worse PEDs in comparison to starry riders. Naturally, someone is doomed to break this wall and get on top, but this guy will always appreciate his advantages, including doping one. Frankly speaking, I rather feel omerta sodality united even more than it was 5-10 years ago. Yeah, oldies will confess, but our generation (Contador, Schleck, Gesink, Nibali...) will say 'thank god, we didn't race in tha era. We got lucky to be mediums of clean cycling' to the bitter end.hrotha said:Biological passport, cycling under much closer scrutiny, general awareness of W/kg figures, UCI under a lot of pressure, no Lance, no Bruyneel.
Getting better now? The times are getting better on the track thats for sure.hrotha said:
I think it's a lot better now only because we're in a window where dope testing technology has narrowed the gap a little, where EPO only enables "marginal gains," not utter dominance.hrotha said: