- Oct 10, 2015
- 3,115
- 1,652
- 16,680
Re: Re:
You are correct on point 1 and Shimano didn't release seatpost batteries until 2013, it's possible some of the pro's had them in 2012 but I'm unsure on that one.
Also correct on point 2 as SRM didn't have any DA 9000 cranks in 2011, the first team to start trialing the SRM 9000 cranks were Sky in 2012.
Mr.38% said:
You are correct on point 1 and Shimano didn't release seatpost batteries until 2013, it's possible some of the pro's had them in 2012 but I'm unsure on that one.
Also correct on point 2 as SRM didn't have any DA 9000 cranks in 2011, the first team to start trialing the SRM 9000 cranks were Sky in 2012.
- Oct 10, 2015
- 3,115
- 1,652
- 16,680
Re:
He didn't exactly lead the chasing group back to the leaders, after the bike change he fell back to the peloton and the workload was shared between Basso's Liquigas, BMC and to a lesser extent Garmin, Evans didn't hop back onto the front until the last few k's of the Galibier after Sanchez hopped of the front after they had caught and dropped Voeckler. The Evans group didn't end up bridging to the Contador/Schleck group until after they finished descending the other side of the Galibier. It wasn't that remarkable of a comeback.
Also when he spins the wheel he spins it anti-clockwise which doesn't engage the chain or derailleur so it doesn't really show us if that their isn't a problem with the derailleur or chain but does to me show that the brake pads weren't rubbing on the wheel, when he does start riding again he doesn't go anywhere to quickly.
sniper said:
He didn't exactly lead the chasing group back to the leaders, after the bike change he fell back to the peloton and the workload was shared between Basso's Liquigas, BMC and to a lesser extent Garmin, Evans didn't hop back onto the front until the last few k's of the Galibier after Sanchez hopped of the front after they had caught and dropped Voeckler. The Evans group didn't end up bridging to the Contador/Schleck group until after they finished descending the other side of the Galibier. It wasn't that remarkable of a comeback.
Also when he spins the wheel he spins it anti-clockwise which doesn't engage the chain or derailleur so it doesn't really show us if that their isn't a problem with the derailleur or chain but does to me show that the brake pads weren't rubbing on the wheel, when he does start riding again he doesn't go anywhere to quickly.
if Evans was moto-doping, he was doing a poor job of it. electric motors powering cranks are known to work better at higher cadences. Evans grinds along at his usual strength-effort pedal speed. certain others, on the other hand..
- Aug 5, 2009
- 15,733
- 8,116
- 28,180
Re: Re:
I was in two minds about it but I think there wasn't much wrong with the bike. He reckons he was okay with the pace being set by Contador but it didn't look it like it. The attack was never going to succeed and Evans showed his tactical smarts by taking his time to get back to the front and by the time they hit the Alpe Contador had already cost himself the stage win and Schleck had used up a lot of energy attacking with Contador after his long break the day before. It also showed how clueless Voeckler is when he wasted so much energy trying to catch Contador instead of sitting up and waiting for Cadel's group. That was his podium done right there as he got blown out the back quickly when they hit the Alpe. Looking back I think Evans was playing head games. He took a gamble but it came off. BMC were impressive through the entire race, Schlecks team were not except for a well coordinated attack on the first ascent of the Galibier. All Schleck had to do the next day was let Contador go but he panicked, he could have sat in Evan's group and attacked him on the Alpe and had more energy for the TT but it seemed that based on Evans TT ride he was finishing the race stronger anyway. Schleck just didn't take his chances on earlier mountain stages.
StryderHells said:
I was in two minds about it but I think there wasn't much wrong with the bike. He reckons he was okay with the pace being set by Contador but it didn't look it like it. The attack was never going to succeed and Evans showed his tactical smarts by taking his time to get back to the front and by the time they hit the Alpe Contador had already cost himself the stage win and Schleck had used up a lot of energy attacking with Contador after his long break the day before. It also showed how clueless Voeckler is when he wasted so much energy trying to catch Contador instead of sitting up and waiting for Cadel's group. That was his podium done right there as he got blown out the back quickly when they hit the Alpe. Looking back I think Evans was playing head games. He took a gamble but it came off. BMC were impressive through the entire race, Schlecks team were not except for a well coordinated attack on the first ascent of the Galibier. All Schleck had to do the next day was let Contador go but he panicked, he could have sat in Evan's group and attacked him on the Alpe and had more energy for the TT but it seemed that based on Evans TT ride he was finishing the race stronger anyway. Schleck just didn't take his chances on earlier mountain stages.
- Jun 13, 2009
- 75
- 4
- 8,685
Re: Re:
I see it similarly, but I don’t give Evans quite as much credit for tactical nous or head games. I think he tried to follow, but couldn’t, possibly because his legs were still a bit heavy from the day before and it was early in the stage, and he panicked. I remember thinking at the time that he couldn’t (or perhaps didn’t want to) believe that the problem was with him, so he started to search for something he could fix (and quickly).
As for the Ferrari connection, I don’t think Evans had any meaningful relationship with Ferrari. I think Rominger pushed him in that direction because he recognised that Evans was sufficiently talented that, with the best preparation, he could be a real money-spinner. I think Evans decided that Ferrari was a bit too high profile and/or had too many other clients to give Evans the attention he felt he deserved, so he stuck with the doping connections he built up during his MTB days (i.e. someone lower profile and maybe more dedicated to him).
movingtarget said:
I see it similarly, but I don’t give Evans quite as much credit for tactical nous or head games. I think he tried to follow, but couldn’t, possibly because his legs were still a bit heavy from the day before and it was early in the stage, and he panicked. I remember thinking at the time that he couldn’t (or perhaps didn’t want to) believe that the problem was with him, so he started to search for something he could fix (and quickly).
As for the Ferrari connection, I don’t think Evans had any meaningful relationship with Ferrari. I think Rominger pushed him in that direction because he recognised that Evans was sufficiently talented that, with the best preparation, he could be a real money-spinner. I think Evans decided that Ferrari was a bit too high profile and/or had too many other clients to give Evans the attention he felt he deserved, so he stuck with the doping connections he built up during his MTB days (i.e. someone lower profile and maybe more dedicated to him).
- Aug 5, 2009
- 15,733
- 8,116
- 28,180
Re: Re:
That's what I mean by head games. I don't think he was being completely honest. The attack caught out many riders including Frank Schleck although I have to admit that Evans looked very relaxed while he was fiddling with the bikes, there was no panic. But Contador was going off at the front of the race and even Andy Schleck had trouble holding his wheel. I think Evans knew what he was doing but did not like admitting he was in trouble. As for Ferrari and the doping, it's possible I suppose, nothing much surprises me in sport anymore. It's been shown time and time again that not testing positive doesn't mean riders are not doping. I would like to think some good riders are not doping but it's almost impossible to say who they are.
Marmot said:
That's what I mean by head games. I don't think he was being completely honest. The attack caught out many riders including Frank Schleck although I have to admit that Evans looked very relaxed while he was fiddling with the bikes, there was no panic. But Contador was going off at the front of the race and even Andy Schleck had trouble holding his wheel. I think Evans knew what he was doing but did not like admitting he was in trouble. As for Ferrari and the doping, it's possible I suppose, nothing much surprises me in sport anymore. It's been shown time and time again that not testing positive doesn't mean riders are not doping. I would like to think some good riders are not doping but it's almost impossible to say who they are.
Re: Re:
If Evans was doping I'd say it's almost as big as Lance, the way Evans has been so much on the front foot about being clean.
Lastly I'd guess he went to see Ferrari to see if it was worth his while turning pro on the road while staying clean. Ferrari would know and apparently gave him the nod. As is well acknowledged, Evans' physiology is very good and certainly superior to dopers like Lance who reportedly only had a VO2max of about 83. Evans' was 89 or so.
I just read Evans' autobiography and I don't think he doped. I know that's probably 'naive' among the 'doping is everywhere' crowd but he spends an awful lot of his book talking about how he got cheated by other dopers. That is some audacious tactic if he was doping all along. The standard tactic if you are doping is to say nothing and declare you saw nothing, or at best offer a token condemnation of someone who was caught to try and look legit.Marmot said:
If Evans was doping I'd say it's almost as big as Lance, the way Evans has been so much on the front foot about being clean.
Lastly I'd guess he went to see Ferrari to see if it was worth his while turning pro on the road while staying clean. Ferrari would know and apparently gave him the nod. As is well acknowledged, Evans' physiology is very good and certainly superior to dopers like Lance who reportedly only had a VO2max of about 83. Evans' was 89 or so.
- Aug 5, 2009
- 15,733
- 8,116
- 28,180
Re: Re:
I would like to agree but hypocrisy and sport go hand in hand. I always had the feeling that Evans wanted to say much more about some of his rivals when he was racing but he bit his tongue. He often hinted at it interviews and many of his rivals were suspended although he never really said anything negative about Sastre and his Tour win. Evans blamed his crash for that and I think it certainly contributed to his final week and his TT performance. It would be incredibly damaging for the sport not only in Europe but especially in Australia if concrete allegations were made about Evans re the worst case scenario. His team mates some of them anyway seemed to have more to say about his prickly personality and his withdrawn nature but they also praised his professionalism and talent.
So far Evans is one of the only riders since Armstrong's wins that won the Tour without any related scandal also Sastre but many people think there was a stench about the CSC team at that point and now you have the whole mess with Wiggins which does not look good at all. Little wonder that Froome seems to be distancing himself from Wiggins and Brailsford these days. As for Nibali there has always been a giant black cloud hovering over that team and it's manager but then again Nibali didn't have to beat a Contador or Froome even if his win did look ridiculously easy. Any connection to Ferrari and Ochowicz doesn't look good but the Ferrari one seemed to be hardly a connection at all while the latter one would normally be more cause for concern looking at his history. It's more a matter of how much do some people and their methods change or are they always going to be tainted by their past and simply raise too many doubts. Or they haven't changed at all.
delbified said:
I would like to agree but hypocrisy and sport go hand in hand. I always had the feeling that Evans wanted to say much more about some of his rivals when he was racing but he bit his tongue. He often hinted at it interviews and many of his rivals were suspended although he never really said anything negative about Sastre and his Tour win. Evans blamed his crash for that and I think it certainly contributed to his final week and his TT performance. It would be incredibly damaging for the sport not only in Europe but especially in Australia if concrete allegations were made about Evans re the worst case scenario. His team mates some of them anyway seemed to have more to say about his prickly personality and his withdrawn nature but they also praised his professionalism and talent.
So far Evans is one of the only riders since Armstrong's wins that won the Tour without any related scandal also Sastre but many people think there was a stench about the CSC team at that point and now you have the whole mess with Wiggins which does not look good at all. Little wonder that Froome seems to be distancing himself from Wiggins and Brailsford these days. As for Nibali there has always been a giant black cloud hovering over that team and it's manager but then again Nibali didn't have to beat a Contador or Froome even if his win did look ridiculously easy. Any connection to Ferrari and Ochowicz doesn't look good but the Ferrari one seemed to be hardly a connection at all while the latter one would normally be more cause for concern looking at his history. It's more a matter of how much do some people and their methods change or are they always going to be tainted by their past and simply raise too many doubts. Or they haven't changed at all.
Re: Re:
Evans on the other hand clearly was a prickly character and just wasn't liked by many, including particularly many of his teammates. Yet there is not a hint of cynicism expressed by any of his riding colleagues, not a word. And this is a guy who's been quite outspoken about dopers - there's been plenty of opportunities to call him out on any hypocrisy. Yet.. nothing.
It's like he's whiter than white - if he was doping, then the only people who are accusing him are the cynics in online cycling forum basements where they have dedicated forums in which they are free to goad each other into more and more extreme theories about who is and was doping. Sorry I got carried away there.
If you take Contador, the reaction to his doping among the peloton was almost rapturous. I've read mixed reviews about Contador's popularity in the peloton, but he doesn't seem to be hated, other than maybe for his doping.movingtarget said:
Evans on the other hand clearly was a prickly character and just wasn't liked by many, including particularly many of his teammates. Yet there is not a hint of cynicism expressed by any of his riding colleagues, not a word. And this is a guy who's been quite outspoken about dopers - there's been plenty of opportunities to call him out on any hypocrisy. Yet.. nothing.
It's like he's whiter than white - if he was doping, then the only people who are accusing him are the cynics in online cycling forum basements where they have dedicated forums in which they are free to goad each other into more and more extreme theories about who is and was doping. Sorry I got carried away there.
Re: Re:
So by that logic you believe he beat dopers clean or the year he won the tour everyone had stopped ?delbified said:
Re: Re:
or it could be a giant lie. who knows for sure?
beat them clean. doping isn't a magic potion, well maybe it was in the days of 60% hematocrit but those are gone, or were in 2011. I know - people will say I'm naive. maybe I am, but just assuming everyone who wins must be doping is close-minded. in 2011 the competition wasn't that high either.noddy69 said:
or it could be a giant lie. who knows for sure?
Replace *must* with *is likely to be* and add *GTs*.
That's not closed minded, but common sense based on historical patterns of Ped abuse in procycling. Some apply it consistently. Others apply it to everybody except the one cyclist they particularly like.
Interesting his biography.
Any chance of a screen shot or an excerpt of where he talks about being cheated by dopers?
That's not closed minded, but common sense based on historical patterns of Ped abuse in procycling. Some apply it consistently. Others apply it to everybody except the one cyclist they particularly like.
Interesting his biography.
Any chance of a screen shot or an excerpt of where he talks about being cheated by dopers?
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
Re: Re:
It's absolutely hilarious to still see this defense of Evans based on "how people treated him". -they thought he was prickly therefore he was clean.
But the fact that Evans rode with and for all those dopers and never had a bad word to say about them, even after he was retired and didn't "need to protect himself" (the traditional defense for why clean Anglo heroes are bffs with dopers) speaks volumes.
Remember how a year after lance got stripped Evans referred to him as a great tdf champion?
That tells you far more about his attitude to doping and dopers than these 3rd hand guesses about what some riders may have thought about him, and how this automatically must have meant they thought he was clean.
You give off the impression of being someone with only an extremely basic knowledge of what doping is and how it works.
I'd also bet reading your posts that your Faith in Evans is based far more on wanting to believe he was clean rather than on rational argument.
For even if we concede that cycling was "cleaner" in 2011, which is an iffy concept at best, it certainly wasn't in the mid to late 2000 s where every year Evans mixed it with the top guys and beat the majority of dopers. 2011 didn't turn out to be that clean either anyway. And now both hesjedal and Wiggins have been exposed as well ( ah the old argument about how Evans hesjedal and Wiggins were the new era of Anglo cleanliness). Since those days the arguments for Evans being clean have slowly been cut into and the argument for him being a doper (Ferrari, friendships, performances, attitude, truth about the era he rode in), have only gotten stronger.
Its clear the Ozzie media just tried to sell him as clean to max out on revenue from an Ozzie winning the tour. That's all any idea about Evans being clean really was.
It's absolutely hilarious to still see this defense of Evans based on "how people treated him". -they thought he was prickly therefore he was clean.
But the fact that Evans rode with and for all those dopers and never had a bad word to say about them, even after he was retired and didn't "need to protect himself" (the traditional defense for why clean Anglo heroes are bffs with dopers) speaks volumes.
Remember how a year after lance got stripped Evans referred to him as a great tdf champion?
That tells you far more about his attitude to doping and dopers than these 3rd hand guesses about what some riders may have thought about him, and how this automatically must have meant they thought he was clean.
delbified said:
You give off the impression of being someone with only an extremely basic knowledge of what doping is and how it works.
I'd also bet reading your posts that your Faith in Evans is based far more on wanting to believe he was clean rather than on rational argument.
For even if we concede that cycling was "cleaner" in 2011, which is an iffy concept at best, it certainly wasn't in the mid to late 2000 s where every year Evans mixed it with the top guys and beat the majority of dopers. 2011 didn't turn out to be that clean either anyway. And now both hesjedal and Wiggins have been exposed as well ( ah the old argument about how Evans hesjedal and Wiggins were the new era of Anglo cleanliness). Since those days the arguments for Evans being clean have slowly been cut into and the argument for him being a doper (Ferrari, friendships, performances, attitude, truth about the era he rode in), have only gotten stronger.
Its clear the Ozzie media just tried to sell him as clean to max out on revenue from an Ozzie winning the tour. That's all any idea about Evans being clean really was.
Re: Re:
in his book, Cadel does talk about Armstrong and he doesn't defend him. in fact he discusses Armstrong's 2009 Tour return and without accusing him of doping there (and risking a lawsuit) he does insinuate it, saying that Lance didn't even look like he was suffering.
Cadel definitely doesn't shy away from the topic and addresses doping and dopers. true, he doesn't tee off on them, but there are reasonable explanations for not doing that other than hiding his own doping.
he absolutely tees off on his old Lotto teammates. would you do that if they knew you were doping? and he couldn't realistically have concealed it from them. this was, after all, a major part of Lance's downfall. he had a lot of people who knew he was doping and he failed to show them respect. the Omerta isn't watertight.
why would Evans write a book and goad a whole load of people who had the power to spoil his reputation into doing that? how much would he have made from the book? he's surely already wealthy. it doesn't make any sense. but I'm sure you are very conditioned to discarding any evidence that contradicts your belief that he doped, in favour of evidence you feel shows he did.
Fair enough. But where did you get your degree in exercise science?
It is, I admit that. But there are other Aussie riders who I am or was a fan of, who I believe doped. There is more evidence against them, if not proof of some.
This stuff is all inconclusive. It doesn't prove anything. Evans won the Tour in a year when his competition was depleted and he was past his best. He snuck in - doping or not. But in his strongest years, he could not keep pace with the leaders. Even if he was close.
Of course the media are doing that. Doesn't make him more or less likely to have doped. Nothing surprises me about doping in pro cycling. I've seen the names being crossed out slowly, one by one, like you and others. But I'm saying that there is a distinct lack of evidence against Evans. to date. That may change and if it does I'll accept it. But the stuff you quote isn't convincing, not as much as stuff on a load of other riders.
no - do you have a reference or link?The Hitch said:
in his book, Cadel does talk about Armstrong and he doesn't defend him. in fact he discusses Armstrong's 2009 Tour return and without accusing him of doping there (and risking a lawsuit) he does insinuate it, saying that Lance didn't even look like he was suffering.
Cadel definitely doesn't shy away from the topic and addresses doping and dopers. true, he doesn't tee off on them, but there are reasonable explanations for not doing that other than hiding his own doping.
he absolutely tees off on his old Lotto teammates. would you do that if they knew you were doping? and he couldn't realistically have concealed it from them. this was, after all, a major part of Lance's downfall. he had a lot of people who knew he was doping and he failed to show them respect. the Omerta isn't watertight.
why would Evans write a book and goad a whole load of people who had the power to spoil his reputation into doing that? how much would he have made from the book? he's surely already wealthy. it doesn't make any sense. but I'm sure you are very conditioned to discarding any evidence that contradicts your belief that he doped, in favour of evidence you feel shows he did.
The Hitch said:
Fair enough. But where did you get your degree in exercise science?
The Hitch said:
It is, I admit that. But there are other Aussie riders who I am or was a fan of, who I believe doped. There is more evidence against them, if not proof of some.
The Hitch said:
This stuff is all inconclusive. It doesn't prove anything. Evans won the Tour in a year when his competition was depleted and he was past his best. He snuck in - doping or not. But in his strongest years, he could not keep pace with the leaders. Even if he was close.
The Hitch said:
Of course the media are doing that. Doesn't make him more or less likely to have doped. Nothing surprises me about doping in pro cycling. I've seen the names being crossed out slowly, one by one, like you and others. But I'm saying that there is a distinct lack of evidence against Evans. to date. That may change and if it does I'll accept it. But the stuff you quote isn't convincing, not as much as stuff on a load of other riders.
Re: Re:
Nonsense. There was a tonne of evidence against Lance. It just wasn't publishable in the west where libel/defamation laws were prohibitive. I was telling people Lance was doping long before he was officially caught. It was an open secret among anyone who read the material on him, such as by Michael Ashenden. there was evidence against Lance - hard evidence, before he was officially caught. doesn't exist against Evans. not yet anyway.The Hitch said:
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
Re: Re:
And its an open secret among anyone who has read the material on doping and the material on doping in cycling, that guys who finished on the podiums of the 2007 and 2008 Tour de France, and worked with the notorious Michelle Ferrari, were dopers.
Saying in 2017 that people who doubt Evans are just internet losers, is no different to saying it in 2004 for Lance, or even in 2010. At the time, it was not as clear as it is now how extensive doping was in the peloton, drug tests were still considered legitimate, witness testimony had never been used to convict anyone. So yes, the Lance fans did say exactly that -"only interent losers doubt Lance, everyone else knows he is clean".
You may think there was "more evidence against Lance". But that is just a question of eras. People who doped in the 80's did more openly than in the 90's, who doped more openly in the 2000's and so on.
The evidence to take down Lance in 2012 would have been (and to a large part was) laughed out 10 years prior. Similarly you laugh off the connections to Ferrari and his insane power outputs on some climbs, now, but if things continue as they are 10 years from now those kind of things will be considered pretty solid foundations for believing someone doped.
Ironically you yourself seem to have accepted the Ferrari bit when it came to Lance:
You also tacitly accept the 2006-2007 point because you tried the sleight of hand argument of saying Evans was clean because he won in 2011 (ignoring his monster performances in an era we now know everyone doped).
Its nice of you to admit that you have bias to Evans (which many refuse to do) but that's precisely the problem with arguments like this and its another similarity of yours to the Armstrong crowd even if you do not realize it. People defend riders cos they like them, in situations they wouldn't if they didn't. You say you "accept" other Ozzies dope, but those ozzies weren't the ones competing for the Tour de France, or winning major races. Of course your allegiance to Evans is far stronger than to O'grady or whoever.
In any case your arguments for Evans being clean are all pretty easily dispatched.
The only one you can stand on is (ironically the old Lance one) of - never tested positive so you can't prove he did.
For example Evans "going after dopers" isn't really true. He may have occasionally gone after the easy targets int he same ways that all dopers attack the easy targets. Like Ricco or DI Luca. Half the people who tested positive have taken a swipe at Ricco. EVeryone writes in their autobiographies "I hate dopers and particularly _insert least popular Italian/Spanish/Russian doper at the time_. I always knew he doped and in fact he hated me proving that dopers hate me. I always supported clean cycling".
THat doesn't mean anything, to hit people when they are down. What means something is going after people who are actually close to you. Evans rode for Rhis. He rode with GIlbert the year GIlbert won everything (or do you think he was clean for that?)
You say for example
Err isn't that far more an argument for him doping? He won the Tour when he was past his best? How is a clean rider able to do that. And the Tour wasn't depleted. Andy Schleck who was 2nd the previous 2 years came 2nd again, putting in a very similar performance. Samuel Sanchez who was 4th the previous year also put in a similar performance. After 3 straight very competitive mountain stages, Evans rode the time trial in the same time as the top TT guy - Tony Martin, who had spent the race resting for the tt.
I'd find the article where Evans referred to Lance as a champion a few months after his ban, a lot easier if CN forum hadn't idiotically banned "Armstrong" and "Lance" as a search term, which makes finding it difficult. Maybe a fellow forumite can help me out with finding it.
But I will make more of an effort to find it, when you show me these excerpts of Cadel "going off" on all his Lotto teammates"
Which you present as some sort of grand evidence that he was clean. Really? A few words in a book. That really doesn't override the fact that he worked with Ferrari.
And it doesn't override the fact that in 2008 he beat Kohl and that in 2007 he finished 20 seconds behind Contador (is Evans so so so much more talented than Contador that a doped to the gils Contador can only put in a handful of seconds over him?) and cloberred the likes of Levi, Valverde, Popovych, Kirchen, stage after stage after stage.
delbified said:
And its an open secret among anyone who has read the material on doping and the material on doping in cycling, that guys who finished on the podiums of the 2007 and 2008 Tour de France, and worked with the notorious Michelle Ferrari, were dopers.
Saying in 2017 that people who doubt Evans are just internet losers, is no different to saying it in 2004 for Lance, or even in 2010. At the time, it was not as clear as it is now how extensive doping was in the peloton, drug tests were still considered legitimate, witness testimony had never been used to convict anyone. So yes, the Lance fans did say exactly that -"only interent losers doubt Lance, everyone else knows he is clean".
You may think there was "more evidence against Lance". But that is just a question of eras. People who doped in the 80's did more openly than in the 90's, who doped more openly in the 2000's and so on.
The evidence to take down Lance in 2012 would have been (and to a large part was) laughed out 10 years prior. Similarly you laugh off the connections to Ferrari and his insane power outputs on some climbs, now, but if things continue as they are 10 years from now those kind of things will be considered pretty solid foundations for believing someone doped.
Ironically you yourself seem to have accepted the Ferrari bit when it came to Lance:
delbified said:
You also tacitly accept the 2006-2007 point because you tried the sleight of hand argument of saying Evans was clean because he won in 2011 (ignoring his monster performances in an era we now know everyone doped).
Its nice of you to admit that you have bias to Evans (which many refuse to do) but that's precisely the problem with arguments like this and its another similarity of yours to the Armstrong crowd even if you do not realize it. People defend riders cos they like them, in situations they wouldn't if they didn't. You say you "accept" other Ozzies dope, but those ozzies weren't the ones competing for the Tour de France, or winning major races. Of course your allegiance to Evans is far stronger than to O'grady or whoever.
In any case your arguments for Evans being clean are all pretty easily dispatched.
The only one you can stand on is (ironically the old Lance one) of - never tested positive so you can't prove he did.
For example Evans "going after dopers" isn't really true. He may have occasionally gone after the easy targets int he same ways that all dopers attack the easy targets. Like Ricco or DI Luca. Half the people who tested positive have taken a swipe at Ricco. EVeryone writes in their autobiographies "I hate dopers and particularly _insert least popular Italian/Spanish/Russian doper at the time_. I always knew he doped and in fact he hated me proving that dopers hate me. I always supported clean cycling".
THat doesn't mean anything, to hit people when they are down. What means something is going after people who are actually close to you. Evans rode for Rhis. He rode with GIlbert the year GIlbert won everything (or do you think he was clean for that?)
You say for example
Err isn't that far more an argument for him doping? He won the Tour when he was past his best? How is a clean rider able to do that. And the Tour wasn't depleted. Andy Schleck who was 2nd the previous 2 years came 2nd again, putting in a very similar performance. Samuel Sanchez who was 4th the previous year also put in a similar performance. After 3 straight very competitive mountain stages, Evans rode the time trial in the same time as the top TT guy - Tony Martin, who had spent the race resting for the tt.
I'd find the article where Evans referred to Lance as a champion a few months after his ban, a lot easier if CN forum hadn't idiotically banned "Armstrong" and "Lance" as a search term, which makes finding it difficult. Maybe a fellow forumite can help me out with finding it.
But I will make more of an effort to find it, when you show me these excerpts of Cadel "going off" on all his Lotto teammates"
Which you present as some sort of grand evidence that he was clean. Really? A few words in a book. That really doesn't override the fact that he worked with Ferrari.
And it doesn't override the fact that in 2008 he beat Kohl and that in 2007 he finished 20 seconds behind Contador (is Evans so so so much more talented than Contador that a doped to the gils Contador can only put in a handful of seconds over him?) and cloberred the likes of Levi, Valverde, Popovych, Kirchen, stage after stage after stage.
- Jan 27, 2010
- 921
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
Couldn't agree with you more Hitch.
I bet dlbified thinks that Froome's opposition to doping makes him clean too? Really?
I feel that 'delbified' is lost. He reads a biased autobio by Evans (what do you think he'd say...guys, I never tested positive and eluded all doping scandals-how the fk did I do that anyway?), refers to some loosely connected theories and then states "Oh, please people get off your basement computers and give him a break. Evans is clean despite being in the GC mix with tens of dopers during some pretty rancid doping days. Yup, I'm 'delbified' and Evans is certainly clean".
No chance delbified is Australian ? That would sad. Oh, he is acutally. Biased.
The Hitch said:
Couldn't agree with you more Hitch.
I bet dlbified thinks that Froome's opposition to doping makes him clean too? Really?
I feel that 'delbified' is lost. He reads a biased autobio by Evans (what do you think he'd say...guys, I never tested positive and eluded all doping scandals-how the fk did I do that anyway?), refers to some loosely connected theories and then states "Oh, please people get off your basement computers and give him a break. Evans is clean despite being in the GC mix with tens of dopers during some pretty rancid doping days. Yup, I'm 'delbified' and Evans is certainly clean".
No chance delbified is Australian ? That would sad. Oh, he is acutally. Biased.
- Jun 7, 2010
- 19,196
- 3,092
- 28,180
Wait, aren't you the same poster that spent years trying to advance an argument that Ullrich was cleaner than his competition?
- Jan 27, 2010
- 921
- 0
- 0
roundabout said:
No.
I'm the same poster that was arguing that a clean Ullrich would crush Armstrong, as genetically Ullrich has inherent traits that Lanceypants could never match. I also said that in 2000 and 2001 TdFs he was trying to race clean and was in the best shape of his life and could not match the poison in the now bankrupt LA.
Re-read the posts before derailing this thread. And no, I'm not German...
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
Re:
Really?
Contador?
In 2007?
Is this some sort of a prank?
2007: 44:08 Alberto Contador 21.62 km/h
1998: 43:20 Marco Pantani 21.88 km/h (on a course shorter by 100m)
1998: 44:26 Jan Ullrich 21.34 km/h (on a course shorter by 100m)
2004: 45:31 Lance Armstrong 20.96 km/h
2004: 45:31 Ivan Basso 20.96 km/h
2002: 45:55 Lance Armstrong 20.78 km/h
kingjr said:
Really?
Contador?
In 2007?
Is this some sort of a prank?
2007: 44:08 Alberto Contador 21.62 km/h
1998: 43:20 Marco Pantani 21.88 km/h (on a course shorter by 100m)
1998: 44:26 Jan Ullrich 21.34 km/h (on a course shorter by 100m)
2004: 45:31 Lance Armstrong 20.96 km/h
2004: 45:31 Ivan Basso 20.96 km/h
2002: 45:55 Lance Armstrong 20.78 km/h
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 855
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 171
-
Tre Valli Varesine 2025, one day race, October 7- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 169
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram