Evans and his meeting with Ferrari?

[Benotti69]

You do realize that such an intelligent well reasoned post like that has no place in the Clinic?

You wont find too much intelligence in the sport never mind the clinic!

 

[86TDFWinner]

First, LeMond rules are broken when you consult with the most notorious doping doc that ever walked the planet.

True, but wasn't it one meeting? and we don't know what happened during that meeting. Cadel didn't "suddenly" become Merckx-esque after that meeting did he?

As LeMond pointed out with Lance, there is *no* rational explanation to see Ferrari other than for charging purposes. Thus, there is no greater fail on the LeMond rules.

True, but there's never really been a huge cloud of controversy over Cadel, as opposed to Wonderboy. There's also no *rational* that for some reason, it seems lately that LeMond himself has been supporting, or favoring guys who've had a doping past.

Second, LeMond rules are broken when you win the Tour against known dopers. LeMond couldn't do that with an mVO2 of 92. What is Cadel's MVO2? Cadel placed ahead of Schlecks, Cunego, and Sammy "Armstrong is innocent" Sanchez, etc. Cadel even placed ahead of Frank "the doper" Scheck in the polka dot competition.

But didn't LeMond ALSO win the tour against "known dopers"?(i;e: Roche/Delgado/Miggy/Millar/etc)? I don't know what Cadel's MVO2 is no, I don't know that sorry.

Third, LeMond rules are broken when you repeatedly exhibit roid rage.

LOL, but that doesn't mean that he "for sure"doped does it? As i've stated before: I don't know either way, and by saying I was "invoking the LeMond rule" here, I was simply saying that folks have speculated for years about Greg supposedly doping, and nothing has come out on it, nada, zilch.

So if cadel did infact dope, where is the proof, where is the info? without that, it's simply speculation, right? Look what happened when i questioned Boardman here, I believed he doped, and caught a bunch of crap for it. Kinda the same thing with me and others here, if he(cadel) doped, then just post what you know.

No disrespect to you D, but we can speculate one way or another for the next 10 yrs, but without the smoking gun, it's just that, speculation.

 

[DirtyWorks]

So if cadel did infact dope, where is the proof, where is the info? without that, it's simply speculation, right? Look what happened when i questioned Boardman here, I believed he doped, and caught a bunch of crap for it. Kinda the same thing with me and others here, if he(cadel) doped, then just post what you know.

No disrespect to you D, but we can speculate one way or another for the next 10 yrs, but without the smoking gun, it's just that, speculation.

Except we know the UCI does not process positives. Maybe Cadel is favored by the UCI?

Another way to say it is because of the UCI's terrible record of assaulting the integrity of the game on an annual basis, there's no way to know with any confidence if Cadel was clean or not.

IMO, we'll have to wait for a statute of limitations to expire for more information.

 

[D-Queued]

...

No disrespect to you D, but we can speculate one way or another for the next 10 yrs, but without the smoking gun, it's just that, speculation.

Probably, and unfortunately, true.

However, is it possible to agree that he isn't a LeMond?

Dave.

 

[The Hitch]

Rolling your eyes does not make you right Hitch. Just maybe when your whole living is from professional cycling you don't pee in the pool you are swimming in? How would Evans benefit from spilling the beans on his fellow competitors?
.

I think we all agree that if Evans was clean then he was robbed of over 10 TDFs and maybe 20 gts in total as well as multiple world titles. I mean in an era when the drugs available were so powerful that 2 riders matched 1998 Pantani on Plateau de Beile, and riders were cutting their pre dope mountain times by as much as a quarter, he with NO assistance was beating 99% of dopers. He was beating the most talented dopers.

Its not just EPO. He couldn't use testostrone. They could. He couldn't use sterodis. They could. He couldn't use cortisone. They could. He couldn't transfuse blood. They could. He coulnd't take recovery drugs after a 5 hour training session to allow his body to recover enough to do another 3 or 4 hours, every day, they could. In a gt he couldn't take cocktails of recovery drugs on the first rest day to make himself feel fresh as a daisy, they could. He couldn't after 15 stages of brutal racing take drug cocktails on the second rest day, to make his legs feel like something other than jelly, to make his organism feel like it hadn't just run 15 marathons, they could. He couldn't take illegal painkillers to ease the load on the legs. They could, and did all those things.

Yet despite these disadvantages which should have cost him more like 30 minutes per stage towards the end of a gt when the natural human body is depleted from riding with dopers, while the ped assisted body has been modified to cope, Evans lost 2 minutes on his worst days (only to the 1% top dopers, at that, still beat all the others).

I mean its pretty clear without all of these disadvantages Evans would have been winning the Tour de France by a comfortable margin every single year. To avoid hyperbole certainly with the ease Nibali did this year if not greater. You take away 5 figure drug programmes from all the people Evans was competing with in the Tour and you are left with a 1940's like margin of victory for Evans on every stage.

And yet despite being robbed of all this, Evans priority, according to you was to not spit in the soup. You say that as if it didn't effect him? He feels no anger, no resentement, apparently no feelings of any kind whatsoever. He holds nothing against the people that do this to him and on the contrary absolutely does not want to "pee in the pool".

I think when people portray riders in this heroic fashion, its maybe because they read or watch too much fiction. The idea that the most talented athlete in world history (which Evans clearly was if clean) is also the most moral human being on the planet, who leads a quiet personal moral protest against doping by refusing to take part in it and accepting the sacrifice of losing races, while feeling no emotion whatsoever about it and refusing to judge those who cost him, is how James Bond behaves, and other superherores like Batman and Superman and Spiderman and all those other blockbuster movies where the writers make the protagonist both super talented and supermoral in order to leave the audience in no doubt as to who they should cheer for.

It is not how real human beings behave. Evans has never taking anything but the doper 101 approach to doping. He speaks on the subject only when asked and responds with the same short dismissive answers that the clinic is so familiar with.

The idea that he would have been clean makes no sense even from any point. To start with, since Evans was one of the worlds greatest riders during the doping era, the single best rider for a period, the "top clean riders can overlap with lower level dopers" argument, doesn't fly since Evans on his worst day was 10x better than the lower level dopers. One of the lower level dopers was MR Frei who tested positive while on Evans's team, admitted to a long history of EPO use and with this never rose above team bottle carrier, the position he had on Cadel's team at the time of his fall.

But on the broader level can anyone actually make an argument for Cadel being clean.

I mean those who want to believe in dopers refer 100% of the time to the coartroom where there is an innordinate ammount of proof required from the accusing side, that has historically proved itself very easily circumventable, especially for people in positions of fame or money.

But if we were to switch to a more equal scenario where the action of argument is more valued and the correct decision rather than the least damaging one is the one that is being looked for, I think you will find it difficult.
Say for example a boardroom meeting where the director is trying to decide whether or not Cadel was clean because he wants to sponsor Evans but would feel bad about sponsoring someone who may have doped and got away with it.

I would, arguing the case that Evans doped, point to scientific studies into the effect of EPO, of cortisone, of synthetic testostrone and all the other drugs of the time to show what effect they had on athletes, and what effect they would have had over 3 week gts were anti fatigue drugs become so much more valuable. I would point to the testimony of people like Ullrich laughing at anyone who thinks the era was clean. I would point to people now dismissing that era as doped. I would point to the teams Evans raced on, the fact that one of his soigneurs the year he won the Tour de France was caught doping, that the DS with which he won the Tour de France was not only someone who doped gt contenders (and mysteriously this didn't bother Evans) but later lied about not having anything to do with doping them when they tested positive. I would point to Ashenden's comments that doping still exists in cycling at the top gt level ETC.

But what would you say. OK never tested positive, but that only gets you so far in a discussion where argument is valued. And is easily dismissed with examinations of Valverde, Basso, Armstrong, Indurain etc.
He didn't fall ill when some dopers didn't. He seemed to not like some dopers (T Mobile) but then liked others.

If I then ask you - why do you think Evans chose to ride clean, what would you say. Because he felt a moral responsibilty to be clean? Whats the theory here, how would you explain the state of mind of Evans, a rider surrounded almost exclusively by people who have the expertise on how to turn anyone into a gt contender, who are, if any account of cycling during this period is to be believed, offering him drugs, to refuse them. Refuse them despite only needing a slight ammount to get him over the hill? What kind of state of mind does that take. Why was Evans unique in world sport to behave that way. Why has every other rider who has been glorified by their fans as behaving that way turned out to be a fraud.

Why, having explicityly accepted defeat by refusing to dope was he so visibly angry after stages. Why did this anger not extend to the people who were cheating him. To the people around him on his team who were doping eveyrone else on the team? I mean allegedly he showed extroardinary superhuman comporsure by refusing ti hate those who doped because he stayed friends with them and refused to spit in the soup. At the same time he showed so much emotion on other occasions. How do these 2 work?

Did he not value money? He would have known that the sponsorships and contracts available back in Australia for the country's first Tour winner, for a multi time winner would have been astronomical, far more than he was receiving at the time. The glory too. But he ignored both of these. Was it a hard decision. Is it consistent with his broader attitude to money during his career?


How hard did he train? Knowing he could never train as hard as the dopers he was competing with didn't that kill his motivation. Did he even have much motivation to begin with? How could he have as much motivation as someone who is willing to risk their life for the win. And if he didn't train that hard did that damage his talent?

How for that matter would you explain him being so talented to begin with. I mean we are talking about a goliath like figure who's body on its own is more powerful than the ped enginereed bodies of Ferrari's and Fuentes's clients. What was it genes. Do you have his VO2 figures, videos of him from when he was in his teens.

Imo these are all valuable questions. Of course you can't neccesarily answer all of them, but some sort of theory as to what caused this spectacular turn of events that caused the most talented rider in the world to behave in a way so contrary to his interests.

Because at the moment the argument really just seems to be "well do you have any proof that Arthur didn't pull that sword out of the stone". Camping all the troops behind the "never tested positive" and "its my gut feeling" lines of defense.

 

[Netserk]

True, but wasn't it one meeting? and we don't know what happened during that meeting. Cadel didn't "suddenly" become Merckx-esque after that meeting did he?



True, but there's never really been a huge cloud of controversy over Cadel, as opposed to Wonderboy. There's also no *rational* that for some reason, it seems lately that LeMond himself has been supporting, or favoring guys who've had a doping past.



But didn't LeMond ALSO win the tour against "known dopers"?(i;e: Roche/Delgado/Miggy/Millar/etc)? I don't know what Cadel's MVO2 is no, I don't know that sorry.


LOL, but that doesn't mean that he "for sure"doped does it? As i've stated before: I don't know either way, and by saying I was "invoking the LeMond rule" here, I was simply saying that folks have speculated for years about Greg supposedly doping, and nothing has come out on it, nada, zilch.

So if cadel did infact dope, where is the proof, where is the info? without that, it's simply speculation, right? Look what happened when i questioned Boardman here, I believed he doped, and caught a bunch of crap for it. Kinda the same thing with me and others here, if he(cadel) doped, then just post what you know.

No disrespect to you D, but we can speculate one way or another for the next 10 yrs, but without the smoking gun, it's just that, speculation.

I agree, clearly Indurain was clean.

 

[mrhender]

What I don't believe is that a rider with Evans' temperance would even compete at this level and not once in his carreer rant against doped rivals cheating him......... Does not make sense... Unless he was also on the juice...
Furthermore statistics shows that since 1961 at least 68% of all TDF-winners have been doped, and that Cadel was competing in the most concentrated EPO-era... He might have been more conservative compared to guys like Rasmussen, and that to some extent can explain a true talent..
But clean...? Not in the least...

 

[roundabout]

I agree, clearly Indurain was clean.

Really?

You can usually do better than this straw man.

 

[Netserk]

Really?

You can usually do better than this straw man.

His logic is that a rider is clean if there isn't any proof that he is a doper. So obviously Indurain is clean. Simple.

 

[blackcat]

His logic is that a rider is clean if there isn't any proof that he is a doper. So obviously Indurain is clean. Simple.

the old chestnut "if it does not show up, it is not doping".

+

"recovery doping is not doping"

its just managing your natural levels s'posedly

 

[blackcat]

I think we all agree that if Evans was clean then he was robbed of over 10 TDFs and maybe 20 gts in total as well as multiple world titles. I mean in an era when the drugs available were so powerful that 2 riders matched 1998 Pantani on Plateau de Beile, and riders were cutting their pre dope mountain times by as much as a quarter, he with NO assistance was beating 99% of dopers. He was beating the most talented dopers.

farking Jamie Burrow ftw, as i have always said, he was the best English climber, better than Rob Miller and Froome-dawg, and the best climbing talent Sky and Brailsford never had

i think when he set the record in the Ronde l'Izard an espoirs race, he beat the reigning espoirs world timetrial champ in the chrono in that same race, Thor Hushovd
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/interviews/plateau-de-beille-record-man-jamie-burrow/

 

[blackcat]

Imo these are all valuable questions. Of course you can't neccesarily answer all of them, but some sort of theory as to what caused this spectacular turn of events that caused the most talented rider in the world to behave in a way so contrary to his interests.

Because at the moment the argument really just seems to be "well do you have any proof that Arthur didn't pull that sword out of the stone". Camping all the troops behind the "never tested positive" and "its my gut feeling" lines of defense.

these are not questions that are credible because the premise is wrong. those who disliked the culture, never stepped into the game in the first place. they were either like bassons, or jettisoned at a much earlier stage

 

[yespatterns]

Too bad the PED's didnt make Evans a more interesting rider to watch.

 

[Granville57]

Too bad the PED's didnt make Evans a more interesting rider to watch.

CVV agrees.

 

[Brooks Fahey Baldwin]

Hitch, I get where you are coming from. It is a reasonable position given what we know about pro cycling.

The cut and thrust of your argument about Evans is essentially speculation.
As I have previously mentioned, that isnt a bad way of making your mind up about a rider when you have nothing else to go on. However....

I worked as a physiotherapist for 8 years and consulted to more professionals than I can count on my fingers. Now, thats not the same as having a view of doping in cycling from the position of say, Dr Fuentes lab assistant. But it does give you a unique view.

In regards to the moral standpoint regarding Evans: it is entirely possible that he is just too much of an upstanding gentleman to dope. Such riders do exist. However they are usually just packfill. Or they do 2 years as a pro and retire because they realise they will never make it very far and need to go on and get a career that will keep them employed longer than 5 years.

Then there are riders that would never deliberatly take drugs but shut up and do what they are told when the team doctor gives them a "vitamin" injection. Keeping your contract can be a strong motivator for someone with no other career prospects.
Its easy enough to loose your job because you stand up at a team meeting and say "I think I can win today and I would like a chance as leader". So saying no to the needle is an even easier way to end up unemployed.

The same principal goes for badmouthing other riders. If you say something negative about another rider as innucous as "Tyler Farrar causes crashes", you can just as well rule yourself out from getting a contract on a quater of the pro teams out there. Then you go and make yourself an enemy on the road for the rest of the year. Shutting up and accepting your pay cheque is again a strong motivator, especially if it is a 2mill per year pay cheque.

As for Cadel being robbed etc; if he was clean, then yes he was robbed. He probably would have won 5 Tours, maybe a couple of Giri. But pro cycling is more complex than just a lab test, as Nibali kindly showed team Sky this year. So suggesting 10 Tours and 20 GTs is presume is faceacious?

Anyhow, talking about who would have won is an entirely pointless exercise because doping, who responds to it, which doctor you had, who doesnt, how much you take, if the rest of your team was on it, when you get raided etc all distorts your ability to see the level playing field.
But my guess would be that Evans was a once in decade rider like Lemond, Anquetiel or Merckx who just did the best he could against a bunch of punters on drugs.
Given what I know about doping, physiology and pro cycling, I personally do see that as being possible.

But then, it also wouldnt take much to change my mind about him either.

 

[Cookster15]

Anyhow, talking about who would have won is an entirely pointless exercise because doping, who responds to it, which doctor you had, who doesnt, how much you take, if the rest of your team was on it, when you get raided etc all distorts your ability to see the level playing field.
But my guess would be that Evans was a once in decade rider like Lemond, Anquetiel or Merckx who just did the best he could against a bunch of punters on drugs.
Given what I know about doping, physiology and pro cycling, I personally do see that as being possible.

But then, it also wouldnt take much to change my mind about him either.

Good post, this more or less sums up my thoughts. As I said, I dropped in to learn something new on Evans but was somewhat disappointed by what I've since read - nothing but further conjecture. Hitch seems to think Evans genetic talent was nothing extraordinary compared to the majority of Pros and only dope can explain his results against known dopers - I am yet to be convinced. But I can also understand Hitch's view considering the history of the sport.

If Evans found out he was possibly a once in decade rider (such as his record breaking AIS lab test followed by the Rominger arranged climbing test with Ferrari), then it seems conceivable to me a person with those physiological attributes plus a strong sense of morality might try to give it a go clean. He got cranky sometimes - who wouldn't if you thought you had the genetic talent but kept falling short to others on the sauce?

There is no doubt Evans is a bit odd - I think that doesn't help his cause but then again it may explain a few things even from the doping perspective. Somebody mentioned the rumors circulating at 2002 Giro that Evans nearly won that race clean. If so that would also support the notions in my previous paragraph. There is also Aldo Sassi's comments on him.

 

[frenchfry]

I know this isn't a very scientific argument, but common sense would lead to the conclusion that Evans doped.

I say this without pointing a finger at Evans, to be honest he is a rider that doesn’t inspire me in any way and I really couldn’t care less if he doped or not, but I think we can be sure that he did.

 

[The Hitch]

Good post, this more or less sums up my thoughts. As I said, I dropped in to learn something new on Evans but was somewhat disappointed by what I've since read - nothing but further conjecture. Hitch seems to think Evans genetic talent was nothing extraordinary compared to the majority of Pros and only dope can explain his results against known dopers - I am yet to be convinced. But I can also understand Hitch's view considering the history of the sport.

If Evans found out he was possibly a once in decade rider (such as his record breaking AIS lab test followed by the Rominger arranged climbing test with Ferrari), then it seems conceivable to me a person with those physiological attributes plus a strong sense of morality might try to give it a go clean.

You are heavily underestimating the effect of drugs. You say I deny he was a great talent. Not at all. He may even have been the best talent. In itself that would get him nowhere. To compete clean with the programmes and riders of the mid 2000's he needs to have been the greatest talent of all time. Beyond that.he's not just beating guys who take epo once every three months he's beating guys who have given themselves every single advantage a rider can have in the sport of cycling. Bigger leg muscles, less weight to carry, far superior oxygen carrying capacity, greater training hours, infinately superior post stage recovery day after day after day, replenishment of red blood cell count even after it starts to fall, extra testosterone.

Not everyone who was doing this was poor either. A lot of cyclists who were doing this were really great begin with, perhaps the best. They added all these advantages on top of what they already had.

You are arguing genetically Evans was born with a body that did all the above for him naturally.

To compete with guys like that Evans would not need the decent talent level you keep attributing to him or be merely a 1 in a decade talent. If that was the case why is he the only person in the top 10 maybe even top 20 or 30 of the world to be clean.

I'm sorry, for Evans to have been clean, in that generation, with the drugs they had then, he needs to have been a once in a millennium level talent the likes of which the world has never seen before.

He got cranky sometimes - who wouldn't if you thought you had the genetic talent but kept falling short to others on the sauce?

And yet despite this alleged anger at dopers who cost him the two tours he decided to then sign with Andy rhis? On a team which btw at the time was so weak it didn't even have a guaranteed tdf spot, nor able to provide him with any gt help.

Wtf. Considering those sort of actions the Cadel was outraged at dopers argument reply makes no sense. Then Frei tests positive, rhis gets called out by Landis, he remains with the team. The soigneur gets caught with doping products, Evans doesn't give a ****, says nothing about it even though he's the tdf winner and stays with the team.

I'm not really feeling this alleged outrage at dopers here.

 

[Benotti69]

<snipped great post>

I'm not really feeling this alleged outrage at dopers here.

Didn't a doper stand on his dog once?..........

 

[blackcat]

If Evans found out he was possibly a once in decade rider (such as his record breaking AIS lab test followed by the Rominger arranged climbing test with Ferrari), then it seems conceivable to me a person with those physiological attributes plus a strong sense of morality might try to give it a go clean. He got cranky sometimes - who wouldn't if you thought you had the genetic talent but kept falling short to others on the sauce?

There is no doubt Evans is a bit odd - I think that doesn't help his cause but then again it may explain a few things even from the doping perspective. Somebody mentioned the rumors circulating at 2002 Giro that Evans nearly won that race clean. If so that would also support the notions in my previous paragraph. There is also Aldo Sassi's comments on him.

if anyone knows if the guy never willingly pursued stuff, it would be mcewen, and maybe clarke and lloyd. But it is not able to get the open insider response. if you are a fellow insider, they would tell you, but an outsider, you could not know if you are getting the insider line, or the stock standard line to outsiders. and thomas frei might have made up his anecdote...

on the giro in 2002, i think Evans lost the maglia rosa pretty soon in the mountain stages. first big decisive stage, he bonked, and lost significatant time. and Noe did a pretty ordinary job in helping him that day. But the behind-the-scenes-team at Mapei, did anecdotally say "we dont have him on anything". The race that Garzelli was popped for the probenicide, which, i ignorantly believed at the time, the Mapei line that his bidon was spiked! Yes, you can laugh at the gullibility now.

yes, the late Dr Sassi's line, is a feather in Evans support. I think Walker beat his VO2 test for a cyclist, the rowing record does not count in this instance, because rowing does give a higher VO2 number. There will be others who know, and have genuine cause to know. Not his biographer or domestic managers.

Also, Michelle Ferrari also said something derisive about Evans, he said something about him being an idiot.

 

[sniper]

if anyone knows if the guy never willingly pursued stuff, it would be mcewen, and maybe clarke and lloyd. But it is not able to get the open insider response. if you are a fellow insider, they would tell you, but an outsider, you could not know if you are getting the insider line, or the stock standard line to outsiders. and thomas frei might have made up his anecdote...

on the giro in 2002, i think Evans lost the maglia rosa pretty soon in the mountain stages. first big decisive stage, he bonked, and lost significatant time. and Noe did a pretty ordinary job in helping him that day. But the behind-the-scenes-team at Mapei, did anecdotally say "we dont have him on anything". The race that Garzelli was popped for the probenicide, which, i ignorantly believed at the time, the Mapei line that his bidon was spiked! Yes, you can laugh at the gullibility now.

yes, the late Dr Sassi's line, is a feather in Evans support. I think Walker beat his VO2 test for a cyclist, the rowing record does not count in this instance, because rowing does give a higher VO2 number. There will be others who know, and have genuine cause to know. Not his biographer or domestic managers.

Also, Michelle Ferrari also said something derisive about Evans, he said something about him being an idiot.

just briefly: what Sassi comments are you and Cookster talking about? (I must have missed it upthread)

 

[blackcat]

just briefly: what Sassi comments are you and Cookster talking about? (I must have missed it upthread)

he said if Evans won the Tour, he would be the greatest rider of his generation. This was just before he passed away. RIP

at that stage, Evans had won Mondrisio worlds and Fleche, but nothing major apart from Romandie. So this is a pretty poor palmares (for wins), for Sassi to say "greatest of his generation". So Sassi was a believer obviously.

Now Aldo Sassi was coaching Basso after his ban and post Cecchini, and he did say that Basso was more determined, but Evans was the more talented of the two, but Sassi also thought Basso was clean when he came back. I think he was cleaner, but i dont doubt that Basso did recovery doping on his return, he may not have done epo or blood bags, but i am confident he did recovery doping. Steps right back into top 10 in GTs when he returns... make of that what you will.

And Evans as an 17 or 18 yo mtb rider, borrowed Mcewens tt bike in about 1995 Worlds rr, when he rode the tt (for jnrs obviously), never riding a tt before. I think he was second or third, the top guys, you would have never heard of as pros, i think the guy who won that year may have been another Australian, josh collingwood, who went on to become a doctor of medicine. (he may have won the year before that, not sure).

So Evans did show some affinity/talent, beyond just the VO2 testing in Canberra (AIS). And he won his first major high mountains tour, Weissbauer Tour, (Tour of Austria) in 2001, as the stagiare for Saeco Cannondale, when Evans was the mtb rider for Cannondale in North America. This a year before Mapei thought he was riding in the maglia rosa on bread and water. I thought this is where Ferrari first tested him, under Romingers supervision, trying to get him across to the superteam Squinzi Mapei.

two things, even tho Race Radio has anecdotes he was going backwards as soon as the road tilted up at the Telekom training camps, I think this was Udo Bolts again, this would be counter to him at Tour of Austria and Giro the next year where he did demonstrate a facility.

Also, 95% of time, i agree with Dave too (D-Queued), but I am somewhat skeptical about relevance of two symptom, the road/roid rage, and the Lemond rule re: Ferrari.

Now, Ferrari may have been business partners with Rominger in Romingers agency, and Evans may have been ignorant coming from mtb background at that time in his career. may, thats a qualifier. I am not convinced either way. remember, he came from the individual sport, mtb, before the cycling internet had developed, and from a backwater of cycling in australia, when australia was indeed still a backwater.

re: road/roid rage, well, CE might just not have the personality to cope with the pressure and media and cameras, others have spoke about an anxiety, and ill-wllingness to deal with the public demands.

Another thing which fits the spectrum on autism disorder (layperson, not a diagnosis NB) is MCewen having a rant about him one day on the rest day in the Tour, he was in yellow, and he told the team to be there for the rest day roll around at some specific time, he had intentionally changed it the day/night before.

So the next day, CE unilaterally decided he needed more time, and kept his teammates waiting for 30 minutes, which was back to the scheduled time. this is aspurger type stupid $hit behaviour that Mcewen would not tolerate and told him so, and I think he told him he needed his teammates to win the tour, without his teammates he could not win, and his teammates never liked him to begin with, and this was just putting them offside for good reason. So CE just never appreciated the political dial. Armstrong might have treated his teammates with contempt, and kept them waiting whenever, but he was still Napoleon and could be Napoleon and riders would ride for him. He could do the iron fist. CE never had that charismatic leadership where your teammates would fight in the trenches with you and take a bayonet for you.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Except we know the UCI does not process positives. Maybe Cadel is favored by the UCI?

Another way to say it is because of the UCI's terrible record of assaulting the integrity of the game on an annual basis, there's no way to know with any confidence if Cadel was clean or not.

IMO, we'll have to wait for a statute of limitations to expire for more information.

Yeah, i think you're right. I mean, I think it'll come out in a few more years that he did, just still kind of being kept under wraps i guess.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Probably, and unfortunately, true.

However, is it possible to agree that he isn't a LeMond?

Dave.

No doubt about it he's not. I didn't mean to associate him with Greg, I was just simply using the "if he doped where's the proof" angle.

 

[86TDFWinner]

I agree, clearly Indurain was clean.

LOL!!! No, no way in heck he was(I know he had some positives didn't he?, but his results are too similar to Wonderboys and there's been years of speculation on him, moreso than Cadel).

I think we all agree that if Evans was clean then he was robbed of over 10 TDFs and maybe 20 gts in total as well as multiple world titles. I mean in an era when the drugs available were so powerful that 2 riders matched 1998 Pantani on Plateau de Beile, and riders were cutting their pre dope mountain times by as much as a quarter, he with NO assistance was beating 99% of dopers. He was beating the most talented dopers.

Good post and good way to look at it. You've started to convince me he very well is dirty.