Re:
Unlikely to achieve that without high octane doping. Doped to the gills that is.kingjr said:
Re: Re:
We're now learning that some of the guys in that era were already using motors, in addition to rampant doping, and you're saying AC won 9 GTs without high octane doping?
Most unlikely. But if you want to cling onto that 1% possibility, that's your good right of course.
2007 AC was unreal.
I meant "unlikely to achieve what he achieved without high octane doping".kingjr said:
We're now learning that some of the guys in that era were already using motors, in addition to rampant doping, and you're saying AC won 9 GTs without high octane doping?
Most unlikely. But if you want to cling onto that 1% possibility, that's your good right of course.
2007 AC was unreal.
- Jun 7, 2010
- 19,196
- 3,092
- 28,180
Neworld said:
Maybe you should read your own posts first before writing "no".
But thanks for confirming my recollection.
And if pointing out that you're one of the last people here to talk about biases is derailing the thread, I'll happily do it again. And I am well aware that you are not German, so next time you should try putting a bit more effort to explain why and how your pro-Ullrich bias is different to any bias pro-Evans.
It's hilarious that you're going after a poster who thinks that Evans was clean when you yourself think that Ullrich was "trying to race clean" when he managed to beat all dopers but one at the time when there was no test for EPO.
- Jan 27, 2010
- 921
- 0
- 0
roundabout said:
You are correct about a few things:
No one can stop you from derailing a thread, selectively obfuscating and distorting previous (6 yr ago statements) or acting like an internal CN Forum ombudsman. We will allow you.
Life is dynamic pal and so are the ongoing mountains of evidence and available facts that have slowly made it into the realm of facts; like:
-LA: most people thought he was a doper and universally hated-->absolute doper, liar and vitriolic sociopath.
-IB : presumed clean rider, who slowly discredited himself-->proven doper, relatively liked rider
-GH/CVV/DZ...lesser lights that people hoped were clean-->proven dopers and liars
-JU: affable rider, well liked, shockingly high genetics traits, people hoped was clean-->doped rider
...go to DOPEOLOGY for well a scary list of dopers.
Riders who somehow escaped testing positive but will never be thought of as clean:
Cadel, Jens Voigt, Fabian C...
Yes, I am biased. I liked watching JU riding, but I never thought he was clean.
What I have said:
1. A clean LA could never beat a clean JU (we'll never know that answer). I have also said that team dynamics, strategies and asymmetrically more powerful LA teams helped him win, level doping field or not(which is also debatable). Yes, I know that JU doped and even did 'E' one winter and smashed his car...wow.
2. JU 'tried' to racer 'cleaner' in 2000 and 2001. Never said clean. Your inability to digest grammar is suspect. If you're going to quote me, please learn to interpret English. Try reading about what JU has confessed, or other riders confirm, about his 'doping plans' in those 2 yrs. He was still doping, but less. That is contrary to the thread at hand which is where some posters are trying to state that Cuddles was clean; that is hilarious Roundabout!
3. Cuddles ain't clean. Yes, back to the thread at hand. I defy you to explain all the sordid associations, indirect evidence, and exulted results that Cadel had in the fetid doping history of cycling during his career that inexplicably links him as a doper?
4. That I find the CN (Australian) lack of clarity and hard questions during the last 2 recent CN articles to be insulting to readers. We're talking about 2017 right? And then there are posters, biased or not, that attempt to justify that CE is clean or could have been clean. That is shocking.
If you want to continue to argue with me and fail at discrediting me, send me a PM, or Call/email Mike Ashenden and ask him what he thinks about Cuddles.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-critical-of-cycling-australia/ (2012)
http://www.cycling.org.au/Events/Calendar/Event-Details/cycling-australia-welcomes-cadel-evans-great-ocean-road-race (2015)...look at the sponsorship page. A lot of Aussie support for this, and a Clean Cuddles
MA: “I am in no doubt that Cycling Australia is part of the problem. For too long, it has been long on talk, but short on walk. They hired White when they knew he'd been sacked for sending a young rider to a notorious doping doctor. They knew he'd ridden on Armstrong's teams during doping's darkest years. They also knew when they hired him that he'd been named by Floyd Landis as having used drugs.”
Thats fair enough kingjr.
Good bit here from Neworld:
Ashenden, where art thou?
Good bit here from Neworld:
Matt White still being in the game, fully embraced by the new generation, speaks volumes on so many levels. He was a pupil of Salzwedel btw, who also worked with Cadel though not sure how long.
Ashenden, where art thou?
Re: Re:
in my lay view (and it sits comfortably among those here I reckon) there are 2 types of riders:
1. decent - good pros who became elite winners when supercharged on EPO etc.
2. exceptional 1 in 10,000 riders who were gifted with extraordinary physiology.
there is good evidence that Evans, like Lemond and Froome fit into #2.
Lance, whose Vo2 was about 83, is #1. there are a whole host of riders who made a 'big leap' forwards after doping. I remember particularly Chiapucci, who was a journeyman until he suddenly started winning and beating everyone on the scene when EPO started coming into play.
Ulrich was definitely #2 but through hard living (and doping) probably made himself into #1. unlike Ulrich, Evans did not sabotage his career with boozing, drugs, nightclubs, etc. he was an extremely focused trainer and was on public record as never waivering from his goal of winning the Tour.
Evans' Vo2max is reportedly 89-90. it's extremely high and his performances since he began competitive cycling have reflected that - he's always excelled. there's been no middle of the bunch and suddenly winning storyline.
by contrast:
1. Evans' connection to Ferrari was extremely tenuous (he discusses this in his book - Rominger, who obviously doped, hooked him up for a test session - that's it). there is zero evidence he engaged Ferrari for doping services.
2. Evans was not taken seriously by T-Mobile (Telekom) and left off the team for big races. this, despite having worn the pink jersey at the Giro in 2002 the year before. There was a clear source of conflict between Cadel and the team over something significant. We can only speculate over what. But certainly there's insufficient evidence to argue Cadel slipped comfortably into the team culture and practices (unlike Rogers).
3. Evans has always been relatively outspoken about doping, even if you won't concede that. He doesn't target other riders, but I've always believed that's reasonable for any rider. The peloton is awash with doping. It's a workplace, like any other. You can't go around slagging off the wrongdoings of your work colleagues. I wouldn't do it at my work and neither would most others. It just creates more problems for yourself than it's worth - regardless of what you really think.
I'll change my mind if evidence comes out against Evans. I wouldn't die of shock either - it's pro cycling. But it's been a long time and nothing has been revealed, other than 1 fleeting sessions with Ferrari, which had nothing to do with doping. You can't believe the bits about that you want to (his meeting with Ferrari) then disbelieve the bits you don't (that it was only a testing session) - that's selective logic.
If Evans was clean, and I believe he was, he performed because he had a rare combination of extraordinary physiology (for which there is corroborated evidence) and commitment. If you compare him with Armstrong - Lance apparently descended into something of a drunken wreck after separating from Kristen - yet still managed to salvage a Tour win. Honestly, if I read something similar about Cadel, my belief in him would be shaken a bit. Having said that, Armstrong winning despite those setbacks is still impressive, but I digress - the point is he doped and that's where he got his major advantage.
The key point you're not properly considering is that doping isn't the be-all-and-end-all of performance. JV is on record as saying he could have taken as much EPO as he wanted and wouldn't have matched Lance's performances. The point is - physiology and discipline still matter. Particularly in an era when the degree of doping you can engage in is diminished and with that - the degree of advantage doping gets you.
None of this proves or disproves anything. You'll believe Cadel doped and I don't see enough evidence. Unfortunately you can't prove a negative so if he was clean he'll have to endure innuendo in perpetuity. We only ever get proof of doping and I suspect it's that which drives a lot of people to conclude that doping is more widespread than it is (and it is widespread, just not uniformly practiced).
the problem is, Evans never put in performances that we saw in the "Lance era" that we now know to be associated with EPO supercharging. I don't see how you can equate him those performances and riders.The Hitch said:
in my lay view (and it sits comfortably among those here I reckon) there are 2 types of riders:
1. decent - good pros who became elite winners when supercharged on EPO etc.
2. exceptional 1 in 10,000 riders who were gifted with extraordinary physiology.
there is good evidence that Evans, like Lemond and Froome fit into #2.
Lance, whose Vo2 was about 83, is #1. there are a whole host of riders who made a 'big leap' forwards after doping. I remember particularly Chiapucci, who was a journeyman until he suddenly started winning and beating everyone on the scene when EPO started coming into play.
Ulrich was definitely #2 but through hard living (and doping) probably made himself into #1. unlike Ulrich, Evans did not sabotage his career with boozing, drugs, nightclubs, etc. he was an extremely focused trainer and was on public record as never waivering from his goal of winning the Tour.
Evans' Vo2max is reportedly 89-90. it's extremely high and his performances since he began competitive cycling have reflected that - he's always excelled. there's been no middle of the bunch and suddenly winning storyline.
Rogers obviously doped. he had a material and ongoing connection to Ferrari (Evans did not), he fit nicely into the T-Mobile team culture and placed 9th in the Tour. he left Sky straight after they introduced a clause requiring riders to declare they had never doped. he never talks about doping, as he is well aware of the suspicions and innuendo that surround him.The Hitch said:
by contrast:
1. Evans' connection to Ferrari was extremely tenuous (he discusses this in his book - Rominger, who obviously doped, hooked him up for a test session - that's it). there is zero evidence he engaged Ferrari for doping services.
2. Evans was not taken seriously by T-Mobile (Telekom) and left off the team for big races. this, despite having worn the pink jersey at the Giro in 2002 the year before. There was a clear source of conflict between Cadel and the team over something significant. We can only speculate over what. But certainly there's insufficient evidence to argue Cadel slipped comfortably into the team culture and practices (unlike Rogers).
3. Evans has always been relatively outspoken about doping, even if you won't concede that. He doesn't target other riders, but I've always believed that's reasonable for any rider. The peloton is awash with doping. It's a workplace, like any other. You can't go around slagging off the wrongdoings of your work colleagues. I wouldn't do it at my work and neither would most others. It just creates more problems for yourself than it's worth - regardless of what you really think.
I will admit that it's hard to reconcile his matching Contador's performances with riding clean. I've not claimed to 'know' that Evans is clean. My views are based principally on a significant number of doping indicators that apply to other riders, that don't apply to Evans, that I listed. It's possible Evans doped just like the others - I can't know, neither can you. But if he did, he covered his tracks a lot more cleverly than most of the others.The Hitch said:
I'll change my mind if evidence comes out against Evans. I wouldn't die of shock either - it's pro cycling. But it's been a long time and nothing has been revealed, other than 1 fleeting sessions with Ferrari, which had nothing to do with doping. You can't believe the bits about that you want to (his meeting with Ferrari) then disbelieve the bits you don't (that it was only a testing session) - that's selective logic.
If Evans was clean, and I believe he was, he performed because he had a rare combination of extraordinary physiology (for which there is corroborated evidence) and commitment. If you compare him with Armstrong - Lance apparently descended into something of a drunken wreck after separating from Kristen - yet still managed to salvage a Tour win. Honestly, if I read something similar about Cadel, my belief in him would be shaken a bit. Having said that, Armstrong winning despite those setbacks is still impressive, but I digress - the point is he doped and that's where he got his major advantage.
The key point you're not properly considering is that doping isn't the be-all-and-end-all of performance. JV is on record as saying he could have taken as much EPO as he wanted and wouldn't have matched Lance's performances. The point is - physiology and discipline still matter. Particularly in an era when the degree of doping you can engage in is diminished and with that - the degree of advantage doping gets you.
None of this proves or disproves anything. You'll believe Cadel doped and I don't see enough evidence. Unfortunately you can't prove a negative so if he was clean he'll have to endure innuendo in perpetuity. We only ever get proof of doping and I suspect it's that which drives a lot of people to conclude that doping is more widespread than it is (and it is widespread, just not uniformly practiced).
- Jan 27, 2010
- 921
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
Not to mention the managers he had, the dirty teams he road for, Ferrari and Sassi...
Here are my original comments from the last month:
Your Comments
Your comments about JU living a hard life are overstated and deliberately skewed. Stating that JU drank in the off season, and popped some ‘e’ while partying, defines ‘a hard life’ is not what I would think a pro cyclist would do, but it reeks of someone that goes to bed before 10pm. What about Tom Boonen, has all his Coke affected him? Loosen up bud. LA did cocaine, probably injected bovine RBCs and drank his face off, plus is known to have doped since his teenage years trying Triathlons. That poorly connected logic is just silly
Here are some know VO2Max values, which excludes the Oxygen vector doping aspects of what their Hematocrit baselines are...
GL 93, JU 88, CE 88, LA 78* *http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/greg-lemond-miracles-in-cycling-still-dont-exist/
Glad you actually stated something firm….” If Evans was clean, and I believe he was... (delbified-14Jan2017)”. Genetics and commitment sure do beat multifactorial doping in competitors…in the fanciful planet called Delbifian. Sorry buddy, you’re making us laugh. But when Lance, Wiggans and soon Froome-from-no-where-to-GC-winner, spoke that way people were shuddering. Presently, that Jedi-speak is only swallowed by the ignorant.
Your post is weak and full of comments that seek support from ‘what he said, and what I feel, and I just won’t believe it until I see it” nonsensical theories. It just doesn’t hold weight anymore.
BTW on the 15th of Dec I said this about JU
No he didn't 'crush' riders like Lance, but he was in the top 10 for years and won the TdF. Do you know the probability of doing that against riders that inject: EPO, Red cells (at least twice), cortisol, GH, insulin, and maybe bovine RBCs? Seriously, could you please answer this question with logical sentences outlining how Cadel could beat known doped riders, or even lose by less than 5 minutes, while just eating right and using 'determination'?
Not to mention the managers he had, the dirty teams he road for, Ferrari and Sassi...
Here are my original comments from the last month:
Your Comments
Your comments about JU living a hard life are overstated and deliberately skewed. Stating that JU drank in the off season, and popped some ‘e’ while partying, defines ‘a hard life’ is not what I would think a pro cyclist would do, but it reeks of someone that goes to bed before 10pm. What about Tom Boonen, has all his Coke affected him? Loosen up bud. LA did cocaine, probably injected bovine RBCs and drank his face off, plus is known to have doped since his teenage years trying Triathlons. That poorly connected logic is just silly
Here are some know VO2Max values, which excludes the Oxygen vector doping aspects of what their Hematocrit baselines are...
GL 93, JU 88, CE 88, LA 78* *http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/greg-lemond-miracles-in-cycling-still-dont-exist/
Glad you actually stated something firm….” If Evans was clean, and I believe he was... (delbified-14Jan2017)”. Genetics and commitment sure do beat multifactorial doping in competitors…in the fanciful planet called Delbifian. Sorry buddy, you’re making us laugh. But when Lance, Wiggans and soon Froome-from-no-where-to-GC-winner, spoke that way people were shuddering. Presently, that Jedi-speak is only swallowed by the ignorant.
Your post is weak and full of comments that seek support from ‘what he said, and what I feel, and I just won’t believe it until I see it” nonsensical theories. It just doesn’t hold weight anymore.
BTW on the 15th of Dec I said this about JU
you guys are taking the easy way out. at some point, there must be riders who are clean. whether it was Cadel or someone else. odds are you're right when you call a rider out as a doper, but that isn't a credit to your logic or powers of deduction, it's just the law of averages. at some point you're going to be wrong. I reckon you might be wrong about Cadel.
- Aug 5, 2009
- 15,733
- 8,116
- 28,180
Re: Re:
There was nothing special about Evan's treatment by the media of his own country. It happens with every Tour winner and their own media. The only one that seemed to have any negative publicity throughout his wins was Armstrong and that was more because of his accumulated success and the fact that most of the criticism and allegations were coming from outside the USA. Evan's treatment was similar to Quintana's win by Colombia's media, first to achieve it and instant national heroes, Wiggins was the same even though the Sky allegations were built on after his win. Once Landis and Hamilton got involved the USA started to take more notice of Armstrong even though people like Lemond and others had been talking about it for a while. There is nothing special about the Australian media and the way it treats it's so called heroes. But if Evans was proved to be a doper it would no doubt be as big a story in Australia as the Armstrong story was in the US and the sharks in the Australian media would be in a feeding frenzy for sure. If there is anything the media likes more than a hero it's a fallen hero.
The Hitch said:
There was nothing special about Evan's treatment by the media of his own country. It happens with every Tour winner and their own media. The only one that seemed to have any negative publicity throughout his wins was Armstrong and that was more because of his accumulated success and the fact that most of the criticism and allegations were coming from outside the USA. Evan's treatment was similar to Quintana's win by Colombia's media, first to achieve it and instant national heroes, Wiggins was the same even though the Sky allegations were built on after his win. Once Landis and Hamilton got involved the USA started to take more notice of Armstrong even though people like Lemond and others had been talking about it for a while. There is nothing special about the Australian media and the way it treats it's so called heroes. But if Evans was proved to be a doper it would no doubt be as big a story in Australia as the Armstrong story was in the US and the sharks in the Australian media would be in a feeding frenzy for sure. If there is anything the media likes more than a hero it's a fallen hero.
there's also the variable of being clean and dirty at different times. fans tend to label riders as one or the other, but that's oversimplifying. there's a number of riders who are clean now but who weren't always. of course, try convincing a fan who finds out that they doped once, that they didn't always dope. (and no, I don't buy O'Grady's "I only did it once" argument)
- May 29, 2011
- 3,549
- 1,651
- 16,680
If we discount caught dopers, Evans finished 1st - 2nd - 1st - 2nd respectively in the TdFs from 2005, 06, 07 and 08.
2009 (30th) and 10 (26th) are off, but he did finish 3rd and 5th in the Vuelta (2009) and Giro (2010) respectively in those years.
And if you look at the guys he left behind him in the GCs, there are quite a few exposed high octane dopers among them.
And my recollection is that Cadel actually didn't have the highest of VO2 max's ( I don't know where delbified got his numbers from?).
Imo the above, as well as the teams Cadel rode for, is all indicative of / consistent with high octane doping.
Still, however, there was something unique about his 2011 TdF, mainly because he simply didn't have a single bad day that year, whereas in previous years he was actually known for having at least one bad day during a GT.
So he was at his very best in 2011, age 34, despite already being on high octane in previous years.
Not a single bad day in 2011.
At least two wholly unexplained bike changes in stage 4 which he won and stage 19 which basically won him the TdF.
I think he used a motor that year.
2009 (30th) and 10 (26th) are off, but he did finish 3rd and 5th in the Vuelta (2009) and Giro (2010) respectively in those years.
And if you look at the guys he left behind him in the GCs, there are quite a few exposed high octane dopers among them.
And my recollection is that Cadel actually didn't have the highest of VO2 max's ( I don't know where delbified got his numbers from?).
Imo the above, as well as the teams Cadel rode for, is all indicative of / consistent with high octane doping.
Still, however, there was something unique about his 2011 TdF, mainly because he simply didn't have a single bad day that year, whereas in previous years he was actually known for having at least one bad day during a GT.
So he was at his very best in 2011, age 34, despite already being on high octane in previous years.
Not a single bad day in 2011.
At least two wholly unexplained bike changes in stage 4 which he won and stage 19 which basically won him the TdF.
I think he used a motor that year.
- Aug 5, 2009
- 15,733
- 8,116
- 28,180
Re:
It was pretty obvious why Evans had bad days but in 2011 Contador came back to the field after already riding the Giro then crashing in the Tour twice, losing time and also hurting his knee. The big fail was by the Schleck brothers who should have been enough in combination for one of them to win but they were too concerned about both finishing on the podium which was just bizarre. Evan's had been in the best form of his career leading into the Tour, no illness, no crashes and slight knee strain which caused him to miss the Ardenne races but the break probably was a blessing. As for 2007 Contador was riding his first Tour, Rasmussen was riding like a droid and would have won the race by minutes and Leipheimer rode a sensational final TT to almost pinch the race. If Evans is accused of guilt by association with other dopers then he should have done better in 2007.
Some dopers confess others are caught out with testing, others are accused by retired team mates or adversaries.
None of that has happened to Evans so far so until someone has more compelling evidence I will take the middle ground. Even his ride on the Galibier in 2011 to claw time back from Schleck was a measured performance and he didn't really chase until the bottom of the climb while Schleck had been out there for a long time. Then he was dropped by Contador and Schleck on the next stage. Such a ride pales in comparison with the Landis android performance in 2006 or Rasmussen in 2007 and you have the ride by Ricco before he was kicked off the Tour. Evans had never done anything that spectacular. His final TT in 2011 was a ride he always threatened to do in a grand tour and he was definitely stronger in the third week albeit in a field decimated by crashes and against the Schleck brothers who are mediocre TT riders anyway. Thomas Voeckler finished the 2011 Tour in fourth place ! If Evans did dope in 2011 his ride was not that spectacular and he won the hard way. It was a typical Evans performance bar the final TT which was better than usual but not out of this world better when you compare how much time he would normally put into the Schleck brothers on a similar course. He was still getting dropped by Contador who already had the Giro in his legs, he was still losing time to Schleck and Sanchez on the climbs it was really only the Galibier ride and the TT which made the difference and the fact that he was near the top of the GC throughout the race without taking yellow, when he lost time he didn't lose much and then Contador dropped on the Galibier stage as did Sanchez and the Schleck's attacks in the first two weeks were not good enough to put decent time into Evans. All of this was quite typical of an Evans performance against those riders. He never won a mountain stage, he won a medium stage in a sprint and there were no time bonuses anyway. How many dopers win a grand tour without winning a mountain stage ? Anyway I remain sitting on the fence as far as Evans goes re doping. I just don't see compelling evidence unless someone can prove or demonstrate that he doped throughout his career and that in 2011 he got lucky. Someone usually runs their mouth off, it's human nature, whether it's a soigneur, team assistant, girlfriend,physio or whoever. Evans never had had the power of an Armstrong or legal teams and corporations supporting him. They had nothing to fear from Evans in that sense. Retired riders have said nothing at least to the media. None of the many riders that wrote books have said anything. Charlie Wegelius said Evans was odd, Hincapie said he had never seen anyone train so hard and so on but little implication by anyone that he was doping.
sniper said:
It was pretty obvious why Evans had bad days but in 2011 Contador came back to the field after already riding the Giro then crashing in the Tour twice, losing time and also hurting his knee. The big fail was by the Schleck brothers who should have been enough in combination for one of them to win but they were too concerned about both finishing on the podium which was just bizarre. Evan's had been in the best form of his career leading into the Tour, no illness, no crashes and slight knee strain which caused him to miss the Ardenne races but the break probably was a blessing. As for 2007 Contador was riding his first Tour, Rasmussen was riding like a droid and would have won the race by minutes and Leipheimer rode a sensational final TT to almost pinch the race. If Evans is accused of guilt by association with other dopers then he should have done better in 2007.
Some dopers confess others are caught out with testing, others are accused by retired team mates or adversaries.
None of that has happened to Evans so far so until someone has more compelling evidence I will take the middle ground. Even his ride on the Galibier in 2011 to claw time back from Schleck was a measured performance and he didn't really chase until the bottom of the climb while Schleck had been out there for a long time. Then he was dropped by Contador and Schleck on the next stage. Such a ride pales in comparison with the Landis android performance in 2006 or Rasmussen in 2007 and you have the ride by Ricco before he was kicked off the Tour. Evans had never done anything that spectacular. His final TT in 2011 was a ride he always threatened to do in a grand tour and he was definitely stronger in the third week albeit in a field decimated by crashes and against the Schleck brothers who are mediocre TT riders anyway. Thomas Voeckler finished the 2011 Tour in fourth place ! If Evans did dope in 2011 his ride was not that spectacular and he won the hard way. It was a typical Evans performance bar the final TT which was better than usual but not out of this world better when you compare how much time he would normally put into the Schleck brothers on a similar course. He was still getting dropped by Contador who already had the Giro in his legs, he was still losing time to Schleck and Sanchez on the climbs it was really only the Galibier ride and the TT which made the difference and the fact that he was near the top of the GC throughout the race without taking yellow, when he lost time he didn't lose much and then Contador dropped on the Galibier stage as did Sanchez and the Schleck's attacks in the first two weeks were not good enough to put decent time into Evans. All of this was quite typical of an Evans performance against those riders. He never won a mountain stage, he won a medium stage in a sprint and there were no time bonuses anyway. How many dopers win a grand tour without winning a mountain stage ? Anyway I remain sitting on the fence as far as Evans goes re doping. I just don't see compelling evidence unless someone can prove or demonstrate that he doped throughout his career and that in 2011 he got lucky. Someone usually runs their mouth off, it's human nature, whether it's a soigneur, team assistant, girlfriend,physio or whoever. Evans never had had the power of an Armstrong or legal teams and corporations supporting him. They had nothing to fear from Evans in that sense. Retired riders have said nothing at least to the media. None of the many riders that wrote books have said anything. Charlie Wegelius said Evans was odd, Hincapie said he had never seen anyone train so hard and so on but little implication by anyone that he was doping.
Re: Re:
Of course there are several GT winners who have nothing against them except (a) beating proven dopers; (b) some dodgy associations with doping docs/teams and (c) interviews/statements that some would argue aren't consistent with a clean rider. Apart from that, they have no (sensational) transformations, no rumors, no accusations, no nothing.
Names that spring to mind include Hampsten, Sastre, and indeed Evans. (and Wiggins was in that category too, up until recently :lol: )
For those riders I can definitely see why people would prefer to be sitting on the fence, even if I'm personally quite convinced that doping was part of their preparation.
good post & fair points.movingtarget said:
Of course there are several GT winners who have nothing against them except (a) beating proven dopers; (b) some dodgy associations with doping docs/teams and (c) interviews/statements that some would argue aren't consistent with a clean rider. Apart from that, they have no (sensational) transformations, no rumors, no accusations, no nothing.
Names that spring to mind include Hampsten, Sastre, and indeed Evans. (and Wiggins was in that category too, up until recently :lol: )
For those riders I can definitely see why people would prefer to be sitting on the fence, even if I'm personally quite convinced that doping was part of their preparation.
Re:
I do think you should rethink Cadel as clean. A simple explanation rather than just stating doped beats clean everytime no matter how gifted a person is.
If we take it that at the top end doped is 3% better(lets not cloud this with science fact
)
Cadel needs to be 3% better everyday.
But not only does he need to be 3% better day one he needs to improve that as the tour goes on
He needs to recover as quickly as doped riders
As doped riders replace blood he needs to be a little better each time with his reduced blood cell count.
Do the maths and it quickly becomes virtually impossible, by week three there really isn't any way he should be able to keep up.
I may be able to stomach a one day winner, possibly but highly unlikely a week long winner- but no chance a GT winner with doping at the top end of the sport.
Who would be an example of clean now but used to dope ?delbified said:
I do think you should rethink Cadel as clean. A simple explanation rather than just stating doped beats clean everytime no matter how gifted a person is.
If we take it that at the top end doped is 3% better(lets not cloud this with science fact
) Cadel needs to be 3% better everyday.
But not only does he need to be 3% better day one he needs to improve that as the tour goes on
He needs to recover as quickly as doped riders
As doped riders replace blood he needs to be a little better each time with his reduced blood cell count.
Do the maths and it quickly becomes virtually impossible, by week three there really isn't any way he should be able to keep up.
I may be able to stomach a one day winner, possibly but highly unlikely a week long winner- but no chance a GT winner with doping at the top end of the sport.
- Jan 27, 2010
- 921
- 0
- 0
Re:
Thank you Noddy69, some rational thought.
Lets not forget the dynamics of riding in a pack, or when your 'clean' like Cadel having to ride every day, at least 3%...probably more like 5-6% better than the dopers, just to STAY IN THE Pack. Once the elastic breaks and you're dropped out of the mountain ascent, or during an ITT, that's it folks you're done. All the genetics in the World or special tactics or marginal gains ain't gonna help you in the TdF. If this fact is unknown to the reader then they have never raced before.
So, a clean Cuddles, was genetically better than all the other genetically gifted riders (they're not us right? They are all champions, best of the best), and was 5% stronger than then, day after day, to finish in the top 3 for more than 6 yrs and even win the TdF? Is that what some people actually still believe? Shocking reality to live that way no?
As to the recent long post (movingtarget) about random race details and what random riders said about Cadel and never a bad word to suggest his doping past... it means zero. Cuddles is an undeniable odd duck who trained mostly by himself (heard of that before M. Rasmussen? Cuddles beat him too).
noddy69 said:Who would be an example of clean now but used to dope ?delbified said:
I do think you should rethink Cadel as clean. A simple explanation rather than just stating doped beats clean everytime no matter how gifted a person is.
If we take it that at the top end doped is 3% better(lets not cloud this with science fact
Cadel needs to be 3% better everyday.
But not only does he need to be 3% better day one he needs to improve that as the tour goes on
He needs to recover as quickly as doped riders
As doped riders replace blood he needs to be a little better each time with his reduced blood cell count.
Do the maths and it quickly becomes virtually impossible, by week three there really isn't any way he should be able to keep up.
I may be able to stomach a one day winner, possibly but highly unlikely a week long winner- but no chance a GT winner with doping at the top end of the sport.
Thank you Noddy69, some rational thought.
Lets not forget the dynamics of riding in a pack, or when your 'clean' like Cadel having to ride every day, at least 3%...probably more like 5-6% better than the dopers, just to STAY IN THE Pack. Once the elastic breaks and you're dropped out of the mountain ascent, or during an ITT, that's it folks you're done. All the genetics in the World or special tactics or marginal gains ain't gonna help you in the TdF. If this fact is unknown to the reader then they have never raced before.
So, a clean Cuddles, was genetically better than all the other genetically gifted riders (they're not us right? They are all champions, best of the best), and was 5% stronger than then, day after day, to finish in the top 3 for more than 6 yrs and even win the TdF? Is that what some people actually still believe? Shocking reality to live that way no?
As to the recent long post (movingtarget) about random race details and what random riders said about Cadel and never a bad word to suggest his doping past... it means zero. Cuddles is an undeniable odd duck who trained mostly by himself (heard of that before M. Rasmussen? Cuddles beat him too).
Re: Re:
He has all these people in the peloton who see him as grumpy and bitter, yet he seems to earn nothing but high praise in terms of his achievements and integrity. Why is it that it's only the diehards in the Clinic who are this convinced of his guilt, or at least not jumping on the Cadel bandwagon?
If someone from his Telekom or Lotto days came out and even just gave some hints or something - I'd be all ears. But not a sound. Meanwhile you've got Armstrong who leaves a trail of cynics behind him and eventually caught up with him. How and why?
Doping or not, he suffered hell with teams like Telekom and Lotto where they treated him like an idiot. There are legions of riders who've quit or never achieved their potential, as they've weakened mentally. I've followed Cadel for a long time and he gives a very strong and clear impression of being an incredibly driven person. He put up with the negativity and even being left out of Tour squads by Telekom, being white-anted by Lotto, and always targeted a Tour win.
I certainly don't have that mental strength. I think he got lucky winning the 2011 Tour, but you make your own luck I guess. In his book, Cadel talks about Sassi's 'impossible' training loads that he took pride in completing, while most (elite) riders couldn't.
Where I disagree with posters here is that you're all too obsessed with the impact of doping. If you read Millar's books and comments by experts like JV (like him or not), they are consistent in saying that people overestimate the benefits of doping. Sure, no one could compete with Riis at 60% or even what Lance and Pantani were doing, but we know that it wasn't possible to get those types of gains post-2005. It's also true that you still need to benefit from other tools, like hard training, race experience, team support, etc.
Cadel in 2011 had all of those on his side - good luck in the Tour (crucial), a team dedicated to him, a mountain of experience in how to ride the Tour, and less of a disadvantage to other dopers than in previous years (assuming he was clean). I think people here are just obsessed with the notion of doping as providing some kind of invincible armour.
As always, who really knows for sure. But I do believe that cynics are unwilling to see counter-points in favour of a rider (Cadel) being clean. It's almost like a mark of seniority or wisdom on here - "oh look, here comes a naive fanboy who hasn't worked it out yet, unlike me". I see the temptation but it's close-minded.
I'm more optimistic but see it similarly to you in general. It's just inconceivable that a guy who has been relatively outspoken about doping and dopers, who has left a trail of disaffected team members behind him who in his autobiography he doesn't name them all but leaves us in little doubt what he thought of them - yet he wins the 2011 Tour and gets a standing ovation from the press room who certainly believed that they were seeing something special and it wasn't just another Tour win.movingtarget said:
He has all these people in the peloton who see him as grumpy and bitter, yet he seems to earn nothing but high praise in terms of his achievements and integrity. Why is it that it's only the diehards in the Clinic who are this convinced of his guilt, or at least not jumping on the Cadel bandwagon?
If someone from his Telekom or Lotto days came out and even just gave some hints or something - I'd be all ears. But not a sound. Meanwhile you've got Armstrong who leaves a trail of cynics behind him and eventually caught up with him. How and why?
The reason I believe Cadel was clean is that everything I've read about him makes me believe he had a rare combination of extraordinary physical talent (astronomical Vo2max) and mental commitment. It's the combination that makes the difference - critics are correct that there are undoubtedly other riders with Cadel's physiology, who Cadel has beaten, but I doubt many of them had his mental strength.movingtarget said:
Doping or not, he suffered hell with teams like Telekom and Lotto where they treated him like an idiot. There are legions of riders who've quit or never achieved their potential, as they've weakened mentally. I've followed Cadel for a long time and he gives a very strong and clear impression of being an incredibly driven person. He put up with the negativity and even being left out of Tour squads by Telekom, being white-anted by Lotto, and always targeted a Tour win.
I certainly don't have that mental strength. I think he got lucky winning the 2011 Tour, but you make your own luck I guess. In his book, Cadel talks about Sassi's 'impossible' training loads that he took pride in completing, while most (elite) riders couldn't.
Where I disagree with posters here is that you're all too obsessed with the impact of doping. If you read Millar's books and comments by experts like JV (like him or not), they are consistent in saying that people overestimate the benefits of doping. Sure, no one could compete with Riis at 60% or even what Lance and Pantani were doing, but we know that it wasn't possible to get those types of gains post-2005. It's also true that you still need to benefit from other tools, like hard training, race experience, team support, etc.
Cadel in 2011 had all of those on his side - good luck in the Tour (crucial), a team dedicated to him, a mountain of experience in how to ride the Tour, and less of a disadvantage to other dopers than in previous years (assuming he was clean). I think people here are just obsessed with the notion of doping as providing some kind of invincible armour.
As always, who really knows for sure. But I do believe that cynics are unwilling to see counter-points in favour of a rider (Cadel) being clean. It's almost like a mark of seniority or wisdom on here - "oh look, here comes a naive fanboy who hasn't worked it out yet, unlike me". I see the temptation but it's close-minded.
Re: Re:
I'm not elite but I'm involved enough in amateur road cycling in Australia to have witnessed how some local riders have risen to the World Tour. I firmly believe they are clean - at an absolutely minimum during the journey to the pros. They just didn't need to dope. That is reportedly not the case in some countries like Italy with juniors already doped to the eyeballs.
It's not unreasonable to suspect that some riders at the top are not 'the best of the best', as measured by natural physiological talent. We know Lance was an also-ran before he got on the Ferrari program.
It's not that outrageous. I don't subscribe to the Anglo riders = Clean, Latin riders = Dirty, but one difference between them is that by all accounts, doping is awash in Euro cycling from the juniors upwards. This helps create a system in those countries where talent selection is distorted from an early point and where the strongest talents are not necessarily getting pro contracts.Neworld said:
I'm not elite but I'm involved enough in amateur road cycling in Australia to have witnessed how some local riders have risen to the World Tour. I firmly believe they are clean - at an absolutely minimum during the journey to the pros. They just didn't need to dope. That is reportedly not the case in some countries like Italy with juniors already doped to the eyeballs.
It's not unreasonable to suspect that some riders at the top are not 'the best of the best', as measured by natural physiological talent. We know Lance was an also-ran before he got on the Ferrari program.
Re: Re:
it doesn't matter. if I name someone, you'll cast doubt on them (presumably). I can't say specifically with certainty that someone is in this category, but it's reasonable to conclude that riders have taken this path. that's the point, whether or not we can pinpoint who that may be with certainty.noddy69 said:
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
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 176
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
Tre Valli Varesine 2025, one day race, October 7- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 169
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram