Evans and his meeting with Ferrari?

[movingtarget]

Re: 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.

good post & fair points.

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.

Hampsten was long ago, I suppose Hesjedal might be included also but then look at the podium. Rodriguez and De Gendt ? Rodriguez should have won that Giro. As for Wiggins, Evans was never the makeover man that Wiggins was. There was no transformation. As for Sastre, yes the team was dodgy but it was also an incredibly strong team and with the Schleck brothers they just had to take turns at attacking Evans until they broke him which they did on the Alpe. Sastre had sat in the pack for the entire race, was let off the leash on the Alpe and did an unusually good final TT but then Evans did have a mediocre one. Many people picked Evans to do what he did to Schleck in the TT in 2011. Sastre was much fresher in the third week and Evans also had a bad crash when he went over the handlebars on a descent. He was basically worked over by CSC which is what the Schleck brothers didn't do in 2011.

Sastre was quite similar to Evans in that he was never the best in the mountains but he hung in there but his TT was usually pretty bad. What was funny is that the Schleck's think that Sastre pinched the Tour off them which he probably did with his attack. I am sure that Andy was supposed to win in 2008. Maybe they thought Evans would chase down Sastre and then the Schlecks would attack but Evans had had a tough race and no one else was willing to help him or good enough to and he already had tired legs by then.

 

[delbified]

Re: Re:

I don't think you're naive as I will assume that you are sophisticated. I think you are biased and ignorant. Go get educated and then come back and school us.

I'm tired of people labeling anyone who doesn't 'see' that doping is ubiquitous as 'ignorant'. I am ignorant, because the reality is I'm posting on an online forum about something I've only read about. I'm guessing. So is everyone else. I'm not 'schooling' you and you are not me. You don't win credits for guessing that a pro is doping or not. And I could be wrong - I'm not that naive to have closed my mind to the possibility. But I choose to believe there's enough of a lack of evidence that Cadel was doping to make me believe he was clean.

 

[delbified]

Re: Re:

Sastre was quite similar to Evans in that he was never the best in the mountains but he hung in there but his TT was usually pretty bad. What was funny is that the Schleck's think that Sastre pinched the Tour off them which he probably did with his attack. I am sure that Andy was supposed to win in 2008. Maybe they thought Evans would chase down Sastre and then the Schlecks would attack but Evans had had a tough race and no one else was willing to help him or good enough to and he already had tired legs by then.

This. Evans probably reasoned that he had a better chance of catching Sastre in the TT than chasing him on Alpe D'Huez and being 1-2'ed by the Schlecks. The fact Cadel couldn't work over Sastre in his favored TT battleground probably tells you why he also couldn't chase on D'Huez.

 

[delbified]

Re: Re:

These points are so banal. I could name you 50 riders with Oxygen vector profiles, VO2Maxes, and nebulous Mental strength...you sound like the USP/Astana, team Sky marginal gains BS propaganda machine.

Go on then, name some. Who has a Vo2max of 89? It's not that common. That's a Tour-winning capacity. Even for pros, that's very high.

And they don't all have 'nebulous mental strength'. Take Andy Schleck, for example. And many others. Wiggins tells of spending 12 months drinking beer after winning Olympic gold. Evans is not like that - he's a machine by comparison. There were no 'off' years - not in terms of commitment or motivation. That stuff counts.

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

[

="delbified"]

Anyway I remain sitting on the fence as far as Evans goes re doping.

I hope you are right, and logic is wrong. Its parallel to China reclamating the Spratly islands for ecological and not military purposes. Great optimism bud!

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.

What will it take? A positive test? Will you believe it when Mic Rogers throws him under the bus? How many fellow dopers (excluding Lance, or a subpoenaed rider) snitch on fellow or former riders?

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?

Probably because there is nothing in it to rat out poor little, quirky, eccentric, reclusive Cadel who now hides down in Oz...who by the way is the 'clean face' of cycling for the Great Ocean Road race. Of which the last 2 Cadel expose article where timed just before the upcoming race; yes, money. You do know that its a UCI sanctioned race...err money maker right? No one is looking the other way are they. Just like when Oz paid for Lance to fly down and take part in the TdUnder...remember that? Cash baby, Cash. Don't dare discredit Cuddles while we can use him to make money downundaaaa.

The inaugural edition featured as Cadel Evans’ final professional race, and the former world champion returned to the event in 2016 to join thousands of fans and cyclists in the Swisse People’s Ride.
Meanwhile, despite his absence, the elite races continued to step up in quality with the men’s race elevated to a 1.HC classification in 2016, positioning it just one level below UCI WorldTour and the women’s race also receiving UCI classification.

Meanwhile you've got Armstrong who leaves a trail of cynics behind him and eventually caught up with him. How and why?

That is because Lance was an active and aggressive Machiavellian, malevolent **** who bought the UCI, tried to kill riders careers, and everyone was far too happy to confirm his blockbuster doping prowess.

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.

These points are so banal. I could name you 50 riders with Oxygen vector profiles, VO2Maxes, and nebulous Mental strength...you sound like the USP/Astana, team Sky marginal gains BS propaganda machine.

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.

I think YOU do not understand the power of doping. Have you even donated blood and then tried to ride the next few days? Have you ever trained at altitude? Have you been involved in research projects dealing with O2 vector doping techniques? If so please explain your experience. No doubt you have not. Doping is without question a frank gain in performance, full stop. Doping 2-3 ways is not just additive either. Post 2005? Go read some more and come back.

Also, while you're an Aussie, write Mike Ashenden an email (I have, he's very pleasant and will email you back)...ask him about the probability of and clean rider beating a equally genetic doped rider? Ask him about Cadel's prowess versus other riders he beat? Ask him about Cadel's association with Jim O, Telekom, Lotto, and BMC... you won't like what you hear.

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 don't think you're naive as I will assume that you are sophisticated. I think you are biased and ignorant. Go get educated and then come back and school us.

I have seen interviews with Ashenden and they are always interesting but if he feels like that instead of making admissions to you privately why not put it on the public record. If he thinks every grand tour winner or Tour winner is doping why not say so. If he thinks the sport hasn't cleaned up at all just say it. Has the Biological Profiling worked at all ? Maybe he thinks it's just a losing battle. One of the biggest mistakes I think that was made re doping was allowing riders with a doping past to continue in the sport as team managers. I think that a doping suspension should be a like a career red card and those riders should not be able to hold any official position in the sport at any level when they retire from riding. There seems to be a cyclical nature to all of this no pun intended. That would clean out a lot of former riders some great ones and cause a lot of controversy but i think it's necessary. Same goes for sports doctors, soigneurs and anyone else.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

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?

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.

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.

Spot on about junior Italian riders - A couple of WT teams won't touch Italian juniors with a 100 foot pole.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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?

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.

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.

World Champion at 21 an also ran? I dont think so.

I think Armstrong had enough talent to be a pro. He was apparently doping for Triathlons as a teenager, but he was never GT winning material.

No sure how you can judge any riders are clean at junior level. Not sure how anyone can judge any rider at any level as the testing is either non existent, an iq test or ***.

 

[Neworld]

Re: Re:

Go on then, name some. Who has a Vo2max of 89? It's not that common. That's a Tour-winning capacity. Even for pros, that's very high.

Firstly, you are stuck on VO2Max, nebulous self-reported dedication apparently more than anyone else, Cadel being 'really committed, no I mean Cuddles was REALLY committed (what exactly does that mean-I recall LA spawning the 'I ride my bike for 7 hours a day BS)', and mental strength'. What about Vo2max, stats on low hemostatic HCT-ergo O2 vector potentiating, LT, FTP? BTW Levi L supposedly 'trained harder than anyone' and had a high VO2

But if you want to hold me to Vo2Max around 88 as being your sole indicator that Cuddles could beat a hoard of cooked dopers...just off the top of my head
Greg LeM 92
CVV 88
JU 88
FLandis 90
DZ 88
Levi L 86
Kurt Asle Arves 93
Miguel Ind 88
Edvad B Hagen 86.3
Thor Hushovd 86
Chris Froome 85
Brad Wiggans 84-86
Nibili 89
Stuey O'G 91
A. Contador ?89
C. Boardman 88
Bobby Julich 88
N. Quintana 86
Chris Bassons 85

And they don't all have 'nebulous mental strength'. Take Andy Schleck, for example. And many others. Wiggins tells of spending 12 months drinking beer after winning Olympic gold. Evans is not like that - he's a machine by comparison. There were no 'off' years - not in terms of commitment or motivation. That stuff counts

Self-promotion my friend, Lance, Wiggans, Froome...the weak minded believed them and still do.


I think this slide will help you...shock value really.

 

[Neworld]

Re: Re:

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.

What will it take? A positive test? Will you believe it when Mic Rogers throws him under the bus? How many fellow dopers (excluding Lance, or a subpoenaed rider) snitch on fellow or former riders?

You still haven't answered my last question?

Also, while you're an Aussie, write Mike Ashenden an email (I have, he's very pleasant and will email you back)...ask him about the probability of and clean rider beating a equally genetic doped rider? Ask him about Cadel's prowess versus other riders he beat? Ask him about Cadel's association with Jim O, Telekom, Lotto, and BMC... you won't like what you hear.

I have seen interviews with Ashenden and they are always interesting but if he feels like that instead of making admissions to you privately why not put it on the public record. If he thinks every grand tour winner or Tour winner is doping why not say so. If he thinks the sport hasn't cleaned up at all just say it. Has the Biological Profiling worked at all ? Maybe he thinks it's just a losing battle. One of the biggest mistakes I think that was made re doping was allowing riders with a doping past to continue in the sport as team managers. I think that a doping suspension should be a like a career red card and those riders should not be able to hold any official position in the sport at any level when they retire from riding. There seems to be a cyclical nature to all of this no pun intended. That would clean out a lot of former riders some great ones and cause a lot of controversy but i think it's necessary. Same goes for sports doctors, soigneurs and anyone else.

Re-read my post. I said that 'I have emailed him, and he wrote me back'. That is all I said.

I never said he (MA) mentioned anything to me about cuddles and the state of Australian cycling/doping. I suggest to you, an Australian, who 'feels' so confident that astronomically (your words) gifted Cadel is clean to email M. Ashenden and get back to us. Will you do that, or just write stuff like he's mentally tough and committed and that is why he has beaten 10s of fueled up dopers?

Let us know if your willing to do some heavy lifting and help solve the thread at hand. Cheers.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

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?

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.

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.

World Champion at 21 an also ran? I dont think so.

I think Armstrong had enough talent to be a pro. He was apparently doping for Triathlons as a teenager, but he was never GT winning material.

No sure how you can judge any riders are clean at junior level. Not sure how anyone can judge any rider at any level as the testing is either non existent, an iq test or ****.

Reckon WT tour teams have a very good idea of what happens in the amateur peleton - And of course the smart teams will do a battery of tests over a period of time and compare that to what happens in races - It's like data matching.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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?

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.

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.

World Champion at 21 an also ran? I dont think so.

I think Armstrong had enough talent to be a pro. He was apparently doping for Triathlons as a teenager, but he was never GT winning material.

No sure how you can judge any riders are clean at junior level. Not sure how anyone can judge any rider at any level as the testing is either non existent, an iq test or ****.

Reckon WT tour teams have a very good idea of what happens in the amateur peleton - And of course the smart teams will do a battery of tests over a period of time and compare that to what happens in races - It's like data matching.

My guess is teams test to see who responds best to whatever PED is the choice of the season.

Cycling is a small sport so juniors will be watched closely, questions will be asked and in Italy they all come through certain well trodden avenues, so teams will have a pretty good idea who has ability and who is a good responder.

Sky made a mess over JTL. Some teams are good at it others not so good.

 

[sniper]

There was a good reason why both AIS and BC were so eager to settle in Italy in the mid2000s

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

<snipped>


I think this slide will help you...shock value really.

All dopers. All.

Now someone tell the clinic what has changed that a rider could win clean? Testing is worse than ever!

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

Spot on about junior Italian riders - A couple of WT teams won't touch Italian juniors with a 100 foot pole.

Yet they touch Rosa and Moscon with open arms - both once juniors in Italy

 

[Neworld]

Re: Re:

<snipped>


I think this slide will help you...shock value really.

All dopers. All.

Now someone tell the clinic what has changed that a rider could win clean? Testing is worse than ever!

But delbified and movingtarget are still arguing that Cadel Evans was clean! You're wrong Bennottii

 

[delbified]

Re: Re:

But delbified and roundabout are still arguing that Cadel Evans was clean! You're wrong Bennottii

Whether I or anyone else are wrong is of less concern to me than the blatant group think that goes on and is encouraged here. Anyone who dares raise the possibility of clean winners is immediately ridiculed with a clear message that this is a forum for the illuminati who 'know' the truth. Even if you're right, it still disgusts me.

 

[Neworld]

Re: Re:

But delbified and roundabout are still arguing that Cadel Evans was clean! You're wrong Bennottii

Whether I or anyone else are wrong is of less concern to me than the blatant group think that goes on and is encouraged here. Anyone who dares raise the possibility of clean winners is immediately ridiculed with a clear message that this is a forum for the illuminati who 'know' the truth. Even if you're right, it still disgusts me.

Ok, I'll stop. But you're suggesting the impossible (that Cadel is clean) and expect what, no response?

Let me ask you questions then.

Do you have any interest in finding out more information about Cadel Evans wrt the culture, associations and known florid doping that he had to compete against in order to stay at the highest of levels and even win the TdF?

Either way I will no longer show how your comments are weighted down by paper thin associations.

By the way, the 'illuminati' you are referring to....have been right for about 10 yrs now. Go back in time and look up some of the illuminating 'ones'.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

<snipped>


I think this slide will help you...shock value really.

All dopers. All.

Now someone tell the clinic what has changed that a rider could win clean? Testing is worse than ever!

But delbified and roundabout are still arguing that Cadel Evans was clean! You're wrong Bennottii

Reading is not your strong suit, is it? But maybe you'll be able to find something to support your assertion in the other 12 687 posts that I made on this forum.

search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=13071

 

[delbified]

Re: Re:

Do you have any interest in finding out more information about Cadel Evans wrt the culture, associations and known florid doping that he had to compete against in order to stay at the highest of levels and even win the TdF?

I've read tonnes about that stuff. But Evans was left for dead by some of those riders. He never went wheel-to-wheel with Armstrong or Rasmussen in 2007. He was dropped like a stone by those guys. Telekom wouldn't even put him in their Tour team, despite his obvious talent. It might all be luck that these circumstances arose and made Cadel look cleaner than some others who I am as cynical about as you, but I don't see the same evidence against Cadel as some others. Is that enough to say he's clean? It's impossible for me to say with certainty.

By the way, the 'illuminati' you are referring to....have been right for about 10 yrs now. Go back in time and look up some of the illuminating 'ones'.

Yes, I know. But it's also clear that cycling fans have trained themselves to disbelieve performances. As riders kept being exposed, time after time, it's natural to come to the conclusion 'they're all doped'. It could be true. But I think you have to keep an open mind.

 

[Neworld]

Re: Re:

Do you have any interest in finding out more information about Cadel Evans wrt the culture, associations and known florid doping that he had to compete against in order to stay at the highest of levels and even win the TdF?

I've read tonnes about that stuff. But Evans was left for dead by some of those riders. He never went wheel-to-wheel with Armstrong or Rasmussen in 2007. He was dropped like a stone by those guys. Telekom wouldn't even put him in their Tour team, despite his obvious talent. It might all be luck that these circumstances arose and made Cadel look cleaner than some others who I am as cynical about as you, but I don't see the same evidence against Cadel as some others. Is that enough to say he's clean? It's impossible for me to say with certainty.

By the way, the 'illuminati' you are referring to....have been right for about 10 yrs now. Go back in time and look up some of the illuminating 'ones'.

Yes, I know. But it's also clear that cycling fans have trained themselves to disbelieve performances. As riders kept being exposed, time after time, it's natural to come to the conclusion 'they're all doped'. It could be true. But I think you have to keep an open mind.

I think, maybe, you're just a honest soul.

When the tests are meaningful, sensitive and specific, and, riders openly provide the biometrics with regular blood samples without making a spectacle of infringement on their 'rights' to earn money in a dirty sport (that I love btw)...then I will keep an open mind. Until then you and I are on opposite sides of optimism. Cheers.

 

[delbified]

Re: Re:

What about Vo2max, stats on low hemostatic HCT-ergo O2 vector potentiating, LT, FTP? BTW Levi L supposedly 'trained harder than anyone' and had a high VO2

Vo2max is a convenient indicator of GT potential. it's not the be-all-and-end-all, but for convenience it's easier to reference than trying to go into a deep discussion on all that other stuff. I think you know that.

But if you want to hold me to Vo2Max around 88 as being your sole indicator that Cuddles could beat a hoard of cooked dopers...just off the top of my head
Greg LeM 92
CVV 88
..

I don't recall Cuddles dropping those riders. Most he didn't compete against. Others didn't train for winning GTs. The obvious question is - were there other riders of similar physiology who Cuddles rode off his wheel? And I don't think there were any, at least I can think of.

Most of those riders competed prior to the bio-passport. I believe that the window for doping is less these days. Obviously it still goes on, but riders seem to have to be more careful about doses etc. and the benefit is probably reduced in comparison to say early 2000s or earlier.

Was Lemond doping? He sure got dropped like a stone by Indurain.

I think this slide will help you...shock value really.

Of course I've seen it. But we don't yet know how more recent Tour winners and podium-getters will be remembered. Unfortunately it takes time, if we ever find out.

 

[Neworld]

Re: Re:

<snipped>


I think this slide will help you...shock value really.

All dopers. All.

Now someone tell the clinic what has changed that a rider could win clean? Testing is worse than ever!

But delbified and roundabout are still arguing that Cadel Evans was clean! You're wrong Bennotti

Reading is not your strong suit, is it? But maybe you'll be able to find something to support your assertion in the other 12 687 posts that I made on this forum.

search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=13071

You are right, it was not you. My apologies
I edited the post, it was movingtarget.
Got you to post # 12,687 tho...since 2010, that is 2100+ posts a year, or 6 posts a day for 6 years straight ! yikes!
regards

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

<snipped>


I think this slide will help you...shock value really.

All dopers. All.

Now someone tell the clinic what has changed that a rider could win clean? Testing is worse than ever!

Poor Oscar Pereiro the forgotten tour winner. What a bizarre race it was in 2006. I wonder what Oscar was doing right apart from being gifted 20 minutes in a break ? I mean he was a top 10 rider at best that somehow ended up with the Tour win. That is one Tour the ASO will want quickly forgotten.

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

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?

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.

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.

World Champion at 21 an also ran? I dont think so.

I think Armstrong had enough talent to be a pro. He was apparently doping for Triathlons as a teenager, but he was never GT winning material.

No sure how you can judge any riders are clean at junior level. Not sure how anyone can judge any rider at any level as the testing is either non existent, an iq test or ****.

I know that Armstrong was beating senior triathletes as a junior but he was already doping then ? Did he actually admit to doping before his pro career ? I remember reading about his testing results re heart and lungs being off the charts as well at a young age.

 

[Neworld]

Re: Re:

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?

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.

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.

World Champion at 21 an also ran? I dont think so.

I think Armstrong had enough talent to be a pro. He was apparently doping for Triathlons as a teenager, but he was never GT winning material.

No sure how you can judge any riders are clean at junior level. Not sure how anyone can judge any rider at any level as the testing is either non existent, an iq test or ****.

I know that Armstrong was beating senior triathletes as a junior but he was already doping then ? Did he actually admit to doping before his pro career ? I remember reading about his testing results re heart and lungs being off the charts as well at a young age.

Lancy doped early in his teenage career...read some primary reference material. Yes, he was seen doping in High School and while in Triathlons. Lance Admitted to very little, until it was too late and then he still didn't admit to all of it. Don't expect much from him. Now he's trying to start up another business to dig out of the debt, and impending Federal decision coming soon.

Btw, you don't believe that "Lance's Aorta and heart were 5 times bigger than the average man, and his lungs were 'massive' BS do you? PS: no person under 40 has an Aorta greater than 3cm unless they have a connective tissue disorder. There is no anatomical or physiological advantage to having a large Aorta...all BS created by Lance and Tailwind sports etc...to justify his rancid doping. The Heart and lung dilatation is even more laughable. Lungs grow to the size of the person...full stop; and Lance ain't big. He's below average for a man, but above average for a bike racer. Cardiac chambers can enlarge, but if too large becomes inefficient and can teeter on dysmotility. If you want something to enlarge in your heart, the strength and thickness of the LV wall is most important; but again, if too thick becomes dysfunctional. Look it up.

Lance, unlike Cadel, had/has a low VO2Max, and a Low HCT-EPO elevated his low HCT to the acceptable 49.9. The Low HCT allowed him to take is average genetics into the raging drugged racehorse category. Cadel probably had a naturally high VO2, low HCT and supplemented with blood boosting, Test, and HGH like the rest of the dopers he beat.