perhaps his body is aged in the same cellar as lance's winning tubulars were. one two three four five six seven years.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
sniper said:
Mambo95 said:So he's gone to a mountain that isn't covered in snow and skiers.
Good god, you pathetic people are so desperate.
Obviously most expected Evans to win more time on Sastre during the TT.Ildabaoth said:It wasn't just Evans who thought he could recover the lost time in that TT. It was a long one, more than 50 km, and Sastre isn't a top time trialist. I was mostly convinced that Evans had won the Tour after l'Alp d'Huez. He didn't choke at the TT. Actually, he got almost the exact same time than Menchov, for example, and to be beaten by Cancellara or Schumacher is pretty much normal. Sastre, on the other hand, managed to deliver a great (and also highly suspicious) TT that year.
Benotti69 said:Imagine Armstrong paid for exclusive and Ferarri was 'training' others at the same time, excellent.
Roninho said:Even though it would be funny in the end it didn't really matter since LA won what he wanted. The Fuentes case is funnier since he was essentially fueling half the peloton and it seemed like most thought they (or their team) were the only ones...
Yeah that was also my understanding, the guy is/was considered a loner/not a 'teamguy'. In the case of him being the teamleader that is something the team accepts (although as you can see by the Peiper comments wasn't something they were particularly happy with), but at Telekom/T-mobile it was a different situation since he was going to be a domestique. You don't want a weirdo who might damage teammorale in your team, especially when your t-mobile and you have a bunch of qualified domestiques.Digger said:Just to further this point, Alan Peiper said in his book that whilst he really wanted to help Cadel in his time with Lotto, he was notoriously difficult to get along with. Odd as two left shoes apparently, and such was his behaviour to other riders on the team, that Peiper was very worried for the guy. So it was a relief that McEwen and someone else who I forget, took him under their wing and just put up with his moods and his rantings.
By the way there was a time I wanted to believe in Cadel. However, in my opinion, there is no way he could have competed in the Tours he did, and come in the positions he did, without the aid of blood vector doping like the rest. The advantages of doping are so great, I cannot understand how he could be that close to dopers, and in many cases, actually beat them.
The Drs. Fuentes and Ferrari wholeheartedly endorse your comment ]yourwelcome said:Originally Posted by BroDeal said:If Evans is clean then he is the dumbest mofo in the peloton. If he can compete clean, a boost of a few percent would turn him into a legend.
Roninho said:Exactly, i totally do not agree with BroDeal's comment. If he is indeed clean and gets these results he shouldn't even be thinking about doping. World champion, TDF win, classic wins, bunch of top 5's in GT's. Great career without doping. Never the feeling of being a cheater, never the feeling when am i going to get busted, and great results.
Years ago i visited the Tour de Flanders and watched it at about 80-100km's to the finish, at a long cobblestonesection. The top 20 looked fresh, a bunch of guys where having difficulty and the last 30-40 riders in the peloton looked like they were dying. I saw Roy Sentjens in the back of the peloton and he looked awfull, just awfull. I remember thinking that if i had to make my money while feeling (well at least looking) that awfull with 100 km's to go, without any chances to ever go for a win myself i'd go for a different job.
In a situation like that i could see why someone would go for doping (assuming he didn't dope a that time obviously, Sentjes got busted later in his career), especially if you think that other guys around you get results due to doping. And add in that you probably trained all your life with the ambition to win, and in the youth categories you beaten guys and now you get beaten by the Kohls and schumachers on dope. It must be frustrating as ****.
But to dope when you get the results cadel is getting? No that wouldn't make sense imo.
Roninho said:Exactly, i totally do not agree with BroDeal's comment. If he is indeed clean and gets these results he shouldn't even be thinking about doping. World champion, TDF win, classic wins, bunch of top 5's in GT's. Great career without doping. Never the feeling of being a cheater, never the feeling when am i going to get busted, and great results.
Years ago i visited the Tour de Flanders and watched it at about 80-100km's to the finish, at a long cobblestonesection. The top 20 looked fresh, a bunch of guys where having difficulty and the last 30-40 riders in the peloton looked like they were dying. I saw Roy Sentjens in the back of the peloton and he looked awfull, just awfull. I remember thinking that if i had to make my money while feeling (well at least looking) that awfull with 100 km's to go, without any chances to ever go for a win myself i'd go for a different job.
In a situation like that i could see why someone would go for doping (assuming he didn't dope a that time obviously, Sentjes got busted later in his career), especially if you think that other guys around you get results due to doping. And add in that you probably trained all your life with the ambition to win, and in the youth categories you beaten guys and now you get beaten by the Kohls and schumachers on dope. It must be frustrating as ****.
But to dope when you get the results cadel is getting? No that wouldn't make sense imo.
sniper said:You don'T easily get into the propeloton (let alone to be a teamleader) without doping in the first place.
And of course it's not hard to understand why these guys dope.
All you need is to spend a couple of months without a job and income, and you'll soon get to a point where you'd do basically anything for money, without moral qualms.
If you're in cycling and you get the chance to make a living out of it, from that point onwards it's dope vs. clean = contract vs. no contract = money vs. no money.
Not a difficult choice, I reckon, not even a moral dilemma to most.
Topsport (not just cycling) is obviously not going to get much cleaner as long as there is big money involved, on the contrary. and that's not pessimism, that's banal realism.
Roninho said:Exactly, i totally do not agree with BroDeal's comment.
JA.Tri said:While I have read many of your posts I do not recall the substance (early onset dementia).
Do you believe all the peloton dope? If not, who does not? as your points above seem to argue against racing clean (if I have understood your thoughts)?