Fabio Aru 6.5w/kg

[hrotha]

Well, if that's what you're arguing, I agree. Henderson is being hypocritical unless he's not only clean himself, but sincerely believes his pals at Lotto and Sky are clean too. I could buy the former, but not the latter. And even then, that's because he added the "why dope" BS to one of his tweets; without it, a reasonably public figure not wanting to call out people without some back-up is perfectly fine. That's what others were calling him out on, and I disagree with that.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

The idea that young riders would somehow dope less is the biggest myth in doping. I keep hearing all the time that you can trust new generations because they are young.

I have never once seen a study that shows people under 25 are somehow more moral than people in their 30's. If anything if there were any sort of age-morality correlation I would guess it would work in the opposite direction, with people reflecting on their mistakes as they get older and becoming better.

Weve been hearing this - young generation is clean, thing for years. Even the old doping generation was once the young clean generation. Just yesterday someone posted in the wiggins thread comments from him from 2007 claiming everyone under 30 was clean and it was just those bad over 30 year olds that did it.

I think it's quite logical that the % of dopers are lower among young riders than old riders.

What is more likely, a rider who started out clean as neo-pro and later started doping to keep his dream alive of being a pro rider or a rider who started doping from the U-23 or amateur days and then after getting pro at some point in their career (even though they have never been caught) stopped doping all of a sudden?

What is more likely, a rider who has been clean his entire career and who will never dope or a rider who has always doped and always will, for them to be able to stay in the peloton from they are 21 to 42? Or basically, do you think dopers and clean riders are equally likely to still have a contract when they hit 35?

Based on those two questions alone, I think it's fair to deduct that the % of dopers are lower among young riders than old ones.

Ok but you are talking about the peloton as a whole, based on the idea that it takes time for people to be introduced to/ decide to dope.

But if we limit it to the people this discussion is essentially about - the top riders, is it really that much less likely the that the gc contender in his early 20s is doping than the one in his early 30's?

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Ok but you are talking about the peloton as a whole, based on the idea that it takes time for people to be introduced to/ decide to dope.

But if we limit it to the people this discussion is essentially about - the top riders, is it really that much less likely the that the gc contender in his early 20s is doping than the one in his early 30's?

Well, if we're talking about the (absolute) top riders, then I'd guess it's the exact same % for both groups. 100%

But depending on how narrow one defines top riders, I'd still say that those who are among the youngest at worst are as dirty as those who are older than them and at best are cleaner. I see no scenario where the youngest (top) riders are more dirty than the oldest (top) riders.

 

[goggalor]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/aru-considers-legal-action-after-henderson-accuses-astana-rider-of-cheating

Oh dear lol

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Well, if that's what you're arguing, I agree. Henderson is being hypocritical unless he's not only clean himself, but sincerely believes his pals at Lotto and Sky are clean too. I could buy the former, but not the latter. And even then, that's because he added the "why dope" BS to one of his tweets; without it, a reasonably public figure not wanting to call out people without some back-up is perfectly fine. That's what others were calling him out on, and I disagree with that.

Lotto clean, since when???????

 

[classicomano]

Re: Re:

Well, if that's what you're arguing, I agree. Henderson is being hypocritical unless he's not only clean himself, but sincerely believes his pals at Lotto and Sky are clean too. I could buy the former, but not the latter. And even then, that's because he added the "why dope" BS to one of his tweets; without it, a reasonably public figure not wanting to call out people without some back-up is perfectly fine. That's what others were calling him out on, and I disagree with that.

Lotto clean, since when???????

Since Taus left I reckon.

 

[hrotha]

I didn't say Lotto are clean?

 

[Ferminal]

Re: Re:

The idea that young riders would somehow dope less is the biggest myth in doping. I keep hearing all the time that you can trust new generations because they are young.

I have never once seen a study that shows people under 25 are somehow more moral than people in their 30's. If anything if there were any sort of age-morality correlation I would guess it would work in the opposite direction, with people reflecting on their mistakes as they get older and becoming better.

Weve been hearing this - young generation is clean, thing for years. Even the old doping generation was once the young clean generation. Just yesterday someone posted in the wiggins thread comments from him from 2007 claiming everyone under 30 was clean and it was just those bad over 30 year olds that did it.

I think it's quite logical that the % of dopers are lower among young riders than old riders.

What is more likely, a rider who started out clean as neo-pro and later started doping to keep his dream alive of being a pro rider or a rider who started doping from the U-23 or amateur days and then after getting pro at some point in their career (even though they have never been caught) stopped doping all of a sudden?

What is more likely, a rider who has been clean his entire career and who will never dope or a rider who has always doped and always will, for them to be able to stay in the peloton from they are 21 to 42? Or basically, do you think dopers and clean riders are equally likely to still have a contract when they hit 35?

Based on those two questions alone, I think it's fair to deduct that the % of dopers are lower among young riders than old ones.

Let's not pretend that Aru wasn't doping from 2011. I have a lot more faith in 30 year old battlers than "young guns".

Fair enough to pin your hopes on an average neo pro who is half likely not to get a second contract.

 

[Miburo]

Lotto clean? You've seen gilbert in 2011? lol

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Let's not pretend that Aru wasn't doping from 2011. I have a lot more faith in 30 year old battlers than "young guns".

Fair enough to pin your hopes on an average neo pro who is half likely not to get a second contract.

Absolutely agree, I'd guess the majority starts before they turn pro, but it still stands that based on logic, the group of riders over 30 probably have a higher % of dopers than the group of riders under 25 (though not necessarily a big difference between the two groups). Of course it's not those who win (big) that are clean in either group.

PS: Nice to see you again Fermi.

 

[TourOfTexas]

Re:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/aru-considers-legal-action-after-henderson-accuses-astana-rider-of-cheating

Oh dear lol

Yeah, if he was concerned about his reputation he wouldn't have signed for the biggest doping team in cycling.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

I didn't say Lotto are clean?

You said you could 'buy' Lotto being clean.

A team that hired Ibauguren and after losing him to Lefevere, think, 'ah sod this let's race clean'!!!!!!!!

 

[Der Effe]

Am I such a naive moron to think there's lot of (young) guys winning - or battling for the win - clean? And what is winning big? Bonifazio is a great rider for his age and winning GP Lugano is a big win for a 21-year old. Or is Kwiatkowski a big winner because at young age he won the WC and Amstel Gold Race and contested for many wins already?

I am not saying Bonifazio or Kwiatkowski are dopers (no claim necessary boys), but I am curious about what is a big win. Not to be pedantic or anything, but it might let me look at things from a different perspective.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re: Re:

I didn't say Lotto are clean?

You said you could 'buy' Lotto being clean.

A team that hired Ibauguren and after losing him to Lefevere, think, 'ah sod this let's race clean'!!!!!!!!

He said he could buy Henderson being clean

 

[Nick C.]

Re:

Well, if that's what you're arguing, I agree. Henderson is being hypocritical unless he's not only clean himself, but sincerely believes his pals at Lotto and Sky are clean too. I could buy the former, but not the latter. And even then, that's because he added the "why dope" BS to one of his tweets; without it, a reasonably public figure not wanting to call out people without some back-up is perfectly fine. That's what others were calling him out on, and I disagree with that.

Fixed that since apparently it is a source of much confusion in the original.

 

[IndianCyclist]

riders above 30 have different reasons to start or quit. They may start as they start losing in desperation or stop due to medical issues and disgust
The Aru question though remains. did he or did he not

 

[hrotha]

Oh, I see where the confusion stems from now. Thank you, Nick. That's exactly what I meant.

 

[spetsa]

Glad to see born-again-reformist Hendo is on the case. Does he think no one remembers his apologist days?

"It's sad because there are people out there thinking cycling is dirty," said Greg Henderson, who finished second to Haedo. "There might be a tiny, tiny part that is dirty. The rest of us, we're out here having fun."

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/14/sports/sp-cycle14

I mean, maybe he's just a wide-eyed idealist, but that's hard to believe when he was riding for Androlators at the time of those comments.

Hillarious. I remember that race very well. Those were the golden years of US domestic cycling. 7UP/ Healthnet were the ringleaders of that circus.

 

[Benotti69]

Not sure why anyone would assume Henderson is clean.

 

[hrotha]

Re:

Not sure why anyone would assume Henderson is clean.

I didn't say that either?

See that's your problem, you jump to conclusions faster than Hendo.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Not sure why anyone would assume Henderson is clean.

I didn't say that either?

See that's your problem, you jump to conclusions faster than Hendo.

I didn't quote you as saying Henderson was clean.

I quoted you as 'buy'ing the former (lotto) as being clean.

I dont see why Henderson is considered clean for trying to jump on a bandwagon of a team caught doping and a rumour that their 2nd best rider was about to named for BP anomalies.

Who jumps to conclusions then............

 

[hrotha]

Jesus christ, can you even read? My previous comment has been explained by three different people now, and no one here has said Henderson is clean.

 

[Benotti69]

I am not Jesus Christ, but i forgive you.............

 

[The Hitch]

Benno. We all know you believe every single rider in the peloton is clean. 100% of them. That is clear to all of us? Is it really neccesary then to pick up on every single poster who says any rider may be clean. Especially if ultimately you aren't going to be specific about that rider anyway and just use the same "everyone must dope" argument, regardless who it is.

 

[SeriousSam]

Doping behaviour certainly changes with age, because the incentives change (on the benefit side, doping when it's contract time is worth more, whereas the costs of a 2 year ban are much lower at the end of a career).

What probably doesn't change much is the binary variable of doping that is 1 if rider commits any doping offense whatsoever and 0 if not, because that's always equal to 1 for most riders.