File under "You have got to be &$(%ing kidding me?!

[sniper]

this may deserve a dedicated poll/thread - something like "TOP10 acceptable dopers"

to be sure, I meant 'acceptable' in the sense that he, much like Sastre, doesn't raise as much eyebrows in terms of transformation.
So less incentive for ridicule, hence less dedicated Clinic pages.

And I do have problems with Evans seeing how he is now being put on a pedestal and about to enter all sorts of Australian halls of fame.

Sastre will be well above Evans in my top 10.

 

[Benotti69]

this may deserve a dedicated poll/thread - something like "TOP10 acceptable dopers"

IMO there are no acceptable dopers.

 

[blackcat]

IMO there are no acceptable dopers.

what about the bear $hit in the woods doping?

as in, if a bear $hits in the woods...

 

[sniper]

IMO there are no acceptable dopers.

i don't disagree, but i do think from a social perspective, if the majority does it, and if it implies a great increase of life quality, it's sort of understandable, especially if you'd have the guarantee of not getting caught.
Not acceptable, nor respectable in any way, but understandable.
In the position of having to choose, in a climate where you know (or suspect) that everyone's doing it, I;m not sure if I would be strong enough to refuse some extra help in the form of undetectable PEDs.

bloodtransfusions no way, but some steroids and or oral EPO, well perhaps...

those who've been able to say no, that deserves the deepest respect.
I don't think i would be able to.

 

[movingtarget]

If you thought this through you would realize that the reason a handful of people (who it needs to be reiterated don't actually have the faintest clue in the world about whether dans was doping and who collectively have been wrong more times than a broken clock) have backed Evans as clean is because he's a tdf winner. Which means he's always in the press which means when it comes time to give an example of how the sport has cleaned up they choose him. Lemond btw has hyped every gt winner since Armstrong as clean including Nibali and Quintana last year and said that he doesn't consider small positives like contador to be doping.

Froome, Wiggins and Nibali have all received similar backing since their tour wins. Andrew hood even thinks that he has ebidence Nibali is clean.

So you give me a list of people who said Evans is clean. Here's a list of people who have said contador is clean. David Millar, Samuel Sanchez, Bradley Wiggins, Greg Lemond, Jonathan Vaughters, Sean Kelly, Stephen Roche, Andy Schlec
Mam how could such a large number of people in the sport say contador is clean if he isn't? Must mean it's true

Lemond said only recently that Evans should have won three Tours if not for dopers so he is referring to the 2007 and 2008 Tours that Evans finished second in. In that case logic dictates that he believes that Contador and Sastre were not clean. So he either changed his mind or is he a hypocrite ? Lemond gets so much good press on this site and he is seen as one rider who has more integrity than most as well as post career but it seems Lemond is only admired when he can support an argument. Or he is just shooting from the hip and something about Evans makes him believe he was clean.

I guess the truth will never be known unless someone from BMC or Lotto writes a book that is more convincing than most autobiographies. Some people on here say they have inside info that Evans is not liked within the peloton by many riders. If that is the case it would not be hard to accuse him of things and point the finger unless people are worried about legal aspects. Or maybe they think it's up to journalists to find out such things but post Armstrong it seems no one is surprised anymore especially the general public who just assume now that cycling is not to be taken seriously but sometimes it's good to watch just for the camera shots from the helicopter or whatever.

 

[blackcat]

my thesis is sound, the inside uses a different definition for "clean".

When the inside say "clean", the outsiders have a different conception of what equates to "clean".

thereby, we have this tension, where we think the same person with the same acts, as the insiders are exposed to, think these acts equate to doping while the insider considers this "clean".


this is one explanation to why the more knowledgable outsider, can be so diametrically opposed in their understanding to the insider and professional. peloton.

I think everyone is aware of the aphorism, "it is not doping if it does not show up". Now this is NOT the basis of my position, but it goes to evidence.

 

[The Hitch]

Lemond said only recently that Evans should have won three Tours if not for dopers so he is referring to the 2007 and 2008 Tours that Evans finished second in. In that case logic dictates that he believes that Contador and Sastre were not clean. So he either changed his mind or is he a hypocrite ? Lemond gets so much good press on this site and he is seen as one rider who has more integrity than most as well as post career but it seems Lemond is only admired when he can support an argument. Or he is just shooting from the hip and something about Evans makes him believe he was clean.

Or that he doesn't follow logic. Which if you actually watched any interview with Lemond in the last 2 years you would realize he doesnt. He's defended contador and in 1 year as eurosports resident "expert" hasn't made a single remark reservation about dopers like contador Valverde vino etc being in the sport, which in itself kind of crushes the portrayal you are trying to make of Lemond as someone who knows what they are talking about aand thinks Evans was the only clean rider.

Btw perhaps you could explain to me what qualifies lemond to all of a sudden be an expert on doping in the 2000's? him to say evans was clean? He retired over 2 decades ago, he wasn't involved in any aspect of cycling during the period Evans was at the top? He doesn't even know the names of most of the top riders at the moment and had to look up their names while on air presenting the tour de France?

That's your witness that Evans was clean? I don't see how it's any different from arguing Armstrong was clean because ligget said so. Such a harmless old man with such a good history in the sport. Why would he shoot from the hip and defend someone like Armstrong unless Armstrong really was clean? La must have been clean.

 

[movingtarget]

Or that he doesn't follow logic. Which if you actually watched any interview with Lemond in the last 2 years you would realize he doesnt. He's defended contador and in 1 year as eurosports resident "expert" hasn't made a single remark reservation about dopers like contador Valverde vino etc being in the sport, which in itself kind of crushes the portrayal you are trying to make of Lemond as someone who knows what they are talking about aand thinks Evans was the only clean rider.

Btw perhaps you could explain to me what qualifies lemond to all of a sudden be an expert on doping in the 2000's? him to say evans was clean? He retired over 2 decades ago, he wasn't involved in any aspect of cycling during the period Evans was at the top? He doesn't even know the names of most of the top riders at the moment and had to look up their names while on air presenting the tour de France?

That's your witness that Evans was clean? I don't see how it's any different from arguing Armstrong was clean because ligget said so. Such a harmless old man with such a good history in the sport. Why would he shoot from the hip and defend someone like Armstrong unless Armstrong really was clean? La must have been clean.

I'm not saying Lemond knows what he is talking about re current events but I just think it's strange that he singles out some riders and not others. For someone who is supposed to be totally anti doping it's bit weird. As for Eurosport I admit he seemed out of touch as a guest commentator and not really a good fit for TV commentary not because he does not know anything but because he was awkward. I tuned out. He seems to make more sense in print, well most of the time.

 

[Catwhoorg]

my thesis is sound, the inside uses a different definition for "clean".

When the inside say "clean", the outsiders have a different conception of what equates to "clean".

Inside Clean : Anything and everything goes that falls within the exact letter of the WADA rules

Outside Clean : Not using pharmacology to get an advantage


Hows that for a start ?

 

[the sceptic]

I'm not saying Lemond knows what he is talking about re current events but I just think it's strange that he singles out some riders and not others. For someone who is supposed to be totally anti doping it's bit weird. As for Eurosport I admit he seemed out of touch as a guest commentator and not really a good fit for TV commentary not because he does not know anything but because he was awkward. I tuned out. He seems to make more sense in print, well most of the time.

Lemond was never anti doping I think. More anti-Lance.

I forgot where but I think digger posted an interview from Ventoux where he was celebrating the Dawg as a clean champion.

I think he figured out that if you want to make any money on this new generation you have to go with the official talking points and pretend everyone is cleans now.

 

[classicomano]

Lemond comes across as a bit slow. Why would we care what he has to say about anything.

 

[sniper]

He also had this to say about Froome/Sky:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...or-froome-others-to-release-power-data_295268

more to the point i think is that lemond will occasionally say what he really thinks, but most of the time will say what his potential customers want to hear.

fair game me thinks.

in any case, agree with Hitch that his publicly stated opinion on Evans is worth extremely little.

 

[thehog]

Lemond comes across as a bit slow. Why would we care what he has to say about anything.

Agreed, he's hardly the voice of reason. Never see a person who manages to hold 8 conversations at the same time with himself. Truly bizarre.

 

[blackcat]

Inside Clean : Anything and everything goes that falls within the exact letter of the WADA rules

Outside Clean : Not using pharmacology to get an advantage


Hows that for a start ?

basically yes.

But WADA also don't put the arbiter of what is merely in your urine or tested for, or in your blood or your 'crit. They have the non-analytical positives now(and they did exist previously, like Armstrongm when they have a degree of proof (balance of probabilities) you have doped or attempted to, and the S0 and S1 regulations. (so technically, under WADA laws since 98 or 99, but never really used)

 

[Cookster15]

Evans gained 3.30 in a break late in the race, he would have finished 15+ minutes behind otherwise.

Correct. And on the stage to Ax-3 Domaines Evans lost over 2 mins to Armstrong, Floyd, Basso, Ullrich et al in the final 8km climb after being dropped on the earlier Port de Pailheres and just managing to get back on the descent. 2005 TdF results against known dopers may not suggest Evans was clean but doesn't suggest he wasn't either. Poorly selected "evidence".

 

[Cookster15]

I guess the truth will never be known unless someone from BMC or Lotto writes a book that is more convincing than most autobiographies. Some people on here say they have inside info that Evans is not liked within the peloton by many riders. If that is the case it would not be hard to accuse him of things and point the finger unless people are worried about legal aspects. Or maybe they think it's up to journalists to find out such things but post Armstrong it seems no one is surprised anymore especially the general public who just assume now that cycling is not to be taken seriously but sometimes it's good to watch just for the camera shots from the helicopter or whatever.

I agree with this paragraph and especially the bolded bit. But I think Evans persona also puts off many fans for the same reason and that might colour their opinions on him.

 

[sniper]

I agree with this paragraph and especially the bolded bit. But I think Evans persona also puts off many fans for the same reason and that might colour their opinions on him.

typical behavior of a clean guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FikzgWE3t0A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fe79ZuDKfk

 

[Cookster15]

typical behavior of a clean guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FikzgWE3t0A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fe79ZuDKfk

Yeh, it was a worry but those incidents mean nothing in terms of Evans doping or not. Just means Evans is a prickly character when he is doing his job and under pressure. I think when the pressure is off Evans can be quite calm. I know people who were at the closing ceremony of the London Olympics who said Evans was one of the easiest people to talk to on the field at that time and very free with his time and words. By contrast there was an Australian gold medallist who shall remain nameless who was quite prickly and even arrogant towards their fellow Aussie team mates. These are personality traits not indications of possible doping.

 

[Netserk]

Correct. And on the stage to Ax-3 Domaines Evans lost over 2 mins to Armstrong, Floyd, Basso, Ullrich et al in the final 8km climb after being dropped on the earlier Port de Pailheres and just managing to get back on the descent. 2005 TdF results against known dopers may not suggest Evans was clean but doesn't suggest he wasn't either. Poorly selected "evidence".

Only took the rest day BB to fly up Aubisque and Mende. Yes, 2005 is very poor selected 'evidence'.

 

[sniper]

Yeh, it was a worry but those incidents mean nothing in terms of Evans doping or not. Just means Evans is a prickly character when he is doing his job and under pressure. I think when the pressure is off Evans can be quite calm. I know people who were at the closing ceremony of the London Olympics who said Evans was one of the easiest people to talk to on the field at that time and very free with his time and words. By contrast there was an Australian gold medallist who shall remain nameless who was quite prickly and even arrogant towards their fellow Aussie team mates. These are personality traits not indications of possible doping.

we know he's a doper, that's not really an issue here.

but if you wanna analyse that footage in terms of doper or clean guy, well tell me:
he'd cut that guy's head off and slam that other guy's mike in his face, but out of some hidden moral principles he'd refuse to take an injection if offered...?
right...

 

[Cookster15]

Only took the rest day BB to fly up Aubisque and Mende. Yes, 2005 is very poor selected 'evidence'.

Aubisque was in a break and Evans was no threat to GC - except for top 10. Mende was only a 3 km climb. Now I come here enough to know you can do better than that?

 

[Netserk]

Aubisque was in a break and Evans was no threat to GC - except for top 10. Mende was only a 3 km climb. Now I come here enough to know you can do better than that?

Ah, being in a break of course made it much easier for Evans Did you see the stage?

Oh, I see I forgot that doping doesn't work when efforts are less than 10'...

 

[Benotti69]

Aubisque was in a break and Evans was no threat to GC - except for top 10. Mende was only a 3 km climb. Now I come here enough to know you can do better than that?

you come here enough to doubt Evans is a doper......no compute!

 

[Cookster15]

you come here enough to doubt Evans is a doper......no compute!

No - I now think it is likely Evans doped - particularly after a good post from Hitch a while back on another thread. But what I am questioning here is what I think are bad examples.

 

[Cookster15]

Ah, being in a break of course made it much easier for Evans Did you see the stage?

Oh, I see I forgot that doping doesn't work when efforts are less than 10'...

Yes I saw the stage - or at least the highlights. He was with Periero. The GC group had little reason to chase just keep the time gain under control. If Armstrong and Co had been with Evans on the Aubisque it would have been a lot different. You use the Aubisque or Mende to support your case but ignore how he was dropped on other mountains like AX-3.