Forget this years Giro: who were the top three last year?????

[thingswelike]

I'm unsure about Evans re doping, but I sometimes think his palmares has been seriously effected by that first promising pro year. Hi did so well, that he was instantly earmarked a tour contender. During the Armstrong years this is a kiss of death to someone's palmares as they concentrate purely on the tour and forget everything else. This year seems a bit different - a different focus kickstarted by his Velta attacking.

As Ludwig stated above, If you thought you were being cheated out of your wins by dopers, you'd be more vocal about it. You've only got to hear Wiggo and Greg Henderson rant on about doping for a minute to gain a lot of confidence in them.

Unfortunately I think Wiggins is a victim of the 'tour focus' too. He wont win, but he's sacrificing some other race glories for it.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I'm unsure about Evans re doping, but I sometimes think his palmares has been seriously effected by that first promising pro year. Hi did so well, that he was instantly earmarked a tour contender. During the Armstrong years this is a kiss of death to someone's palmares as they concentrate purely on the tour and forget everything else. This year seems a bit different - a different focus kickstarted by his Velta attacking.

As Ludwig stated above, If you thought you were being cheated out of your wins by dopers, you'd be more vocal about it. You've only got to hear Wiggo and Greg Henderson rant on about doping for a minute to gain a lot of confidence in them.

Unfortunately I think Wiggins is a victim of the 'tour focus' too. He wont win, but he's sacrificing some other race glories for it.

I would disagree, Evans made strong comments about Vino recently and Valverde in the past. Really, if they go out yelling doper then couldn't they be possibly sued for defamation?

Mcewen's take on the drug testing at il giro this year!

@mcewenrobbie
with the Giro d'Italia starting in Amsterdam, wonder if pre-race controls will test for weed
and could an Amsterdam sex show be considered performance enhancing?

 

[thingswelike]

I would disagree, Evans made strong comments about Vino recently and Valverde in the past.

Can you quote these? I've missed them.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Can you quote these? I've missed them.

He made a reference to valvverde from a foo fighters song called i'll stick around, about how he will be back to get revenge on him and the song talks about the "methods he abused".

on vino, in la gazetta dello sporta supposedly he made reference that he wasn't exacly happy that vino won. Supposedly he was mis quoted but the article gives you the idea that he was not happy about it.

 

[Inner Peace]

Good post. Most posts of this nature don't use supporting evidence to bolster their points, but you have alot here..

But isn't the same thing said about every major contender? Valverde and Contador were considered freakish talents in the amateur ranks. Ullrich was obviously a supreme natural talent, yet we now know he was also doping his entire career.

It could well be that Evans is one of the most naturally talented riders out there....that fact certainly wouldn't be out of line with Evans' accomplishments. But don't discount the natural talent of his competitors. You yourself admit you have more info about Evans than others....so on what basis can you make conclusions relative to other riders?.

i'm not so much making conclusions, just alerting to the fact that out of the three freakish talents mentioned (Evans Valverde and Contador) we only know Evans' V02 max at a young age... and yeh i conceded i know more about a local rider than a foreign one but i called for anyone to give me some info in terms of numbers from those guys before they hit the top pro teams to help my judgments

most people use the argument about riders making a positive jump in performance as suspect doping and use examples of guys like Hinault and Lemond as clean because they were at the top of grand tours on their debut... well so was Evans. He was at the top of mountain biking from a young age and his performance slipped ONCE he got to the road (again im using the assumption that he went from racing less doped to more doped riders - thus explaining a drop in perceived results/performance)

i'm just using the reverse logic of how people accuse dopers, and other than Evans being on suspect teams early in his career, there appears to be no other black marks in terms of unprecedented jump in performance which does not correlate with lifetime performance

Evans has been at the top his entire lifetime, which helps the potrayal of cleanliness

So he was riding for Mapei back in 2001 and finished 2nd in the Giro clean? How likely is that? You concede that was a team-based doping program at Telekom, but the bottom line is Mapei was no better.

The thing to keep in mind here is doping goes beyond the Top 10 of select races..it's pretty much peloton-wide....hence the code of silence and the united front on doping among cyclists. McQuaid and company want you to believe it's just a few bad apples....I guess they feel this is the best strategy to take in case there is a scandal.

he didn't finish the Giro 2nd. he cracked and made 14th or something.. impressively tho, he was in Pink after a mountain stage and hunger flat was the reason he most likely lost (i'm not saying he would of won). again i am using that argument that if you are a freakish talent you are likely to show that in your very first race (or real race) and Evans did..

he showed talent ON DEBUT which is not the usual thing we see from the alleged dopers and how the 'refine their programs' as they 'reach their peak'


i understand doping goes beyond the top 10, but I still believe that a supremely talented rider (with a VO2 in the high 80s/possibly 90s) can be racing GTs clean.. he always struggles in the final week, which is a natural effect of racing clean.

Its likely he is a lot more naturally talented than the shmuck who dopes as a domestic, but thats comparing apples and oranges, or rather donkeys and racehorses. there is absolutely no reason why a clean talent can't beat a doped domestic. doping comes on all levels, and i agree with you on that, and riders have different responses to dope so there is no reason why the peloton can't have many clean riders. i'm not at all following McQuads punchline of a few bad eggs. i'm not that ignorant.

its also reaonable for me to believe that a doping Valverde is only 2-3% above a more NATURALLY talented Evans. All those articles saying dope gives you a 10% boost are based on trained amateurs, not freakish specimens that are so finely tuned and naturally talented as Evans and Valverde.

Now if one dopes, it doesn't necessarily mean the other can't at least keep up clean, which is why I think Evans is 'keeping up' with Valverde in GTs (a la Vuelta 2009). we are not talking the days of jacking up to 60% anymore. Valverde may get a 5% boost over Evans from dope, Evans is 3% naturally talented, therefore, their difference in a GT is 2% (assuming a perfect comparison - obviously there are so so so many other factors that explain their difference and as to why Evans has often finished ahead of Valv)... don't take those numbers too seriously anyone, just a little thought experiment to explain how my head works

Point is, i'm willing to believe a clean natural super freak can keep up with dopers because dopers aren't jacking up like crazy anymore with all the 'micro-dosing' and keeping your blood values non-suspicious... Call me ignorant, but I think Evans is clean.

 

[auscyclefan94]

People may say then to Inner Peace's comments, " Well others have high vo2 max" but evans has not been connected to a doping ring yet. Guilty of doping association is a bs arguement imo.

 

[pmcg76]

People may say then to Inner Peace's comments, " Well others have high vo2 max" but evans has not been connected to a doping ring yet. Guilty of doping association is a bs arguement imo.

Well, I think the perfromances of Pellizotti in 08/09 Giro raised a few eyebrows but there was absolutely no evidence until now(despite his claims of innocence). People get into a frenzy when posters raise questions about certain performances without evidence of doping but Pellizotti is the perfect example of such a scenario. No evidence but astonishing rides never witnessed before from such a cyclist. I was not surprised at Franco being named in these shennanigans. Was anybody else?

I am not as skeptical as Ludwig about everyone doping but I still try to keep an open mind on everyone. I like to think certain riders or teams are clean or at least a lot cleaner than the big-names. I still aint gonna go out on a limb and defend anybody like some people do. I too believe in innocence until caught but suspicious performances are just that, suspicious. If people want to call them suspicious, fine by me.

 

[ludwig]

He made a reference to valvverde from a foo fighters song called i'll stick around, about how he will be back to get revenge on him and the song talks about the "methods he abused".

on vino, in la gazetta dello sporta supposedly he made reference that he wasn't exacly happy that vino won. Supposedly he was mis quoted but the article gives you the idea that he was not happy about it.

Well you're obviously aware it is sheer fantasy to view these comments as overtly critical of dopers.

It's like believing Cunego must be clean because he put a stick-on tattoo on his arm that said "clean".

 

[ludwig]

i
Now if one dopes, it doesn't necessarily mean the other can't at least keep up clean, which is why I think Evans is 'keeping up' with Valverde in GTs (a la Vuelta 2009). we are not talking the days of jacking up to 60% anymore. Valverde may get a 5% boost over Evans from dope, Evans is 3% naturally talented, therefore, their difference in a GT is 2% (assuming a perfect comparison - obviously there are so so so many other factors that explain their difference and as to why Evans has often finished ahead of Valv)... don't take those numbers too seriously anyone, just a little thought experiment to explain how my head works

At the Tour, even a 1% performance difference would cumulatively add up to at least 30 minutes. This is why it seems so absurd to me when people claim clean riders could contend with blood doped riders when the drive/talent/coaching/training are roughly equal. Re. VO2 maxes, I don't put a whole lot of stock in these numbers because it seems to me doping could have effected the numbers given. It's not as if mountain bike racing is dope-free either. If you had raw data from when Contador and Evans were both 20 then that would be more interesting--no doubt the anti-doping efforts could use such raw data.

Another thing that makes "Evans is clean" proponents seem particularly ridiculous to me is how are you supposed to defend Evans' choice of teams. He now rides for the BMC team, which is basically the Phonak team (same ownership and management) reborn. From 2000-06, Phonak was involved in at least as many (and probably much more) doping scandals as any other pro team....and they kept at it all the way to the Landis debacle. If Evans was a clean rider amidst a dirty sport, why choose this team?

I don't have any problem with Evans. I just get frustrated with naive fans (and naturally there are many here on CN) insisting that he is somehow cleaner than his rivals (eg Valverde, Contador, Sastre, Wiggins etc.). There's just no evidence for this. And it's hard to imagine how one could enjoy cycling races if one was convinced that the home rider (in this case Evans) was routinely being cheated out of his rightful place.

 

[thingswelike]

At the Tour, even a 1% performance difference would cumulatively add up to at least 30 minutes. This is why it seems so absurd to me when people claim clean riders could contend with blood doped riders when the drive/talent/coaching/training are roughly equal. Re. VO2 maxes, I don't put a whole lot of stock in these numbers because it seems to me doping could have effected the numbers given. It's not as if mountain bike racing is dope-free either. If you had raw data from when Contador and Evans were both 20 then that would be more interesting--no doubt the anti-doping efforts could use such raw data.

Another thing that makes "Evans is clean" proponents seem particularly ridiculous to me is how are you supposed to defend Evans' choice of teams. He now rides for the BMC team, which is basically the Phonak team (same ownership and management) reborn. From 2000-06, Phonak was involved in at least as many (and probably much more) doping scandals as any other pro team....and they kept at it all the way to the Landis debacle. If Evans was a clean rider amidst a dirty sport, why choose this team?

I don't have any problem with Evans. I just get frustrated with naive fans (and naturally there are many here on CN) insisting that he is somehow cleaner than his rivals (eg Valverde, Contador, Sastre, Wiggins etc.). There's just no evidence for this. And it's hard to imagine how one could enjoy cycling races if one was convinced that the home rider (in this case Evans) was routinely being cheated out of his rightful place.

Hang on - I don't really see how you expect 1% difference in performance to equate to a 30min gap at the finish. It ignores everything we know about the dynamics of the peloton. Also it would mean that the top 18 at last years tour were all within 1% of performance. Does that mean if one of them was doping, all of them were!!!?

I agree that looking at how he rode as a mountain biker as proof of no doping is ridiculous. The chances of being caught are much slimmer, meaning that I suspect it's rife within the MTB world.

 

[ludwig]

Hang on - I don't really see how you expect 1% difference in performance to equate to a 30min gap at the finish. It ignores everything we know about the dynamics of the peloton.

Not really. 30 mins is a low estimate, 1% of the entire Tour with all the various breaks would be a whole lot more than 30 mins. By 30 mins, I'm simply referring to the 1% VO2 difference between the absolute top (Contador) and the 1% under when it comes to the steep climbing stages.

Also it would mean that the top 18 at last years tour were all within 1% of performance. Does that mean if one of them was doping, all of them were!!!?
.

Given what we know about the effect of oxygen-vector doping and the history of the effects and results of oxygen-vector doping....yeah that sounds about right.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Well you're obviously aware it is sheer fantasy to view these comments as overtly critical of dopers.

It's like believing Cunego must be clean because he put a stick-on tattoo on his arm that said "clean".

Cunego came out of nowhere to win the giro in his first year. I was asked if evans had spoken against doping.

 

[Inner Peace]

(1)At the Tour, even a 1% performance difference would cumulatively add up to at least 30 minutes. This is why it seems so absurd to me when people claim clean riders could contend with blood doped riders when the drive/talent/coaching/training are roughly equal. Re. VO2 maxes, I don't put a whole lot of stock in these numbers because it seems to me doping could have effected the numbers given. It's not as if mountain bike racing is dope-free either. If you had raw data from when Contador and Evans were both 20 then that would be more interesting--no doubt the anti-doping efforts could use such raw data.

(2)Another thing that makes "Evans is clean" proponents seem particularly ridiculous to me is how are you supposed to defend Evans' choice of teams. He now rides for the BMC team, which is basically the Phonak team (same ownership and management) reborn. From 2000-06, Phonak was involved in at least as many (and probably much more) doping scandals as any other pro team....and they kept at it all the way to the Landis debacle. If Evans was a clean rider amidst a dirty sport, why choose this team?

(3)I don't have any problem with Evans. I just get frustrated with naive fans (and naturally there are many here on CN) insisting that he is somehow cleaner than his rivals (eg Valverde, Contador, Sastre, Wiggins etc.). There's just no evidence for this. And it's hard to imagine how one could enjoy cycling races if one was convinced that the home rider (in this case Evans) was routinely being cheated out of his rightful place.

(1) I didn't mean those numbers to be taken literally (which is why I said so) because GTs are not just one big time trial were we can perfectly compare two riders. Way to many factors which is why I think a clean rider can compete. Crunch time in GTs consist of 3-4 moments in grand tours with the defensive racing these days. The last 3-4 km of mountains near the finish and time trials. So the "1%" difference can only really be applied to comparable individual efforts (TTs and being alone on a mountain - bit like the end of Verbier when most riders were gapped to the next rider). So perhaps try re-doing that calculation based on just the 'critical' moments when riders are completely isolated and I suspect that it is a lot less than 30 minutes. 1-2 minutes I would guess

(2) Reasonable to assume that Evans believes that BMC is a reformed team. Why wouldn't he? He wanted out of Lotto, and Garmin didn't know he was looking. BMC is a logical choice. The reverse question - what information do you have to suggest that BMC IS NOT a reformed team? they just signed the cleanest rider in the peloton, no?

(3) I am neither Naive nor a Fan of Evans per se, i am in a situation where I have known a lot of information about australian riders. In fact, I am not really a fan of individual riders, just the sport and competition itself. The 'evidence' I present to Evans as clean is the reverse logic of why people explain why a clean Lemond went downhill when the 90s hit. I am only defending Evans becoz I see no justification for claiming he is a doper when you have no evidence other than oh but everbody is doing it

I ask the question to you, other than being on some 'interesting' teams, what evidence do you have that he doped? He was not very well liked at T-mobile - why? wouldn't conform to the rules of the team program? if you were T-mobile DS, would you let the stubborn 'thinks he can race clean' 27yr old on the Tour team in 2004??

And why would Evans speak out against doping (he actually does btw, subtly) when we have seen time and time again that those who speak out are quietly nudged out of the peloton... There is a reason why nobody in the peloton likes Evans (a common thought around here) and I suspect it is because he makes very subtle comments about anti doping and he has the nerve to race clean... Evans is a very stubborn, motivated and frustrated bike racer, perhaps he is stomaching the pain comes from being unwilling to speak out as dramatically as you might want...

I am not trying to convert you into a believer at all but I think the debate about clean and dirty riders is a very interesting one. I still believe, based on perfectly rational logic, that a clean rider can compete in grand tours. I don't need to prove that, because the nature of it is, unprovable (don't know if thats a word). Neither of us can prove they are all dirty, nether of us can prove there are clean competitors. That's the nature of being a cycling fan i guess

 

[SpartacusRox]

I am not sure if Menchov is on anything but if he is it does not have a good effect on his balance on the bike. The guy is just so un-co. Him falling off in the TT last year was in hindsight (I say that because I would have hated for him to lose that way) the funniest thing Ive seen since Chicken in the tdf time trial a few years ago.

 

[ludwig]

(1) I didn't mean those numbers to be taken literally (which is why I said so) because GTs are not just one big time trial were we can perfectly compare two riders. Way to many factors which is why I think a clean rider can compete. Crunch time in GTs consist of 3-4 moments in grand tours with the defensive racing these days. The last 3-4 km of mountains near the finish and time trials. So the "1%" difference can only really be applied to comparable individual efforts (TTs and being alone on a mountain - bit like the end of Verbier when most riders were gapped to the next rider). So perhaps try re-doing that calculation based on just the 'critical' moments when riders are completely isolated and I suspect that it is a lot less than 30 minutes. 1-2 minutes I would guess

(2) Reasonable to assume that Evans believes that BMC is a reformed team. Why wouldn't he? He wanted out of Lotto, and Garmin didn't know he was looking. BMC is a logical choice. The reverse question - what information do you have to suggest that BMC IS NOT a reformed team? they just signed the cleanest rider in the peloton, no?

(3) I am neither Naive nor a Fan of Evans per se, i am in a situation where I have known a lot of information about australian riders. In fact, I am not really a fan of individual riders, just the sport and competition itself. The 'evidence' I present to Evans as clean is the reverse logic of why people explain why a clean Lemond went downhill when the 90s hit. I am only defending Evans becoz I see no justification for claiming he is a doper when you have no evidence other than oh but everbody is doing it

I ask the question to you, other than being on some 'interesting' teams, what evidence do you have that he doped? He was not very well liked at T-mobile - why? wouldn't conform to the rules of the team program? if you were T-mobile DS, would you let the stubborn 'thinks he can race clean' 27yr old on the Tour team in 2004??

And why would Evans speak out against doping (he actually does btw, subtly) when we have seen time and time again that those who speak out are quietly nudged out of the peloton... There is a reason why nobody in the peloton likes Evans (a common thought around here) and I suspect it is because he makes very subtle comments about anti doping and he has the nerve to race clean... Evans is a very stubborn, motivated and frustrated bike racer, perhaps he is stomaching the pain comes from being unwilling to speak out as dramatically as you might want...

I am not trying to convert you into a believer at all but I think the debate about clean and dirty riders is a very interesting one. I still believe, based on perfectly rational logic, that a clean rider can compete in grand tours. I don't need to prove that, because the nature of it is, unprovable (don't know if thats a word). Neither of us can prove they are all dirty, nether of us can prove there are clean competitors. That's the nature of being a cycling fan i guess

Innerpeace....I appreciate your good humor and your passion for the sport. And I don't mind all the speculation.....however you take it pretty far. T-Mobile didn't like Evans cause he was clean.....lol that's a hell of a strech there. We know T-Mobile (specifically Ullrich) didn't like Evans because Cadel was interested in riding for himself, but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with Evans being more naturally talented than anyone else on the team...

I'm not sure there's a way to say this without sounding like an ***, but it might be useful to read up some on the history of doping in cycling, the omerta on doping in cycling, and the effects of PEDs on athletic performance. I wish I had a bunch of ready links at hand but I'm on my useless laptop atm. For me the HUGE one is MANZANO...that man had BALLZ and blew the omerta wide open...one can differeniate the trolls from the real fans when his name comes up. Kohl and Jaksche are similar.

Clearly we need a wiki on the effects of EPO and other oxygen-vector drugs. If you want to learn something about them I suggest you google things like "EPO', 'oygenvector drugs', 'blood doping' along with 'effect on performance' and 'cycling'.

Bottom line is no one seems to disagree that if an athlete is on a blood-doping course, the athlete can expect to improve his TUE numbers by around 5%.

Now my analogy had to do with the very elite of the peloton. Let's assume that the Top 30 riders in the Tour are in the 99%-100% percentile of overall TUE output among professional cyclists. When it comes to the Tour, the difference between 1-30 is generally going to be about 30 mins when you take all the various stages into account....I don't know where you are getting 1-2 mins....that's chump change on a serious mountain stage...1-2 mins is nothing. Bottom line is the difference between being on a program and not being on a program is at least 30 mins---30 mins is a LOW estimate.... those cyclists who are aware of what is going on (eg Manzano, Kohl, etc) will tell you that nobody is to finish the Tour within 30 mins of the winner on bread and water.

So if you accept the conclusions of science on the effect of performance enhancing drugs, and if you take into account the plethora of evidence that most of the major contenders are doping and believe the effects of these methods are genuine and effective (eg PUERTO, continued omerta, that all of the major teams, coaches, doctors, and methods are the same since Puerto, and that there is every indication that the same attitudes and practices exist as then) then in order to credibly assert a Top 10 GT rider is clean, you have to claim they are a natural anomaly that already had a natural 5% advantage over the peloton, prior to the rest of the peloton's dopage.

This contender would have the ability to utterly massacre the peloton in the event of a clean race.

It's very difficult to dissprove an assertion like this, but it very easy to ridicule it as absurdly unlikely. That's what I'm doing. If people care to mimic the Lance-lovers and claim Evans is a genetic God, go ahead and have your fun...there's nothing that can be said on the Internet to prove that a man is or isn't a deity. But I believe that deifying a cyclist as a natural anomaly intrinsically disrespects his rivals. I'd like to think that if a cyclist lies enough about being clean (eg the High Road/Slipstream version of omerta), eventually his rivals will tire of his hypocrisy and will come clean just to show the mofos up.

As for the other points.....Evans has never said a word against doping and/or omerta. And anytime he makes some veiled comment that is interpreted as against some other doper, the media (eg Velonews and other enablers) jumps all over it and loves it....believe me the professional cycling community has nothing against this sort of jab for the benefit of fans, just like they have nothing against Millar/Vaughters et. al putting out their BS. If Evans were to legitimately criticize the omerta on doping, and/or if he were to actually claim he has been cheated out of rightful wins, then yes in that case there would be a backlash. Meanwhile, there is no evidence suggesting that Evans behaves like a man who has ridden clean for years and has been robbed time and again by cheaters.

As for his team...I don't know what to say to that. Look, if Evans was committed to riding clean, why would he sign up with people that repeatedly and knowingly broke the rules? Why would he want to be associated with a team that might be banned from the Tour for that very reason (hell, there already have been BMC positives, and if the corrupt UCI wasn't in charge BMC might end up being excluded).

If Evans was clean, he'd sign up for Amore e Vita, and then we'd see how a clean team would do at the Tour.

Again, I have no quarrel with Evans and nothing against his fans...I would make similar arguments to a fan asserting the same thing about any GT contender. This being an Aussie site obviously there are tons of Evans believers... It goes without saying that German sites believed Ulle was clean while Pharmstrong was doping, that Spanish sites believe Contador is clean and angelic while his rivals are dirty cheating dopers, and Italian fan sites believe with full conviction that Ivan Basso has mended his ways and is on his way to defeating all the dirty foreign dopers through his sheer excess in talent. This is human nature.

 

[Inner Peace]

Innerpeace....I appreciate your good humor and your passion for the sport. And I don't mind all the speculation.....however you take it pretty far. T-Mobile didn't like Evans cause he was clean.....lol that's a hell of a strech there. We know T-Mobile (specifically Ullrich) didn't like Evans because Cadel was interested in riding for himself, but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with Evans being more naturally talented than anyone else on the team...

I'm not sure there's a way to say this without sounding like an ***, but it might be useful to read up some on the history of doping in cycling, the omerta on doping in cycling, and the effects of PEDs on athletic performance. I wish I had a bunch of ready links at hand but I'm on my useless laptop atm. For me the HUGE one is MANZANO...that man had BALLZ and blew the omerta wide open...one can differeniate the trolls from the real fans when his name comes up. Kohl and Jaksche are similar.

Clearly we need a wiki on the effects of EPO and other oxygen-vector drugs. If you want to learn something about them I suggest you google things like "EPO', 'oygenvector drugs', 'blood doping' along with 'effect on performance' and 'cycling'.

Bottom line is no one seems to disagree that if an athlete is on a blood-doping course, the athlete can expect to improve his TUE numbers by around 5%.

Now my analogy had to do with the very elite of the peloton. Let's assume that the Top 30 riders in the Tour are in the 99%-100% percentile of overall TUE output among professional cyclists. When it comes to the Tour, the difference between 1-30 is generally going to be about 30 mins when you take all the various stages into account....I don't know where you are getting 1-2 mins....that's chump change on a serious mountain stage...1-2 mins is nothing. Bottom line is the difference between being on a program and not being on a program is at least 30 mins---30 mins is a LOW estimate.... those cyclists who are aware of what is going on (eg Manzano, Kohl, etc) will tell you that nobody is to finish the Tour within 30 mins of the winner on bread and water.

So if you accept the conclusions of science on the effect of performance enhancing drugs, and if you take into account the plethora of evidence that most of the major contenders are doping and believe the effects of these methods are genuine and effective (eg PUERTO, continued omerta, that all of the major teams, coaches, doctors, and methods are the same since Puerto, and that there is every indication that the same attitudes and practices exist as then) then in order to credibly assert a Top 10 GT rider is clean, you have to claim they are a natural anomaly that already had a natural 5% advantage over the peloton, prior to the rest of the peloton's dopage.

This contender would have the ability to utterly massacre the peloton in the event of a clean race.

It's very difficult to dissprove an assertion like this, but it very easy to ridicule it as absurdly unlikely. That's what I'm doing. If people care to mimic the Lance-lovers and claim Evans is a genetic God, go ahead and have your fun...there's nothing that can be said on the Internet to prove that a man is or isn't a deity. But I believe that deifying a cyclist as a natural anomaly intrinsically disrespects his rivals. I'd like to think that if a cyclist lies enough about being clean (eg the High Road/Slipstream version of omerta), eventually his rivals will tire of his hypocrisy and will come clean just to show the mofos up.

As for the other points.....Evans has never said a word against doping and/or omerta. And anytime he makes some veiled comment that is interpreted as against some other doper, the media (eg Velonews and other enablers) jumps all over it and loves it....believe me the professional cycling community has nothing against this sort of jab for the benefit of fans, just like they have nothing against Millar/Vaughters et. al putting out their BS. If Evans were to legitimately criticize the omerta on doping, and/or if he were to actually claim he has been cheated out of rightful wins, then yes in that case there would be a backlash. Meanwhile, there is no evidence suggesting that Evans behaves like a man who has ridden clean for years and has been robbed time and again by cheaters.

As for his team...I don't know what to say to that. Look, if Evans was committed to riding clean, why would he sign up with people that repeatedly and knowingly broke the rules? Why would he want to be associated with a team that might be banned from the Tour for that very reason (hell, there already have been BMC positives, and if the corrupt UCI wasn't in charge BMC might end up being excluded).

If Evans was clean, he'd sign up for Amore e Vita, and then we'd see how a clean team would do at the Tour.

Again, I have no quarrel with Evans and nothing against his fans...I would make similar arguments to a fan asserting the same thing about any GT contender. This being an Aussie site obviously there are tons of Evans believers... It goes without saying that German sites believed Ulle was clean while Pharmstrong was doping, that Spanish sites believe Contador is clean and angelic while his rivals are dirty cheating dopers, and Italian fan sites believe with full conviction that Ivan Basso has mended his ways and is on his way to defeating all the dirty foreign dopers through his sheer excess in talent. This is human nature.

I appreciate your comments. Slightly condescending, but I can handle that as I am often condescending to people too. I've read up on doping so please don't patronise me on that.

I will say this, there is a general concensus that doping is still extremely prevalent in the peloton as you have stated, and I do not disagree with that. However I have trouble believing that 'they are all doing it'..

The reason is that all this evidence that doping delivers effects greater than 10% are all based on well trained amateur athletes. They ARE NOT based on professional grand tour cyclists that are at their absolute peak of natural physical output before doping starts, are they?...

So regardless of the evidence of the effects of doping on trained amateurs, that is not 'proof' of anything. That is proof that trained amateurs may respond to, say a course of EPO and deliver a 10-15% increase in performance.

If there is a study out there that evaluates the effect of EPO or blood doping on professional GRAND TOUR riders to keep them under the 50% rule and without large detectable variations in their blood passport or failure of a drugs test, then please, refer me to it... Evidence by anecdote does not suffice, I want actual scientific proof since you insist on making a scientific argument.. Doesn't exist, does it? So we will never know if my thoughts about Evans are justified. As I said, i'm not saying i'm right, nor you are wrong. but I think my argument is objective enough to be at least possible...

It is on this basis that I believe there are clean cyclists in the peloton, and it is on this basis that I believe a cyclist of the Evans physical characteristics can compete in a grand tour clean. Note I said "compete", and not win, because he hasn't won a GT yet.

You said that if a cyclist did have a natural 5 percent advantage over their competitors then they would dominate the field? Well I just happen to hear that early in his mountain bike career (as a teenager I think) that Evans would basically lap the entire field on a mountain bike course. Interesting.

I've said a few times now, that Evans absolutely dominated whatever he raced in before he started competing against the 'dirty' professional riders in MTB and road (i said MTB was less dirty than road), and he has been pretty darn consistent ever since. debut taking the pink jersey in the giro and has competed with the top riders at GTs in all but two of them (04 vuelta and 09 tour). Never raised anyones eyebrows with a breath taking performance that defies belief.

He has spoken out against doping. I don't know what interviews you are missing but he drops subtle hints all the time. How else did he get the reputation as a clean cyclist? from being quiet on this issue like everyone else - hardly stands out. If you can't see the frustration coming out his ears when he gets just beaten by alleged doped cyclists, where are you looking from?

And finally, please FFS stop making me out to be a 'fan' of a favourite rider. My nationality only impacts on my statements because it is natural for me to have more information about local cyclists than foreign ones. Please stop indicating that somehow being a fan is clouding my judgment, because I am not a fan per se. I am constructing an objective argument about a certain rider that I so happen to have good information on. Completely objective. I am a fan of cycling, not particular riders.

I'm am more than happy to agree to disagree on this but I wanted to get my view across, and I will listen to your response if you post one, but that will do from me, otherwise we will end up having a 'who can write the longest post' contest. cheers

 

[Nick777]

Innerpeace....I appreciate your good humor and your passion for the sport. And I don't mind all the speculation.....however you take it pretty far. T-Mobile didn't like Evans cause he was clean.....lol that's a hell of a strech there. We know T-Mobile (specifically Ullrich) didn't like Evans because Cadel was interested in riding for himself, but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with Evans being more naturally talented than anyone else on the team...

I have read a lot about Ullrich & have never seen any evidence of this.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Innerpeace....I appreciate your good humor and your passion for the sport. And I don't mind all the speculation.....however you take it pretty far. T-Mobile didn't like Evans cause he was clean.....lol that's a hell of a strech there. We know T-Mobile (specifically Ullrich) didn't like Evans because Cadel was interested in riding for himself, but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with Evans being more naturally talented than anyone else on the team...

I'm not sure there's a way to say this without sounding like an ***, but it might be useful to read up some on the history of doping in cycling, the omerta on doping in cycling, and the effects of PEDs on athletic performance. I wish I had a bunch of ready links at hand but I'm on my useless laptop atm. For me the HUGE one is MANZANO...that man had BALLZ and blew the omerta wide open...one can differeniate the trolls from the real fans when his name comes up. Kohl and Jaksche are similar.

Clearly we need a wiki on the effects of EPO and other oxygen-vector drugs. If you want to learn something about them I suggest you google things like "EPO', 'oygenvector drugs', 'blood doping' along with 'effect on performance' and 'cycling'.

Bottom line is no one seems to disagree that if an athlete is on a blood-doping course, the athlete can expect to improve his TUE numbers by around 5%.

Now my analogy had to do with the very elite of the peloton. Let's assume that the Top 30 riders in the Tour are in the 99%-100% percentile of overall TUE output among professional cyclists. When it comes to the Tour, the difference between 1-30 is generally going to be about 30 mins when you take all the various stages into account....I don't know where you are getting 1-2 mins....that's chump change on a serious mountain stage...1-2 mins is nothing. Bottom line is the difference between being on a program and not being on a program is at least 30 mins---30 mins is a LOW estimate.... those cyclists who are aware of what is going on (eg Manzano, Kohl, etc) will tell you that nobody is to finish the Tour within 30 mins of the winner on bread and water.

So if you accept the conclusions of science on the effect of performance enhancing drugs, and if you take into account the plethora of evidence that most of the major contenders are doping and believe the effects of these methods are genuine and effective (eg PUERTO, continued omerta, that all of the major teams, coaches, doctors, and methods are the same since Puerto, and that there is every indication that the same attitudes and practices exist as then) then in order to credibly assert a Top 10 GT rider is clean, you have to claim they are a natural anomaly that already had a natural 5% advantage over the peloton, prior to the rest of the peloton's dopage.

This contender would have the ability to utterly massacre the peloton in the event of a clean race.

It's very difficult to dissprove an assertion like this, but it very easy to ridicule it as absurdly unlikely. That's what I'm doing. If people care to mimic the Lance-lovers and claim Evans is a genetic God, go ahead and have your fun...there's nothing that can be said on the Internet to prove that a man is or isn't a deity. But I believe that deifying a cyclist as a natural anomaly intrinsically disrespects his rivals. I'd like to think that if a cyclist lies enough about being clean (eg the High Road/Slipstream version of omerta), eventually his rivals will tire of his hypocrisy and will come clean just to show the mofos up.

As for the other points.....Evans has never said a word against doping and/or omerta. And anytime he makes some veiled comment that is interpreted as against some other doper, the media (eg Velonews and other enablers) jumps all over it and loves it....believe me the professional cycling community has nothing against this sort of jab for the benefit of fans, just like they have nothing against Millar/Vaughters et. al putting out their BS. If Evans were to legitimately criticize the omerta on doping, and/or if he were to actually claim he has been cheated out of rightful wins, then yes in that case there would be a backlash. Meanwhile, there is no evidence suggesting that Evans behaves like a man who has ridden clean for years and has been robbed time and again by cheaters.

As for his team...I don't know what to say to that. Look, if Evans was committed to riding clean, why would he sign up with people that repeatedly and knowingly broke the rules? Why would he want to be associated with a team that might be banned from the Tour for that very reason (hell, there already have been BMC positives, and if the corrupt UCI wasn't in charge BMC might end up being excluded).

If Evans was clean, he'd sign up for Amore e Vita, and then we'd see how a clean team would do at the Tour.

Again, I have no quarrel with Evans and nothing against his fans...I would make similar arguments to a fan asserting the same thing about any GT contender. This being an Aussie site obviously there are tons of Evans believers... It goes without saying that German sites believed Ulle was clean while Pharmstrong was doping, that Spanish sites believe Contador is clean and angelic while his rivals are dirty cheating dopers, and Italian fan sites believe with full conviction that Ivan Basso has mended his ways and is on his way to defeating all the dirty foreign dopers through his sheer excess in talent. This is human nature.

You need to go back and redo some of your homework. I thought CN was American? You are making a lot of assumptions like Galic does sometimes. You are also making a lot of ludicrous claims.

 

[ludwig]

I have read a lot about Ullrich & have never seen any evidence of this.

At the time, fans believed that the reason Evans was not selected for the 2006 Tour team was because Evans had indicated he may want to ride for himself in the months when Ulle's form was doubtful (before he rode a great Tour de Suisse). Evans then left T-Mobile the following year.

I guess it is possible that the relationship between Evans and Ullrich was fine but in the end Ullrich decided who was on the team and Evans was not selected while lesser riders like Kessler and Sinkewitz were selected.

In any case, Evans not being considered a team player would be a more logical explanation for excluding him then the team resenting his cleanliness and superior talent.

You need to go back and redo some of your homework. I thought CN was American? You are making a lot of assumptions like Galic does sometimes. You are also making a lot of ludicrous claims.

Cyclingnews is not American...

What could be described as ludicrous is asserting without a shred of evidence that Evans is cleaner than his competitors. It is disrespectful to the other contenders, and it gives forum newbies the wrong idea. It's bad for the sport flat out.

 

[blackcat]

But I believe that deifying a cyclist as a natural anomaly intrinsically disrespects his rivals. I'd like to think that if a cyclist lies enough about being clean (eg the High Road/Slipstream version of omerta), eventually his rivals will tire of his hypocrisy and will come clean just to show the mofos up.

This is why Lampre or Liquigas, one of the Italian teams, said about Slipstream "they are a pack of assholes".

 

[Nick777]

At the time, fans believed that the reason Evans was not selected for the 2006 Tour team was because Evans had indicated he may want to ride for himself in the months when Ulle's form was doubtful (before he rode a great Tour de Suisse). Evans then left T-Mobile the following year.

I guess it is possible that the relationship between Evans and Ullrich was fine but in the end Ullrich decided who was on the team and Evans was not selected while lesser riders like Kessler and Sinkewitz were selected.

In any case, Evans not being considered a team player would be a more logical explanation for excluding him then the team resenting his cleanliness and superior talent.
Cyclingnews is not American...

What could be described as ludicrous is asserting without a shred of evidence that Evans is cleaner than his competitors. It is disrespectful to the other contenders, and it gives forum newbies the wrong idea. It's bad for the sport flat out.

I always thought it was because Evans wouldn't go on the program.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Just to set the record straight, Cyclingnews has been owned by a British company for several years now: Future Publishing.

Look at the very bottom of the page:

!Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England."

Susan

 

[rhubroma]

I give most riders the benefit of the doubt, but rumour has it that Evans was a freakish talent his whole life...

So i actually think it's likely that he is one of the most naturally talented riders out there. is our resident australian cycle fan impressed??)

Aldo Sassi has said recently that he could swear that Evans is clean and that he, Evans, is the strongest physical specimen Sassi has ever worked with.

Does this mean he's clean? I have no idea, but I'd at least be willing to entertain the thought with Sassi's statements, because he's a sincere fellow. As for the idea mentioned here that only the naive tifoso would assume that if a cyclist wins he's on dope is utterly ridiculous. Given what we know about doping in the sport and its history of doping and systematic doping within the sport; only one with a full frontal lobatomy could have ever stated something so utterly base and stupid.