If there was one clean rider...

[carton]

Re: Re:

I will repeat what i have said many times in here. Doping(cheating) has been part of the fabric of cycling culture from the 1st TdF. It will take a monumental change to break that culture. I have no seen anything that would begin to make me believe that those in the sport have taken this big step from doping to clean cycling. LeMond is not progressing any kind of change at present. He is at the moment trying to sell bikes.

Guys like me? I want to see honest competitive pro cycling. Do you have a problem with that?

I guess I do. I just want to see cleaner, more honest cycling at every level. IMHO delusional dichotomies actively impede progress towards that goal.

Professional road racing was basically created to sell newspapers. It mainly exists to sell bicycles and components. So does this forum, by the way. If you have a problem with that, then why are you here? And what's your alternative?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I will repeat what i have said many times in here. Doping(cheating) has been part of the fabric of cycling culture from the 1st TdF. It will take a monumental change to break that culture. I have no seen anything that would begin to make me believe that those in the sport have taken this big step from doping to clean cycling. LeMond is not progressing any kind of change at present. He is at the moment trying to sell bikes.

Guys like me? I want to see honest competitive pro cycling. Do you have a problem with that?

I guess I do. I just want to see cleaner, more honest cycling at every level. IMHO delusional dichotomies actively impede progress towards that goal.

Professional road racing was basically created to sell newspapers. It mainly exists to sell bicycles and components. So does this forum, by the way. If you have a problem with that, then why are you here? And what's your alternative?

It is a forum. Nothing in here will change anything. Theres delusional if you think the clinic will change a 100+ years of cheating ingrained in something.

It was devised to sell newspapers. Past. It now has an international federation and a rule book. The rule book clearly states that doping is banned. There is no alternative to not breaking the rules and enforcing those rules. The UCI are a joke. Hence the sport is a joke.

I have no problem with LeMond selling bikes. Nice bikes they are too.

 

[Cloxxki]

I've been asking about the first clean finishers before.
It doesn't count if they doped before and did not serve a ban for it first, IMO.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

I think you will find Richard Virenque did something similar to win KOMs jerseys in July.

Yes, because he wasn't good enough to beat the über-doped GT contenders. But there are different parameters. Firstly, subjective talent assessments, and secondly, the amount of doping you can get away with now is less than it was in the 90s and early 2000s. That's not to say fewer people are doping, that's to say the level of doping has been reduced. Apart from perhaps Jimmy Briceño, nobody needs waking up in the middle of the night to stop their blood from clotting anymore, and nobody is seeing their hct% values swing by nearly 20 anymore. You can't dope to Riis levels to win the Tour anymore, so you don't need to dope to Virenque levels to get the GPM in a breakaway (different speeds of Tour and Vuelta pélotons notwithstanding) like he did. People are winning GTs on levels of doping that wouldn't have scratched the top 10 20 years ago. It doesn't mean they're not doping, of course, but it does mean that it's easier for a supreme talent who is clean to put together some top 50 results than it would have been 20 years ago, and given we can point at people like Bassons who have at least some results even in the height of the EPO era and are thought to be clean, you could certainly make a reasonable argument that there are some clean riders in the top 50 of GTs. Especially as outside the top 20 or so most everybody is dropping major time and looking at breakaways and stagehunting. Somebody like Pierrick Fédrigo, who I hold up as another example of somebody I would consider clean, has made a career out of that.

Winning a GT or ending on the podium? That's a completely different question.

 

[Benotti69]

Moncoutie rode for 15 years. He was in the pro peloton in 1997.

I really dont see how a rider could accept riding in a peloton where the majority bar 1 or 2 exceptions are doping.

 

[mrhender]

You can stop now...

Confirmation just got in.. Kreuziger is your guy

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

You can stop now...

Confirmation just got in.. Kreuziger is your guy

Congrats You've won!

 

[Von Mises]

To be in TOP 50 doesnt say much. Lucky break or bad crash and you can gain or loose 50 places easily. Outside of TOP 10 most places doesnt tell much about GC ability, but more about tactiss, your role in team and so on.

I believe there have been plenty of riders clean in TOP 50. Though, I think that today most of the riders are clean and even 10-15 years ago there were more clean riders than provbly Clinic thinks.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

Pierrick Fédrigo was 29th in 2006, 32nd in 2008 and 48th in 2012.

Race Radio popped up with a two word post on Moncoutié (the words were "sadly, no") - hardly "calling him out" per se. But when pressed to explain why they had said this, they were extremely evasive and vague, saying that they'd spoken to people (none of whom were named) and heard things (none of which were specified) and they'd explained very clearly how they'd come to their opinion and it was pointless trying to hold a sensible discussion on the board so they wouldn't be elaborating. If what was said had come from a poster with less cache than Race Radio, it would have been rejected as baseless, if not an attempt at trolling (this was also around about the same time RR was defending Sky in the 2013 Tour as plausible, which caused quite a bit of friction; had it come from a poster like Joachim or mastersracer, it would definitely have been dismissed as such). I don't really see that Moncoutié would have needed to be doping to achieve the majority of his palmarès, including the Vuelta KOM jerseys. He won his four stages from the break, and picked his stages well. He didn't win those jerseys outclimbing the likes of Valverde, Mosquera and Evans, he won them by targeting a stage, outclimbing the likes of Montaguti, García da Peña and Martínez from the break and then taking leftover points where available. His tendency to sit on the back of the bunch meant he'd often lose time and was no threat overall, so the heads of state were happy for him to go for the points.

Ddnt our Saviour Saint Jonathan Of Vaughters say a BP profile of 'one of the Clinic's Clean Cycling Heroes' was ''all over the place''?

He and Race should go in the ABP panel, such great heamatologists...

 

[Benotti69]

To be in TOP 50 doesnt say much. Lucky break or bad crash and you can gain or loose 50 places easily. Outside of TOP 10 most places doesnt tell much about GC ability, but more about tactiss, your role in team and so on.

I believe there have been plenty of riders clean in TOP 50. Though, I think that today most of the riders are clean and even 10-15 years ago there were more clean riders than provbly Clinic thinks.

Why would a team hire a talented rider then find out he wont dope? What are they paying the 4 team doctors for, saddle sores?

Bassons said in all his years as a pro he only needed a doctor a few times and then he went to his local GP.

So teams hire doctors and expect riders to race on their programs. I guess some teams will let riders do their own thing but expect to see performances. Not hanging onto motorbikes up climbs.......

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

[quote="benotti69

Nope. But LeMond is, by talking with them and not pointing out their doping pasts, giving them his 'seal of approval'.

LeMond never said, Armstrong's doping was not the problem but it is other things that are! I don't recall reading LeMond calling LiveWrong a fraud, got a link? Also it was not Armstrong who damaged LeMond's bike business, it was Trek who backed Armstrong over LeMond. LeMond took Trek to court IIRC.

I agree that Armstrong's doping was the least of it, but it was also the reason for the bullying etc etc..it all stemmed because he doped.

I dont want this thread to get sidetracked into a LeMond thread, we have them or a Moncoutie thread, we have one on him as well IIRC.

If there was one clean rider........i doubt the 2 above.[/quote]

You're not able to talk with people you're having problems with but you come and discuss It on a forum ? Good luck with that.
The "Seal of approval" is only your interpretation. I guess you suggest that Eurosport should cover cycling without handing the microphone to anyone linked with doping ? Again, good luck with that.

Also, this thread is called "if there was one clean rider", It was bound to discuss LeMond & Montcoutié at one point

Greg sells bikes, absolutely, but I also believe that being back in cycling, from which he was virtually banned for a decade, is even a more important statement for him.

Back on topic, if there ever was a clean rider, he's been screwed by so many people already, I believe the clinic should be the place where we can safely assume "there had to be someone with his head on his shoulders", just for the sale of probabilities. I just can't believe 100% dope/doped.

 

[staubsauger]

I haven't got 100% faith in Moncoutie by myself.

But if one really has the talent, decides to ride clean, has pure passion and love for cycling: What do you think which behavior is more likely in that scenario ?

Riding along with the full professionals aka dopers and pick out your archievable raisins like Moncoutie?

Or telling everyone you are clean and that's why you ain't got no results like Linus Gerdemann?

I tend to believe the behavior of Moncoutie would be more realistic, if clean!

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

I think you will find Richard Virenque did something similar to win KOMs jerseys in July.

Yes, because he wasn't good enough to beat the über-doped GT contenders. But there are different parameters. Firstly, subjective talent assessments, and secondly, the amount of doping you can get away with now is less than it was in the 90s and early 2000s. That's not to say fewer people are doping, that's to say the level of doping has been reduced. Apart from perhaps Jimmy Briceño, nobody needs waking up in the middle of the night to stop their blood from clotting anymore, and nobody is seeing their hct% values swing by nearly 20 anymore. You can't dope to Riis levels to win the Tour anymore, so you don't need to dope to Virenque levels to get the GPM in a breakaway (different speeds of Tour and Vuelta pélotons notwithstanding) like he did. People are winning GTs on levels of doping that wouldn't have scratched the top 10 20 years ago. It doesn't mean they're not doping, of course, but it does mean that it's easier for a supreme talent who is clean to put together some top 50 results than it would have been 20 years ago, and given we can point at people like Bassons who have at least some results even in the height of the EPO era and are thought to be clean, you could certainly make a reasonable argument that there are some clean riders in the top 50 of GTs. Especially as outside the top 20 or so most everybody is dropping major time and looking at breakaways and stagehunting. Somebody like Pierrick Fédrigo, who I hold up as another example of somebody I would consider clean, has made a career out of that.

Winning a GT or ending on the podium? That's a completely different question.

Excellent post. I would add, and I may be wrong here, but there are two Virenques: the first one went for the GC, would be first of the contenders atop the climbs, not win a stage every year. The post-suspension Virenque was indeed very similar to Moncoutie wrt objectives and ways to achieve them: forget the GC, go for a stage win, make big points on breakaways, fight on the first climbs of mountain stages, but often be inexistent on the MTF final climb. Bottom line: finish 15th overall instead of top-5. The first Virenque was doped. How about the second? Doped-light or not doped? I truly believe that he couldn't afford to be busted again after being ridiculed so much. That would have been the end: no cushy TV job, no post-career salesman opportunities. But again, the guy is dumb, so as my avatar said in the movie my picture was taken from: "idiots would dare anything, that's how you can tell they're idiots".
Looking at last year's TdF, Nibbles put aside, I don't believe there was that much doping going on. Not to say that Pinot was clean (ooops I wrote it ), but the whole race was very different from the past. Last year was nothing like before (Nibbles put aside, Majka very Ricco-Light, and JCP in one stage also). We shall soon see: if all the big names make it to Paris, there will be a lot of attacks and gaps. If clean, Pinot/Bardet should get blown and far away. If not, as a fan I should be happy, but I'll be sad.
No doubt a clean rider can be in the top-20, even the top-10 today with a bit of luck.
PS: I always cringe when Merckx is mentioned in those discussions. Pre-EPO doping didn't give anywhere near the edge that "modern doping" has. Yes he doped. But that's not what made him win, unlike LA, Wiggo/Dawg et caetera...Cycling is Great and Eddy is Its Prophet". Don't insult the prophet.

 

[hrotha]

Let's not forget that "KOM/stage win + top 15 at the Vuelta" is not the same as "KOM/stage win + top 15 at the Tour".

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

You're not able to talk with people you're having problems with but you come and discuss It on a forum ? Good luck with that.
The "Seal of approval" is only your interpretation. I guess you suggest that Eurosport should cover cycling without handing the microphone to anyone linked with doping ? Again, good luck with that.

Also, this thread is called "if there was one clean rider", It was bound to discuss LeMond & Montcoutié at one point

Greg sells bikes, absolutely, but I also believe that being back in cycling, from which he was virtually banned for a decade, is even a more important statement for him.

Back on topic, if there ever was a clean rider, he's been screwed by so many people already, I believe the clinic should be the place where we can safely assume "there had to be someone with his head on his shoulders", just for the sale of probabilities. I just can't believe 100% dope/doped.

Those that don't dope don't survive in the pro peloton. So yes some riders will enter the sport clean, but will soon have to make a decision to dope or leave. Teams dont employ 4 doctors to just treat saddle sores. Teams invest in doping programs and riders must get with the program.

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Let's not forget that "KOM/stage win + top 15 at the Vuelta" is not the same as "KOM/stage win + top 15 at the Tour".

Correct. I was describing the pattern for both riders (Virenque2-Moncoutie), which was very similar.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Let's not forget that "KOM/stage win + top 15 at the Vuelta" is not the same as "KOM/stage win + top 15 at the Tour".

Correct. I was describing the pattern for both riders (Virenque2-Moncoutie), which was very similar.

Virenque2 was not clean IMO.

 

[roundabout]

How about KOM+stage win + top 10 in the Vuelta

and

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=8654

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=8660

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

Let's not forget that "KOM/stage win + top 15 at the Vuelta" is not the same as "KOM/stage win + top 15 at the Tour".

Correct. I was describing the pattern for both riders (Virenque2-Moncoutie), which was very similar.

Virenque2 was not clean IMO.

He's not renown for his intelligence. It's obvious he doped between '98-Festina-TdF and his confession/suspension. I think he thought he would get away with it until he couldn't lie anymore. In the meantime, he was ridiculed, the butt of every joke. Being in his shoes, anyone with an ounce of common sense would have stopped post suspension. The French public would never have forgiven him twice. Forget the cushy media job, the salesman opportunities after retirement. Performances suggest that he either quit or went light. Which one of the two? I don't know.

 

[roundabout]

He was quite good in the 99 and 00 Tours. And because it wasn't the tests that caught him, it was probably more a combination of age and not having the Festina fuel.

Edit: purely without context, he was just 25 seconds slower up Joux Plane in 2000 compared to 1997.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Virenque was a victim of his time, if he had the choice not to dope...

Nah, a disgusting narcissist.

Gilles Delion had more talent in his eyebrows than this jacked up idiot. Perhaps Festina could do some commercials with him?

And the French go: ""Gilles qui???""

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

You're not able to talk with people you're having problems with but you come and discuss It on a forum ? Good luck with that.
The "Seal of approval" is only your interpretation. I guess you suggest that Eurosport should cover cycling without handing the microphone to anyone linked with doping ? Again, good luck with that.

Also, this thread is called "if there was one clean rider", It was bound to discuss LeMond & Montcoutié at one point

Greg sells bikes, absolutely, but I also believe that being back in cycling, from which he was virtually banned for a decade, is even a more important statement for him.

Back on topic, if there ever was a clean rider, he's been screwed by so many people already, I believe the clinic should be the place where we can safely assume "there had to be someone with his head on his shoulders", just for the sale of probabilities. I just can't believe 100% dope/doped.

Those that don't dope don't survive in the pro peloton. So yes some riders will enter the sport clean, but will soon have to make a decision to dope or leave. Teams dont employ 4 doctors to just treat saddle sores. Teams invest in doping programs and riders must get with the program.

In every corporation, there are examples of people not doing what they are told, especially when it involves conscience/ethic issues.
There are many, many layers between "dope" and "leave".

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

You're not able to talk with people you're having problems with but you come and discuss It on a forum ? Good luck with that.
The "Seal of approval" is only your interpretation. I guess you suggest that Eurosport should cover cycling without handing the microphone to anyone linked with doping ? Again, good luck with that.

Also, this thread is called "if there was one clean rider", It was bound to discuss LeMond & Montcoutié at one point

Greg sells bikes, absolutely, but I also believe that being back in cycling, from which he was virtually banned for a decade, is even a more important statement for him.

Back on topic, if there ever was a clean rider, he's been screwed by so many people already, I believe the clinic should be the place where we can safely assume "there had to be someone with his head on his shoulders", just for the sale of probabilities. I just can't believe 100% dope/doped.

Those that don't dope don't survive in the pro peloton. So yes some riders will enter the sport clean, but will soon have to make a decision to dope or leave. Teams dont employ 4 doctors to just treat saddle sores. Teams invest in doping programs and riders must get with the program.

In every corporation, there are examples of people not doing what they are told, especially when it involves conscience/ethic issues.
There are many, many layers between "dope" and "leave".

The analogy of a corporation with pro cycling( or any competitive sport) is way off the mark. You can easily get a job at a corporation with no talent or qualifications whatsoever. You can go into a corp pushing a broom and then discover your hidden talents and climb the ladder. But you will not get high in business without understanding there are no rules.

You dont get to ride a GT without having being a competitive rider from an early age. To get to the pro peloton and find you are not competitive because everyone is taking something to boost their natural abilities, a rider does one of 2 things, joins in or leaves. Now it may take a few years of hoping( i mean hoping, that they improve naturally), but eventually a rider will cave to doping or leave.

1st thing Graham Obree was asked by road pros when he turned up at training camp, "what dope did he use to break The Hour?", they laughed in disbelief when he said, "nothing".

When the culture is to dope, it is very hard to go against that culture, especially when the sport is full of it, it is deemed a necessity to compete to gain wins, sponsors, jobs etc etc, the pressure to dope for the team is a huge one. When a rider refuses to dope, who on the team is gonna put a shoulder around them and say "I understand, you dont need to dope" when most on the team are depending on riders results for their livelihood and most of them do not have a problem with doping and see it as part of the sport.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

The analogy of a corporation with pro cycling( or any competitive sport) is way off the mark. You can easily get a job at a corporation with no talent or qualifications whatsoever. You can go into a corp pushing a broom and then discover your hidden talents and climb the ladder. But you will not get high in business without understanding there are no rules.

You dont get to ride a GT without having being a competitive rider from an early age. To get to the pro peloton and find you are not competitive because everyone is taking something to boost their natural abilities, a rider does one of 2 things, joins in or leaves. Now it may take a few years of hoping( i mean hoping, that they improve naturally), but eventually a rider will cave to doping or leave.

1st thing Graham Obree was asked by road pros when he turned up at training camp, "what dope did he use to break The Hour?", they laughed in disbelief when he said, "nothing".

When the culture is to dope, it is very hard to go against that culture, especially when the sport is full of it, it is deemed a necessity to compete to gain wins, sponsors, jobs etc etc, the pressure to dope for the team is a huge one. When a rider refuses to dope, who on the team is gonna put a shoulder around them and say "I understand, you dont need to dope" when most on the team are depending on riders results for their livelihood and most of them do not have a problem with doping and see it as part of the sport.

I agree about the context, you're right.

What I do not agree with is that, to you, under such circumstances, everyone is corrupt. I don't think so. It's conformism. You said the corporation metaphor is way off mark. Fair enough. What about the 30's and 40's Germany ? The pressure was at the highest, because it was join the nazis or die. And yet, there are people who didn't. They were isolated, suffered a great deal but they were there.

If there's anything that confirmsm studies showed is that, while there is a majority of people who will join the movement, there always are/were/will be people independant enough to stand their ground.

The superiority of the human spirit Vs the sheep.

My big problem with your way of thinking is that it is the "everyone did it" routine. I can't stand it. Free will, anyone ?

 

[robertmooreheadlane]

The superiority of the human spirit Vs the sheep.

My big problem with your way of thinking is that it is the "everyone did it" routine. I can't stand it. Free will, anyone ?


Nice sentiment
Unfortunately that human spirit not to dope means those who don't conform have only one choice - to not ride pro.
Going back to an earlier post Graham Obree when he was offered a pro contract questioned why 20% of his salary was to be held by the team and when he was told it was for his "medicine" he took the moral stance and never signed the contract.

Sorry but there really is only a set of rules.
Join the team,
do what we do, (mainly this is also about protection - no-one is comfortable having one clean rider around as it is that rider who will turn them all in if there is a problem)
win so we all make money and have a team to race for next year,
keep the omerta intact.

If you think it has run in any other way then I'm afraid you are sadly misled.