If there was one clean rider...

[Dr.Guess]

Are there more empirical evidence of doping than the contrary?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I guess that Benotti's guess is as good as anybody's guess wrt to how many in the peloton dope? I think it's certainly understandable how in cycling you could come to that conclusion.

Well. Benotti thinks that every rider that rides for a world tour team for over 2 years is doped, and it must have been that way for at least some 20(?) years, This is for me a very, very extreme view. Sure, it`s understandable that someone has arrived at that view, but that doesn`t say much. I understand why some would be a religious fundamentalist as well..

religous fundamentalism = professional sport doping.....wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

But Benotti, your reasoning would only work if team-wide doping was still how teams operated. That goes against our observations about secretive pockets.

(To be clear: the pockets might well end up encompassing 99% of the peloton, but the point is that they're supposed to be independent from each other and to not know what the other guys are up to)

That secret pocket thing was blown out of the water with Ferrari working with Astana. Katusha are a state backed teams also and will have a full on program. Sky having the blue train at TdFs 2012/13......

I think teams have clued into not making it as blatant amongst the riders that everyone is on something. Keep them guessing, divide and conquer.

Too many people are looking only at the EPO era for comparison with todays teams. The biggest reasoning to team wide doping is teams having multiple doctors. If you are a fit and healthy athlete what do you need a doctor for? Basson never spoke to his teams doctors. In his pro career he needed a doctor 3 times and went to his local GP. Doctors are for when you are ill, unless you are doping then well you see why teams need so many doctors.

Wow.. you admit to speculating for once! (although what you think is probably wrong, but hey, at least you don`t claim to know it)

Given that aprox 60% of humans want to do good, I think there is a huge statistical probability that a significant percentage of the peloton was clean even in the Lance era, albeit, I`ll give you: probably at a lower rate than the population as a whole.. (There was and probably is quite a few "good" ones that gives up, I`ll give you that.). I do however THINK that your binary world view where you know that a rider can`t stay in the peloton for more than 2 years without doping is ***... Quite a few human beings would be willing to struggle their arse off for $100k a year without ever achieving their "fair" status or whatever...

That is just one of MANY statements you come up with that just don`t seem reasonable by any standard. Can`t be bothered to systematically go through them all, as there must be dozens in this thread alone.

In sum: You are quite a fundamentalistic idiotic know-it-all even by clinic standards.. I just hope that you don`t have a leadership role in whatever position in society you might hold.

60% of humans are good bares no relevance on sport. Risers dont think doping is bad. It is the culture of the sport, has been and at present always will be. There will be exemptions, but maybe 1 or 2 in a few thousand.

In the Lance era, who was clean? Mr Clean AKA Christophe Bassons. JV left rather than continue doping. Frankie Andreu left rather than dope. Mercier left rather than dope.................

It is a small sport. All teams are run by former dopers who know the benefits of doping.....UCI is not anti dping. So where do clean riders fit? they dont!

 

[Pulp]

Re: Re:

I guess that Benotti's guess is as good as anybody's guess wrt to how many in the peloton dope? I think it's certainly understandable how in cycling you could come to that conclusion.

Well. Benotti thinks that every rider that rides for a world tour team for over 2 years is doped, and it must have been that way for at least some 20(?) years, This is for me a very, very extreme view. Sure, it`s understandable that someone has arrived at that view, but that doesn`t say much. I understand why some would be a religious fundamentalist as well..

religous fundamentalism = professional sport doping.....wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don`t compare professional sports doping to religous fundamentalism Benotti.

But I can try and make it obvious:
What I attempted to illustrate was: Your views on doping are for me extreme views. Religious fundamentalists, for me, hold extreme views. I can understand that people end up holding extreme views, but that doesn`t make these extreme views rational.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I guess that Benotti's guess is as good as anybody's guess wrt to how many in the peloton dope? I think it's certainly understandable how in cycling you could come to that conclusion.

Well. Benotti thinks that every rider that rides for a world tour team for over 2 years is doped, and it must have been that way for at least some 20(?) years, This is for me a very, very extreme view. Sure, it`s understandable that someone has arrived at that view, but that doesn`t say much. I understand why some would be a religious fundamentalist as well..

religous fundamentalism = professional sport doping.....wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don`t compare professional sports doping to religous fundamentalism Benotti.

But I can try and make it obvious:
What I attempted to illustrate was: Your views on doping are for me extreme views. Religious fundamentalists, for me, hold extreme views. I can understand that people end up holding extreme views, but that doesn`t make these extreme views rational.

My views are based on dope testing a joke, teams runs by former dopers, UCI not anti doping, ASO not anti doping, riders are not anti doping and also many people make money on doping.

We also know the history of sport where it was always a tiny tiny minority who did not dope. Doping is big business is many many ways.

It is not fundamental to think that nearly all dope. It is quite naive to think otherwise.

 

[Pulp]

Re: Re:

I guess that Benotti's guess is as good as anybody's guess wrt to how many in the peloton dope? I think it's certainly understandable how in cycling you could come to that conclusion.

Well. Benotti thinks that every rider that rides for a world tour team for over 2 years is doped, and it must have been that way for at least some 20(?) years, This is for me a very, very extreme view. Sure, it`s understandable that someone has arrived at that view, but that doesn`t say much. I understand why some would be a religious fundamentalist as well..

religous fundamentalism = professional sport doping.....wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don`t compare professional sports doping to religous fundamentalism Benotti.

But I can try and make it obvious:
What I attempted to illustrate was: Your views on doping are for me extreme views. Religious fundamentalists, for me, hold extreme views. I can understand that people end up holding extreme views, but that doesn`t make these extreme views rational.

My views are based on dope testing a joke, teams runs by former dopers, UCI not anti doping, ASO not anti doping, riders are not anti doping and also many people make money on doping.

We also know the history of sport where it was always a tiny tiny minority who did not dope. Doping is big business is many many ways.

It is not fundamental to think that nearly all dope. It is quite naive to think otherwise.

Here comes the "truth" machine again.
Dope testing a joke. That`s your opinion. I agree it should be even more extensive.
Teams run by former dopers. Sure, some are, some aren`t.
UCI not anti doping. Well, not enough if the scandal is big enough.
ASO not anti doping. No? I think they are pretty much the organization that started fighting the mess as it threathened their biggest product: TdF
Riders are not anti doping? Really? How many of them are pro and anti? I would guess a very significant portion of the peloton hate doping.
Many people make money on doping. Sure. I`m guessing more than 99,9999% of the human population don`t make money on doping though

We also know the history of sport where it was always a tiny tiny minority who did not dope
Really? Do we know? Evidence please.

It is not fundamental to think that nearly all dope. It is quite naive to think otherwise
Well.. Earlier in the thread that meant pretty much 100% of all cyclists having a contract for 2 years +. I am pretty sure a huge percentage of the peloton would get offended by that, and you certainly can`t back it up with any evidence except generalizations as the one above.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Here comes the "truth" machine again.

Your truth is truer than mine?

Dope testing a joke. That`s your opinion. I agree it should be even more extensive.

Really, John Cook recently called testing a joke. Michael Ashenden walked away from ABP because it was a joke. Kreuziger case proves that.

Teams run by former dopers. Sure, some are, some aren`t.

If not run by former dopers, the DS are ex dopers.

UCI not anti doping. Well, not enough if the scandal is big enough.

Not enough? That they catch a few small fish so guys like you can think that anti doping works....

ASO not anti doping. No? I think they are pretty much the organization that started fighting the mess as it threathened their biggest product: TdF

Really, when, Patric Clerc was ejcted from the organisation when he tried to take a tough line on doping.

Riders are not anti doping? Really? How many of them are pro and anti? I would guess a very significant portion of the peloton hate doping.

Yeah so many of them hate the doping that they report those who try and make them dope or their competitors who dope or when they finish as competitors they are outspoken about it.

Many people make money on doping. Sure. I`m guessing more than 99,9999% of the human population don`t make money on doping though

99.9999% of the population are not part of the pro peloton

We also know the history of sport where it was always a tiny tiny minority who did not dope
Really? Do we know? Evidence please.

Those that didn't dope stood up and were counted. Bassons. Mercier. Mottet.
I also take into account those that were caught rarely fully admitted, David Millar 3 vials found, only admitted to doping 3 times, O'Grady only once, Zabel, Jalabert etc all were caught lying about how many times they doped. The reason decision riders all talked about stopping in 2006. Hesjedal said doping didn;t work for him at Disco, but forgets it gave him a successful MTB career.


It is not fundamental to think that nearly all dope. It is quite naive to think otherwise

Well.. Earlier in the thread that meant pretty much 100% of all cyclists having a contract for 2 years +. I am pretty sure a huge percentage of the peloton would get offended by that, and you certainly can`t back it up with any evidence except generalizations as the one above.

Not generalisations. The biggest scandals in the sport have been provided by Police work or government agencies doing their work.

Just take today's Dauphine mountain stage average speed 41kph. Crazy. Talk of a 2 speed peloton is mentioned again. Last time 'peloton a deux vitesse' was mentioned, Bassons was the only clean rider.

 

[doperhopper]

Don't worry about today, just Movement For Incredible Cycling in full action. Not a long ago we heard from the pundits of The New Clean Era that the fans should not be bored because there won't be favourites trading uphill sprint attacks, and they should especially forget about crazy attacks with 2 mountains and 50k to go. Today it was over 100k (and no teammates for Nibs). Really looks like Astana was allowed to continue only under the condition "no GT for you", so they will produce these crazy performance just to show everyone where they are, only to kill the result with "tactical errors" that are on purpose too stupid to be true (Giro-style). If they are also banned from winning Dauphine, Nibs can produce tomorrow some unbelievable blunder like dehydration, bonking, cramps, or forgetting to add some weight to the bike, making it illegal.

 

[Pulp]

Re: Re:

Your truth is truer than mine?

I don`t make the type of black and white statements you do.

Really, John Cook recently called testing a joke. Michael Ashenden walked away from ABP because it was a joke. Kreuziger case proves that

Here is a list of doping cases in cycling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

As I said, it should be more extensive. I agree Kreuziger and also the Bertie case shows things are far from 100%. I`m sure there are others. Compared to a lot of other sports, like athletics or tennis, cycling test a lot though.

If not run by former dopers, the DS are ex dopers.

Again, some are connected with doping, some aren`t. I`m sure Gabriel Rasch, one of the DS`s in Sky, would be quite offended by being accused of doping. He has never done anything as a cyclist to indicate he ever doped. No astonishing results. Quite a few year (more than 2) on WT teams though..
And even if a DS doped in his day, why is it impossible for them to be DS for a doping free team today. Many of these guy were good cyclists, doped or not, that have insights useful for teams that don`t dope today. That said, I do think teams should not hire anyone ever convicted of doping, so that riders today aren`t considered guilty by association. Even that would hardly satisfy everyone, as a DS like Ekimov was never convicted to my knowledge, but was surely a doper.

]Not enough? That they catch a few small fish so guys like you can think that anti doping works....[/quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

Quite a few big names on this list also. But again, I`ve already given you that UCI don`t do enough, IMO there is definately progress since Verbruggen days, but they are far from proactive enough, I agree.

Really, when, Patric Clerc was ejcted from the organisation when he tried to take a tough line on doping.

That might be true, and I`m not saying any either ASO or especially UCI (or national federations) couldn`t and shouldn`t be even more proactive in the fight against doping. I think it`s also partly a cost issue. Doping testing is not cheap, That is not an excuse good enough for ASO or UCI for that matter. But even though ASO could always have an even tougher stance on doping, I think you can hardly deny that they were the first organization in cycling that actually said there were zero tolerance for doping, they`ve ejected teams out of TdF and refused riders to ride, so to say they welcome doping would be a stretch?

Yeah so many of them hate the doping that they report those who try and make them dope or their competitors who dope or when they finish as competitors they are outspoken about it.

Tyler Hamilton comes across as fairly honest in his book, and he seems to think doping is mostly organised by the individual rider in secret.
If the dopers do it mostly secretly these days which seems to be the case (Not in US Postal (and other teams) back in the day, and maybe not in Astana today, I don`t know) Should you report on a guy you might suspect dope but you are not sure? What if you are wrong, or it can`t be proven? I think there is quite a few people that hate doping without being willing to accuse wildly east and west and maybe risk their job in the process.
I repeat my question: Really? Where is the evidence that the riders (and it have to be almost a 100% for your statements to be true) accept doping?

99.9999% of the population are not part of the pro peloton

No, they are not. But I`m not sure they are so many, many either. There are probably 2-3 dozen people or so. Hardly a big enough lobby group with enough power to force cyclists to dope

We also know the history of sport where it was always a tiny tiny minority who did not dope
Really? Do we know? Evidence please.

Those that didn't dope stood up and were counted. Bassons. Mercier. Mottet.
I also take into account those that were caught rarely fully admitted, David Millar 3 vials found, only admitted to doping 3 times, O'Grady only once, Zabel, Jalabert etc all were caught lying about how many times they doped. The reason decision riders all talked about stopping in 2006. Hesjedal said doping didn;t work for him at Disco, but forgets it gave him a successful MTB career.

So if you didn`t go to newspapers you doped? What kind of logic is that?
I imagine there is a limited space in the news for cyclists coming out and saying: I was a cyclist and I didn`t dope. There are others as well that have gone out and done the same, like Mads Kaggestad. He retired because he was not willing to dope, and couldn`t secure a career if he didn`t, but I`m sure there are hundreds of others with the same experience that for some reason didn`t make the news. By the way, there is enough people out there that doped and denied it anyways, so what would be the purpose to go public when there is a good chance you would not have been believed anyway?

Can`t see any evidence in the examples above. You are mentioning a few known doping cases above as evidence that only a tiny, tiny minority didn`t dope. It would be better if you mentioned a lot of people never caught for doping and then put forward evidence they doped. Obviously the evidence for that would be hard to gather.

It is not fundamental to think that nearly all dope. It is quite naive to think otherwise

I realize most people in this part of the forum would call me naive, and maybe I am, still:
I`m not sure at all, but I believe 60-70% of a TdF peloton in early 2000s doped,for me that is a stunning enough number, but even then there were plenty of domestiques not doing anything extraordinary and coming in hours after the winners in the GC. Today I THINK it`s maybe in the 10-20% range, and I don`t think that is nearly good enough, however I do think that things have improved to the extent that except from fighting for podium places in the GTs it might be possible for a rider of exceptional talent (and I choose to believe there are quite a few of them) to win most competitions without doping. I don`t think it`s fair against young, new riders like Alaphillipe, Bardet or Benoot to claim they dope. I don`t think it`s fair to claim Degenkolb or Kristoff dope. I could name countless others, and I`m not so naive that I don`t realize the future might prove me wrong on some of these.

But thinking nearly everyone (everyone on a world tour team with a 2+ yrs long career by your own admission) has doped in cycling for 20 years is not extreme? OK. We just have to agree on disagreeing on that.

Just take today's Dauphine mountain stage average speed 41kph. Crazy. Talk of a 2 speed peloton is mentioned again. Last time 'peloton a deux vitesse' was mentioned, Bassons was the only clean rider

.

It was a crazy stage I agree. And I`m most definately not saying that there are no dopers in the peloton. I also noticed that only aprox 50 of the riders were within 15 minutes of the winners. That means that more than 2/3 of the peloton didn`t ride above 38 km/h.. Not sure that is otherworldly...

A final observation: I seem to recall that you posted somewhere that you wish the peloton infact rode clean. I find it strange that you follow cycling so closely for years (as you clearly do) and yet, you believe that more or less a 100% of the peloton is doped.

All this said: I really don`t feel like continuing this debate, as I realize my mistake, I am debating a guy that has made up his mind. "Everyone" in the peloton lacks the charachter and morale to stand up against doping. A fruitless endeavour to try to reason otherwise.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I don`t make the type of black and white statements you do.

That is because pro cycling is like joining a gang. If the gang dopes, everyone dopes....

Really, John Cook recently called testing a joke. Michael Ashenden walked away from ABP because it was a joke. Kreuziger case proves that[/quote]

Here is a list of doping cases in cycling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

Here's a website dedicated to doping in cycling http://www.dopeology.org the extensive cases listed in it are mind blowing

As I said, it should be more extensive. I agree Kreuziger and also the Bertie case shows things are far from 100%. I`m sure there are others. Compared to a lot of other sports, like athletics or tennis, cycling test a lot though.

But when the UCI is not interested in catching doping and the ABP has been proven to be useless that might as well test water. I am not interested in sports liek athletics or tennis which imo have an extensive doping problem as culturally integral to each sport as it is to cycling.

If not run by former dopers, the DS are ex dopers.

Again, some are connected with doping, some aren`t. I`m sure Gabriel Rasch, one of the DS`s in Sky, would be quite offended by being accused of doping. He has never done anything as a cyclist to indicate he ever doped. No astonishing results. Quite a few year (more than 2) on WT teams though..
And even if a DS doped in his day, why is it impossible for them to be DS for a doping free team today. Many of these guy were good cyclists, doped or not, that have insights useful for teams that don`t dope today. That said, I do think teams should not hire anyone ever convicted of doping, so that riders today aren`t considered guilty by association. Even that would hardly satisfy everyone, as a DS like Ekimov was never convicted to my knowledge, but was surely a doper.

Why does Rasch get a free pass? he rode for Vaughters, an admitted doper. Being a DS at a team that has Geert Leinders as a doctor for 2 years hardly merits erring on cleanliness. Also Servais Knaven is a DS at Sky. Bet Rasch is happy working alongside him as well as he was Yates, Jullich, De Jong etc

Not enough? That they catch a few small fish so guys like you can think that anti doping works....[/quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

Quite a few big names on this list also. But again, I`ve already given you that UCI don`t do enough, IMO there is definately progress since Verbruggen days, but they are far from proactive enough, I agree.

The big names were not caught by UCI, mostly that were discovered by Police forces or broder controls of investigations in pharmaceutical misuse, not anti doping testing. When they caught a big name Contador, they tried to bury it and would've if someone didn't leak it to a German Journalist.

Really, when, Patric Clerc was ejcted from the organisation when he tried to take a tough line on doping.

That might be true, and I`m not saying any either ASO or especially UCI (or national federations) couldn`t and shouldn`t be even more proactive in the fight against doping. I think it`s also partly a cost issue. Doping testing is not cheap, That is not an excuse good enough for ASO or UCI for that matter. But even though ASO could always have an even tougher stance on doping, I think you can hardly deny that they were the first organization in cycling that actually said there were zero tolerance for doping, they`ve ejected teams out of TdF and refused riders to ride, so to say they welcome doping would be a stretch?

Might be???Did you watch Sky's blue train at TdF'12 mirror image of USPS and now Astana mirroring the BLue train at Il Giro. DId you watch La Vuelta lately since Froome's explosive trajectory from nowhere???La Vuelta has been a rocket fueled race around Spain. ASO were big part owners and now outright owners!

If ASO had zero tolerance for doping that would provide independent anti doping testing for its own races and tell UCI where to go. Nope ASO are interested in money and ratings. ASO know the doping is as prevalent as it always was. IT just demands better 'management' of it. The sport agrees it needs better 'management' of the doping. A bigger bush and bigger carpet. Hence less transparency since Cookson took over. No big announcements made when a rider tests positive or is banned. It is put on a pdf hard to find on their website.

Yeah so many of them hate the doping that they report those who try and make them dope or their competitors who dope or when they finish as competitors they are outspoken about it.

Tyler Hamilton comes across as fairly honest in his book, and he seems to think doping is mostly organised by the individual rider in secret.

Hamilton's book was written when the sport was finished with him. Astana proved that to be untrue. Teams training on Teide prove that to be untrue. Up to 4 doctors on a team prove that to be untrue.

If the dopers do it mostly secretly these days which seems to be the case (Not in US Postal (and other teams) back in the day, and maybe not in Astana today, I don`t know) Should you report on a guy you might suspect dope but you are not sure? What if you are wrong, or it can`t be proven? I think there is quite a few people that hate doping without being willing to accuse wildly east and west and maybe risk their job in the process.

Daivd Millar had no problem reporting Saunier Duvall. He also had no problem only admitting to doping 3 times becaue all they found were 3 vials. But we know that is not true. Look at his results. What is there to accuse wildy? A rider knows about doping because they talk about it. We know this from Landis.

I repeat my question: Really? Where is the evidence that the riders (and it have to be almost a 100% for your statements to be true) accept doping?

I have already stated the evidence. You know the FBI interviewed riders from USPS. Due to the severity of the punishment of getting caught lying to the feds they all blurted out their doping and those confessions were used to ban Armstrong, Bruyneel et al. Now what did the feds use as evidence to conduct those interviews? Basically the same stuff we all know about.

Astana ran( and still run AFAICS) a team wide doping program and are not the strongest team in the WT. They are number 5 and yet apart from Contador the dominated Il Giro.

We also know the history of sport where it was always a tiny tiny minority who did not dope
Really? Do we know? Evidence please.

Those that didn't dope stood up and were counted. Bassons. Mercier. Mottet.
I also take into account those that were caught rarely fully admitted, David Millar 3 vials found, only admitted to doping 3 times, O'Grady only once, Zabel, Jalabert etc all were caught lying about how many times they doped. The reason decision riders all talked about stopping in 2006. Hesjedal said doping didn;t work for him at Disco, but forgets it gave him a successful MTB career.

So if you didn`t go to newspapers you doped? What kind of logic is that?
I imagine there is a limited space in the news for cyclists coming out and saying: I was a cyclist and I didn`t dope.

It would be big news. Prior to Sky teams arrival. The only news reports about cyclign that would make national neswspapers sports pages were doping stories. Bassons was asked to write for the newspapers in 99 because he was known to be clean.

There are others as well that have gone out and done the same, like Mads Kaggestad. He retired because he was not willing to dope, and couldn`t secure a career if he didn`t, but I`m sure there are hundreds of others with the same experience that for some reason didn`t make the news. By the way, there is enough people out there that doped and denied it anyways, so what would be the purpose to go public when there is a good chance you would not have been believed anyway?

I ma sure there are lots who got a WT place and were not willing to dope. They dont make careers if they are not willing to dope so are gone after a year or 2. I have outlined my reasons for why i think this in this thread. I am not going to repeat them.

Can`t see any evidence in the examples above. You are mentioning a few known doping cases above as evidence that only a tiny, tiny minority didn`t dope. It would be better if you mentioned a lot of people never caught for doping and then put forward evidence they doped. Obviously the evidence for that would be hard to gather.

How about USPS? Books were written about the teams doping and the UCI did nothing. Yes the evidence is hard to gather when the sporting federations in charge of gathering the evidence are not looking for it or when they do find it try to hide it.

It is not fundamental to think that nearly all dope. It is quite naive to think otherwise

I realize most people in this part of the forum would call me naive, and maybe I am, still:
I`m not sure at all, but I believe 60-70% of a TdF peloton in early 2000s doped,for me that is a stunning enough number, but even then there were plenty of domestiques not doing anything extraordinary and coming in hours after the winners in the GC. Today I THINK it`s maybe in the 10-20% range, and I don`t think that is nearly good enough, however I do think that things have improved to the extent that except from fighting for podium places in the GTs it might be possible for a rider of exceptional talent (and I choose to believe there are quite a few of them) to win most competitions without doping. I don`t think it`s fair against young, new riders like Alaphillipe, Bardet or Benoot to claim they dope. I don`t think it`s fair to claim Degenkolb or Kristoff dope. I could name countless others, and I`m not so naive that I don`t realize the future might prove me wrong on some of these

Bassons rode the 99 TdF. It was called the Tour of Redemption. Bassons was the only clean rider. That is not 60%!

Maybe you have not been reading the cycling news lately but riders are talking about how hard the racing is. Il Giro in particular.

Giant Alpicin the bloodspinning team......

But thinking nearly everyone (everyone on a world tour team with a 2+ yrs long career by your own admission) has doped in cycling for 20 years is not extreme? OK. We just have to agree on disagreeing on that.

Doping is a line. It can be crossed many ways. 1 vial of EPO is doping, it doesn't have to be like Armstrong, where you can take as much as you want because UCI got your back. But yep I think and believe that with teams folding regurlarly or having to merge that riders are being pushed to perform and that means preparation with PEDS whether it is off season to lose weight but not muscle it all counts as doping. Dan Martin has not raced since breaking 2 ribs in beginning of May and now 1st race back he is up there with the best. How, he hasn't been racing? How can he train hard with 2 broken ribs? How? doping of course.

Just take today's Dauphine mountain stage average speed 41kph. Crazy. Talk of a 2 speed peloton is mentioned again. Last time 'peloton a deux vitesse' was mentioned, Bassons was the only clean rider

.

It was a crazy stage I agree. And I`m most definately not saying that there are no dopers in the peloton. I also noticed that only aprox 50 of the riders were within 15 minutes of the winners. That means that more than 2/3 of the peloton didn`t ride above 38 km/h.. Not sure that is otherworldly...

The idea that only the riders at the front dope has been disproved many times. Look at the small 'fish' who get caught doping. Stephen Roche used to level it at Kimmage that the guys at the front didn't need the dope because they had talent, it was the guys at the back who were talentless and therefore had to dope. We knew from Kimmage's book Rough Ride the guys at the back were doping, but now we also know the guys at the front were the biggest dopers. Pantani 60+% HcT Riis Mr 60% and so on.

A final observation: I seem to recall that you posted somewhere that you wish the peloton infact rode clean. I find it strange that you follow cycling so closely for years (as you clearly do) and yet, you believe that more or less a 100% of the peloton is doped.

what is weird about that? I can watch the racing and enjoy it. I dont follow teams nor riders. I understand what is going on. I dont buy any team stuff. I dont contribute to the doping. Yes i think it is not to hard to make doping a thing of the past, but no one really wants it inside the sport. No more than any other sport. A clean sport means no corruption and the people who run sporting federations love corruption.

All this said: I really don`t feel like continuing this debate, as I realize my mistake, I am debating a guy that has made up his mind. "Everyone" in the peloton lacks the charachter and morale to stand up against doping. A fruitless endeavour to try to reason otherwise.

A final dig, bravo (slow hand clap). Play the ball not the man. I have outlined on an internet forum why I believe what I do. I dont need to provide evidence to convict anyone of doping. It is a forum not a sporting court of law. People are welcome to discuss, criticise and slam that. I have absolutely no say over who can be in the sport.

 

[The Hitch]

If 60% of people are "good" (wherever that figure comes from), and we can expect a similar % of pro cyclists to be clean, does that mean that 60% of soldiers in wars never fire their guns?

 

[hrotha]

Re:

If 60% of people are "good" (wherever that figure comes from), and we can expect a similar % of pro cyclists to be clean, does that mean that 60% of soldiers in wars never fire their guns?

There's research about this, actually, although it's controversial. The theory goes that yes, many soldiers would never fire their guns, and many of those who did would do so without intending to hit. The figures would have gone down dramatically for and after the Vietnam war due to changes in training, though.

I haven't read that book myself, mind.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

Your truth is truer than mine?

[/quote].


A final observation: I seem to recall that you posted somewhere that you wish the peloton infact rode clean. I find it strange that you follow cycling so closely for years (as you clearly do) and yet, you believe that more or less a 100% of the peloton is doped.

All this said: I really don`t feel like continuing this debate, as I realize my mistake, I am debating a guy that has made up his mind. "Everyone" in the peloton lacks the charachter and morale to stand up against doping. A fruitless endeavour to try to reason otherwise.[/quote]


It is simple, these guys are idiots who are only interested in trolling and distortion. It is easy to punch holes in the BS of Benotti.

He claims yesterdays stage in the Dauphine was a mountain stage, it wasn't, it was a medium mountain stage that is typical of the transitional stages in the Tour de France. In the second week of the 1990 Tour, there was a similar stage bewteen Villard-de-Lans and St.Etienne that included the first cat-Croix de Chabouret. It was raced at an average speed of 44.655kph. 25 years ago!! end of the second week of the Tour!! main animator of the stage..one Greg LeMond!! the hero of clean. Kinda makes a mockery of the speed yesterday in fact. When you look at how shredded the bunch was yesterday and realise they were capable of doing this 25 years ago, it puts things into perspective.

Next up, Benotti has been shipping around an article by a coach that has said the testing is not good enough, but does he mention that within the same article, the coach John Cook says that the US runner Shalene Flanagan won an Olympic medal against the East Africans and has medaled at World Cross-Country as well as holding Natioanl Records in multiple distance whilst doing it completely clean. As usual B69 was trying to use it to jam JV when in fact the article backed JVs claims it was possible to comepte clean despite the weakness of the testing. Now watch the backtracking.

Whenever Moncoutie is brought up, the default position is to quote Race Radio whilst most of the time he completely disagrees with RR. Typical nonsense as there is nothing else to stack against Moncoutie.

Always complaining about nobody speaking out but Rudi Kemna(DS of Giant) recently called out Astana herehttp://www.crankpunk.com/blogs/crankpunk/item/862-giant-alpecin-s-head-coach-kenma-says-astana-power-is-evidence-of-a-peloton-a-deux-vitesses. Didn't see any mention of it here. Giant-Alpecin have a rep as a clean team, they have nobody dodgy on their staff other than Kemna who admitted to doping on his own free will. They employ young riders and keep them in the team. The majority of their staff come from outside the pro cycling culture. Who exactly is leading the doping culture at Giant? apparently the guy who just called out Astana according to the experts here.

Also rattling on about the culture and constantly using examples like Bassons and Kimmage from years ago. How about quoting Thomas Frei(much more recent) who said there was no pressure on him to dope at either Astana or BMC and it was his own choice, or even DiLuca saying that doping had become a private individual matter. Those are hardly reflective of a culture that was commonplace 25/15 years ago in which team were openly doping but as usual B69 is claiming it is still the norm.

Basson's, another B69 hero, the only clean cyclist in 99 apparently, despite the fact that in Basson's own book he said others were riding clean and implied very strongly that his friend Patrice Halgand was clean. Halgand never gets mentioned here because he had a much more successful career than Bassons so it goes against the grain of what a clean rider might do. Vayer, coach of Bassons, another person who is lauded when questioning people but ignored whenever he suggests certain riders are clean. 'How does he know?' is the barb thrown at him. Well I think he would know better than a bunch of saddos sat behind a computer screen.

I could go on and on but you get the picture, whoever said B69 was like a religious fundamentalist was spot on. Takes a position and simply ignores or distorts anything that might point to the contrary. You do have to wonder about the mentality of someone who feels the need to write up 20,000 posts of the same variation. Cue another stupid rant now.

 

[Benotti69]

Poor Paddy, a true fan, blinded. Bet you still have you Roche and Kelly posters on the wall.

 

[The Carrot]

I don't doubt that there are and always have been clean pro cyclists but I think they are a tiny minority, There are so many factors going against anyone staying clean:

1. The drugs do work, really really well, they are widely used in the Peleton and if you don't keep up on the road, your dream job as a pro cyclist is not going to last long.
2. If you do manage to keep up while clean, your (drugged) 'team' mates will round on you, it's an affront to their athletic ability.
3. Your DS won't like you being clean either, they'll have less control over you because they have nothing dodgy on you. Also, the DS is paying dodgy Doctors to oversee the team's, ahem, medical programme, you don't use them so you're effectively costing the team money.
4. Points 2 and 3 will combine to make you unpopular in a hurry, added to the fact you're not in their little 'criminal' gang and outsiders ain't liked/trusted. You'll develop a reputation, justified or not, as a troublemaker. Remember this is a club that makes it's own rules, there ain't no employment law here and you could well be on your way out, this place (pro cycling) is run by some seriously nasty Barstewards.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The most funny argument from Benotti is that since cycling is a (allegedly) small sport, everybody dopes in that little family.
Well, a small sport might be F-1 with 26 actives worldwide, or deep sea fishing... but certainly not cycling with circa 1.000 pro riders, and über thousands performing in higher amateur levels, and another million kids in the waiting dreaming of a pro career. Not all of them have a weak character. Just to add to my previouus post that certainly not 100% of pro pelton riders dope or did dope...

 

[Dr.Guess]

Would it not be in the interest of the clean pros to speak up as often as possible to convince people with the view that 100% are doping?
Do it in a way that it would be really hard to not believe. Perhaps by showing blood values from an early age, posting watts etc. I think that it's the cyclists and federation responsibility to prove to the public that they are clean. If they are.
And it will require quite the convincing I assume, just look at the hour record.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Clean doesn´t sell (Media lives by bad news). Gerdemann offered a few years ago to be under surveillance 24/7, and asked the media to cover the immense costs. No one cared. Clean riders have no lobby... So why waste time if nobody believes them anyway?
Results otoh speak volumes. Since Gerdemann rides clean his results went down, down, down...

 

[Dr.Guess]

CIRC was a good idea.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

CIRC was a good idea.

Right, because cycling is better off because of it.

 

[Dr.Guess]

CIRC was a good idea.

 

[Benotti69]

Erik Bruekink wants us to believe he had to retire early (Aged 33) because he refused to take EPO......

from his wiki page "In 1993, Breukink switched to the ONCE team, where his performance improved again"...

Riders telling lies. Now there's a new one.......

 

[Taxus4a]

Re:

Clean doesn´t sell (Media lives by bad news). Gerdemann offered a few years ago to be under surveillance 24/7, and asked the media to cover the immense costs. No one cared. Clean riders have no lobby... So why waste time if nobody believes them anyway?
Results otoh speak volumes. Since Gerdemann rides clean his results went down, down, down...

Gerdeman did that becouse he listen to a friend that in his class people assumed it was not posible finish the Tour clean.

He was so impresed that he said that (in that era, of course) it was possible to finish clean and as well performe really well.

For me anyway that is no a total evidence, you dont need to dope along the Tour to take a little advantage of previous doping... but it is similar that if you go to train in altitude several days.

Here someone has said very interesting things... I know how are cycling now, but there are a lot of people that still dont believe in cycling... and cycling, it is true, dont consider they need to show anything or prove anything.

I think the problem with that is assume all the past...the past is not Lance... it is more than half the peloton...
there are a lot of people that has got money and today they have victories that if we start to show things and compare would be a serious problem that a lot ogf people dont want.

How you said, dont dope is not interesting by the media, just doping, a new of doping from 2005 is now a new that afect still the credibility of cycling.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

Erik Bruekink wants us to believe he had to retire early (Aged 33) because he refused to take EPO......

from his wiki page "In 1993, Breukink switched to the ONCE team, where his performance improved again"...

Riders telling lies. Now there's a new one.......

selective quoting. You left off the "in sufficient quantities". This was ONCE...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Re:

Erik Bruekink wants us to believe he had to retire early (Aged 33) because he refused to take EPO......

from his wiki page "In 1993, Breukink switched to the ONCE team, where his performance improved again"...

Riders telling lies. Now there's a new one.......

Who´s not? The average person lies at least twice a day... So what is it that makes riders extra-evil in your opinion? Does it make all of them dopers, because they behave like average Joe?