is Cuddles the greatest rider of our generation?

[laziali]

I didn't mean to imply that Gilbert is clean. I am fairly certain they all dope, so on that playing field, Gilbert is a better rider.

But surely if they ALL dope then Pharmstrong must be the best. that's fan-boy justification #76 isn't it?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

A few months back, there was a thread - who would be better remembered, Beloki or Savoldelli?

The general consensus was that Beloki was probably the better rider, but once we've gone on far enough in history for those that rode with them to have all retired, Savoldelli's two Giro wins will give him a permanent place in the record books, that he'll be a name that's remembered by people when they first get into the sport, whereas Beloki will only be known of by those who dig deeper to find out about the Armstrong years.

It's a similar thing with Evans. It's difficult to call him the best rider of his generation when his tendency to be the eternal nearly man will lead to him likely being less well-known than those who've won a GT once we get far enough down the line that we have an entirely new generation of cycling fans who've never seen him race live. I'd wager that, 20 years from now, Denis Menchov is a name known by more casual cycling fans than Cadel Evans.

As for his generation, he's what, 34? As is already mentioned, Paolo Bettini's not much older than him, and he's a much better all-rounder, much more versatile and with a better palmarès.

I just wonder if everything was psychological with Evans. He has the talent, no doubt about it, but I just wonder if he just seemed more comfortable once there was an excuse for not winning. There was always an excuse - even when there didn't need to be one. Once he finally got a top level win in Mendrisio, he's seemed like a different rider. But this is at a point where he's now going to be on the downturn performance-wise as he's getting older.

Another thing I'll throw out there; yes, we all know Alejandro Valverde doped. But there's nothing against his name post-Kelme. Puerto was 2006. There is no more against him 2007-10 than there is against Evans. In fact, you could argue that he's more likely to be clean 2007-10 than Cuddles, because he was one of the UCI's most closely-monitored guys, tested repeatedly, and also, he kept winning things, making the post-race testing mandatory. With Evans not being on the watchlist and not winning things, it would have been much easier for him to get away with doping in that period of time. Yet Valverde was still the better rider.

 

[Anonymous]

But surely if they ALL dope then Pharmstrong must be the best. that's fan-boy justification #76 isn't it?

#76 or 77. I will have to get out the handbook and see.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I would call evans the best all-round rider of our generation because of his skills in time trialling, climbing, stage races, one day races, peformance on the cobbles and decent sprinting skills (for a guy who can climb). But greatest rider of our generation? No.

Greatest clean rider of our generation? Yes (if he actually is clean).

Libertine, I am going to strongly disagree with you especially with your last paragraph.

 

[SpartacusRox]

I would call evans the best all-round rider of our generation because of his skills in time trialling, climbing, stage races, one day races, peformance on the cobbles and decent sprinting skills (for a guy who can climb). But greatest rider of our generation? No.

Greatest clean rider of our generation? Yes (if he actually is clean).

Libertine, I am going to strongly disagree with you especially with your last paragraph.

This is a stupid thread. He is clearly nowhere near the best rider of his generation. You are in love with the guy, which is the only reason you would start such a stupid thread.

 

[delbified]

In fact, you could argue that he's more likely to be clean 2007-10 than Cuddles, because he was one of the UCI's most closely-monitored guys, tested repeatedly, and also, he kept winning things, making the post-race testing mandatory.

how hard is it to understand that they beat the tests? the fact valverde never tested positive doesn't mean a thing. in fact we know for certain he was doping and beating tests.

 

[Sasquatch]

how hard is it to understand that they beat the tests? the fact valverde never tested positive doesn't mean a thing. in fact we know for certain he was doping and beating tests.

+1

A 5 year old could beat the tests.

All you need is the right equipment and a calculator and you're set.

 

[auscyclefan94]

This is a stupid thread. He is clearly nowhere near the best rider of his generation. You are in love with the guy, which is the only reason you would start such a stupid thread.

Oi Dumbarse! I didn't start the thread!

 

[auscyclefan94]

+1

A 5 year old could beat the tests.

All you need is the right equipment and a calculator and you're set.

Yes but you wouldn't have top riders getting caught then. yes people get around them but doesn't mean they are dead easy as the people that have gone down are some big fish.

 

[rxgqgxnyfz]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IF6Q-pCDIYI/SpPd65xtScI/AAAAAAAAAFE/mTtF3pEqSlA/epic_fail3.jpg

by the way, this picture itself is major example of fail by itself, since anyone who has even the most basic knowledge about trains know that all the trains wrecks look like that.
________
Starcraft 2 best replay

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I would call evans the best all-round rider of our generation because of his skills in time trialling, climbing, stage races, one day races, peformance on the cobbles and decent sprinting skills (for a guy who can climb). But greatest rider of our generation? No.

Greatest clean rider of our generation? Yes (if he actually is clean).

Libertine, I am going to strongly disagree with you especially with your last paragraph.

Yet you put in that you believe that he isn't the greatest rider of our generation, and accept the possibility that he may not be clean even if you don't necessarily believe it. In which case I don't see where you're disagreeing massively with me.

My last paragraph above includes caveats like "you could argue". It doesn't mean I necessarily believe what I say, but, devil's advocate states that, if we are to take a naïve view of testing, we could say that there is no evidence to say that Alejandro Valverde was doing anything wrong post-Puerto, and because he was on the watchlist and was winning more than Evans he would have been being tested more often. As a result it would have been easier for Evans to get away with doping than Valverde at the time. This doesn't change the likelihood that, at least until 2006, Valverde was packed to the rafters with dope. But I see no evidence to state definitively that he was dirty post-Puerto, or that Evans was definitively cleaner than Valverde at the time. And if we take doping out of the equation by accepting they are either both clean or both dirty during that time period (thus accepting that Valverde's better pre-2006 results were the result of his doping), Valverde has better results.

Even you can't argue that Valverde's palmarès 2007-2009 is not better than Evans'.

how hard is it to understand that they beat the tests? the fact valverde never tested positive doesn't mean a thing. in fact we know for certain he was doping and beating tests.

But we don't, though, do we? We know he beat tests up until Puerto. But we don't know he was doping and beating tests when he won LBL in 2008, or when he won the Vuelta, or when he won a Tour stage and wore the yellow jersey in 2008. And that at the time when a) everybody was trying to take him down, and b) the CERA test was under wraps and people didn't think they could be caught on it. You'd think that, having won a stage and worn yellow for three days, they'd have some samples that would give some kind of lead. But they don't.

This doesn't mean that Valverde was clean from 2007 onwards by any stretch of the imagination. But just cos he did it earlier in his career doesn't mean he always did it at all points, just that we know he could be tempted.



Basically - if Evans is clean, then he may be the best clean rider of his generation, but he still hasn't amassed the best palmarès of one - I'd still rather have Cunego's. If Evans isn't clean, then this is an entirely pointless debate because Contador and Valverde take him to the cleaners.

 

[hrotha]

About Cunego, isn't it generally believed that he was doped to the gills when he won the 2004 Giro and only cleaned up afterwards? If we're counting him among the clean riders, taking that victory into account might not be exactly fair in regards to a hypothetical clean Evans.

 

[roundabout]

Was Valverde really tested more often? Did he tweet about it?

 

[delbified]

But I see no evidence to state definitively that he was dirty post-Puerto, or that Evans was definitively cleaner than Valverde at the time.

valverde is a confirmed doper who has never admitted his guilt. there is no reason to extend him benefit of the doubt - as you are trying to do, using convoluted logic. he deserves nothing less than the presumption of guilt - he's earned that. his palmares is permanently tainted and can no longer be credibly held up as evidence of his status as a rider.

evans has never been implicated in doping. the day he is and let's face it - he seems liked an exception to the rule - i would stop defending and supporting him. but he deserves the presumption of innocence, although i have no doubt that's too much for some of his detractors.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Oi Dumbarse! I didn't start the thread!

If you didn't then you probably paid the guy who did. i apologise, just that the inanity of it seemed like it had to be you!

 

[Libertine Seguros]

About Cunego, isn't it generally believed that he was doped to the gills when he won the 2004 Giro and only cleaned up afterwards? If we're counting him among the clean riders, taking that victory into account might not be exactly fair in regards to a hypothetical clean Evans.

Even since then, he has 2 monuments to Evans' 1 worlds and a semi-classic. On the other hand, Evans has a much better stage racing record since then. And yes, accepted belief is that he was doped to the gills in 2004.

On Valverde, again, presumption of guilt and presumption of innocence are quite understandable, and yet quite ridiculous to apply. Because we know that Valverde did something at some point in his career, does that mean that he MUST have been doing it for every race? Wouldn't you be a complete idiot to have been continuing to dope if you were in Valverde's position? That you're being watched closely means you have to watch your step more closely than somebody who isn't implied in anything.

By the same token we must then assume that Damiano Cunego has been doping at every single race he has entered, under the presumption of guilt theory, because he has hinted that he was doping in 2004. I feel that that is both unrealistic and unfair given Cunego's conduct and results since.

Basically, it seems that, like many other threads here, this thread has been designed with the sole gain of stating a hypothesis that isn't in fact a hypothesis at all, but a conclusion that the OP has drawn and will insist on. The OP has decided that Evans is the best rider of his generation, and keeps moving the goalposts to suit their argument because it is flimsy at best. If we're not excluding people with doping history then Contador and Valverde smoke them. Valverde's results from 2007-10 have no suspicion attached to them. THIS IS CONFIRMED AND RULED BY CAS. Therefore, as people with access to the testing data and more authority and information than myself have ruled him as not being suspicious in that time period, I see no reason to disqualify those results. And others have raised their own suspicions about Evans too - as long as there are conspiracy theorists there can be no 'presumption of innocence'. If we ARE excluding people with doping history then the likes of Cancellara and Boonen have better palmarès than Evans.

Oh, and is there anything against Sastre beyond the teams he's raced for? Because if that's enough to damn somebody, then Evans has raced for Mapei, T-Mobile and a team that has formed from the ashes of Phonak.

 

[delbified]

Valverde's results from 2007-10 have no suspicion attached to them.

you've inspired me - while we're engaging in that degree of hyperbole, i put it to the forum that Cuddles is the Greatest Rider of all Time! think about it, even the greats like Merckx and Coppi were mired in drugs controversies.

 

[Altitude]

Evans did well in MTB before road racing.

MTB is inferior, everyone knows that.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

you've inspired me - while we're engaging in that degree of hyperbole, i put it to the forum that Cuddles is the Greatest Rider of all Time! think about it, even the greats like Merckx and Coppi were mired in drugs controversies.

I'm not saying that Valverde was clean then. I'm saying that CAS has ruled that they can find nothing suspicious about those results.

The chances of Valverde being clean at the time of his being monitored closely by the UCI, WADA and ASO, and the chances of Evans being clean in the same time frame... are roughly equal. And in that time frame, Valverde has an objectively better palmarès.

 

[JPM London]

I'm not saying that Valverde was clean then. I'm saying that CAS has ruled that they can find nothing suspicious about those results.

The chances of Valverde being clean at the time of his being monitored closely by the UCI, WADA and ASO, and the chances of Evans being clean in the same time frame... are roughly equal. And in that time frame, Valverde has an objectively better palmarès.

So you're saying that

1) Because we're extremely bad at catching dopers and
2) As Valverde has "guilt" painted all over his forehead
3) As there's nothing linking Evans to doping

all this somehow indicates there's an even chance for either of them being doped? You didn't by chance flunk statistics, did you?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So you're saying that

1) Because we're extremely bad at catching dopers and
2) As Valverde has "guilt" painted all over his forehead
3) As there's nothing linking Evans to doping

all this somehow indicates there's an even chance for either of them being doped? You didn't by chance flunk statistics, did you?

In a fixed time frame in which Valverde was being closely monitored, yes.

Valverde is a doper. He certainly WAS a doper up to 2006. But we're making the assumption that because he did it at one time, every single result he ever achieved was doped whereas because there is nothing linking Evans to doping (except Mapei, T-Mobile and Andy Rihs of course) every single result he ever achieved was clean. Those are enormous leaps of faith to make.

In my fixed time period, during which Valverde had a giant target on his back, it would have been harder for him than almost anybody else (barring others who also had giant crosses on their back, such as di Luca) to compile results clean. CAS have decided that they see no reason to suspect any of his results from 2007 onwards, so therefore it is ruled that the powers that be are satisfied that he was clean during that period. I'm not necessarily convinced of it, but I'm not necessarily convinced that Evans is clean either. As you say, we're rubbish at catching dopers.

Do you suspect that Damiano Cunego's Vuelta stage wins last year were doped? I mean, we're pretty sure he was doped to the gills in 2004, so doesn't that naturally, by your guilt-by-reputation stakes, mean that his entire palmarès is doped because he doped for every single race he ever entered?

 

[JPM London]

Point taken about Valverde having a difficult time doping during that time - or presumably hard time at least. The passport f.ex. didn't come into effect till 2008, did it?

Point taken about Evans - I guess for any rider in the peloton you'd only have the feel good factor to go by... I feel good about Evans, but couldn't quantify it much beyond that. Well, Sassi is a main point to me and I def feel good about Sassi...

As for Cunego; I feel good - but I can't explain how he won in 2004. Maybe he had a short period of time where he considered doping? Sorry, bad joke. I like Cunego - apart from the Giro win his palmares seem kinda honest to me...

My big problem is I have a hard time deciding how doped the peloton was at what times throughout the past 20 years...

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The general consensus on Cunego is that he was doped to the gills in 2004, and maybe a period after that, but has been clean for the last few years. Certain comments he's made have lent credence to that impression (the ones about 'the Damiano who won the Giro' no longer existing, or the answer of "there are general classifications and there are life's classifications" when asked why he couldn't climb with di Luca in 2009 in particular).

The thing with Valverde and Evans is, defending plausibility is not the same as believing something. I wanted to believe in Mosquera. On the thread about him I debunked a few myths about him (that he came from nowhere in 2007 in particular). That he'd done better once leaving Portugal (which he was in because it was more local to him than the mostly East-Coast Spanish teams) lent credence to the possibility of being clean - but it didn't necessarily mean he was clean. Now we have a positive test, but we have no idea whether it's evidence that he did something just this year because the chance to win was genuine this time around rather than just a vague hope for a podium, or that he'd been at it his entire career. After all, in EPO-ridden Portugal early in the decade, he'd struggled to assert himself except in the occasional mountain stage where he came to the fore. It's hard to tell where somebody may have started or finished doping. Even with Cunego, where we can quite clearly see a drop-off in results, it isn't certain.

 

[Zerak-Tul]

Short answer... No.


Long answer... Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

 

[JPM London]

The general consensus on Cunego is that he was doped to the gills in 2004, and maybe a period after that, but has been clean for the last few years. Certain comments he's made have lent credence to that impression (the ones about 'the Damiano who won the Giro' no longer existing, or the answer of "there are general classifications and there are life's classifications" when asked why he couldn't climb with di Luca in 2009 in particular).

The thing with Valverde and Evans is, defending plausibility is not the same as believing something. I wanted to believe in Mosquera. On the thread about him I debunked a few myths about him (that he came from nowhere in 2007 in particular). That he'd done better once leaving Portugal (which he was in because it was more local to him than the mostly East-Coast Spanish teams) lent credence to the possibility of being clean - but it didn't necessarily mean he was clean. Now we have a positive test, but we have no idea whether it's evidence that he did something just this year because the chance to win was genuine this time around rather than just a vague hope for a podium, or that he'd been at it his entire career. After all, in EPO-ridden Portugal early in the decade, he'd struggled to assert himself except in the occasional mountain stage where he came to the fore. It's hard to tell where somebody may have started or finished doping. Even with Cunego, where we can quite clearly see a drop-off in results, it isn't certain.

Agree completely... Remember the first Cunego quote, which can be interpreted in many ways.

As for Mosquera I was quite sad to see the positive as well. And remember the points you made in that thread. I've got no knowledge, but don't find it hard to believe if he only started recently - which would be even worse for him; trying to make it clean, give up and jump the wagon, get busted and see the the people who were the reason he started still be riding free as birds...