Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

[Maxiton]

It would be nice if he was clean, but I'm not really bothered at this point. If he's dirty he's not the only one.

I'm not bothered by it either if they (riders) keep it to a low roar. It's when they so obviously have an extra gear and take every opportunity to use it that it becomes annoying. Is that the case with Gilbert? Oblique comments from the peloton tend to point in that direction, not to mention his total domination.

EDIT : But I'm well aware that these arguments lead nowhere, so I'm out.

 

[roundabout]

i agree.

i like gilbert and based on his past (Kimmage story, etc...) I have hope that he is evidence of a cyclist who was expected to dominate but couldn't when blood doping could be used without limits.

is it too much to hope that this is just an instance of a naturally gifted rider finding a different playing field with limited blood doping and no needle policy? the blood doping would have to be really really limited for a clean rider to triumph -- even an outlier.

so -- what to think?

i really don't know.

the riding in the alps by the leaders was markedly different than any time since 1990. gilbert has been able to do this all season practically (a la merckx) -- while still showing his limits in the high mountains. and i keep coming back to how would racing and the natural hierarchy play out once blood doping was curtailed enough.

i would expect it to look something like this.

but i am probably too optimistic.

Wait, a guy curb-stomping his opposition for what seems like 90% of the time (admittedly in 1-day races but as a counter point he has never aimed at getting a GC result in bigger stage races) is a sign of 'natural hierarchy'?

What makes you think that Gilbert is that good? Because people assume that he is clean (after the "I'll never be a Tour winner" article which even now seems to hold true) and does Merckx like things? Really? This much is enough to turn a blind eye to a fraud?

 

[Big Doopie]

Wait, a guy curb-stomping his opposition for what seems like 90% of the time (admittedly in 1-day races but as a counter point he has never aimed at getting a GC result in bigger stage races) is a sign of 'natural hierarchy'?

What makes you think that Gilbert is that good? Because people assume that he is clean (after the "I'll never be a Tour winner" article which even now seems to hold true) and does Merckx like things? Really? This much is enough to turn a blind eye to a fraud?

hmm. you may want to consider taking it down a notch. the vehemence of your reply was pretty off the wall considering the amount of doubt and qualifying in my original post.

actually gilbert was in fact supposed to be really really good. and his early results were (1) disappointing to many and (2) usually only at the beginning and end of seasons (het volk) when fewer riders were probably blood doping and (3) non-existant in mid season when most would be.

however, to extrapolate from there and say that he is not doped may indeed be far-fetched, I agree.

how is he then getting away with such extreme doping while others appear to have been limited?

and what would racing look like if blood doping were curtailed?

like this somewhat or not?

how would we possibly know what the natural hierarchy would look like? how will we recognize it? i always found it odd that despite all the doping we knew about people still think vino and basso and contadope should all still be at the top if things were restrained. how do we know that? that would seem to argue the idea that all doping is equal and it's an even playing field -- which we know is false.

so when we see cunego with a natural hematocrit exemption performing well in the high mountains in the last week of a tour. when we see evans (with a low 90s vo2max) grinding up the galibier for the last ten km (not at the usual superhuman robot-speed) slowly dropping the climbers who used to sprint up mountains away from him, when we see three garmin riders (a team -- whether you like it or not -- who was the first to swear off needles and one of the few teams to join the extra group for clean cycling, forget the name) riding in the top twelve in the alps in the last week of the tour, when we see several french riders remaining competitive in the high alps and one on top of alpe...

I'm not saying that any of these riders are necessarily clean, or even cleanish. all i'm asking is:

isn't this one way cycling could look if there were less blood doping?

perhaps. perhaps not. it's frustrating not to know. and maybe it will take time and obviously a continued crackdown.

i honestly don't know. (clearly, however, you do)

 

[Lanark]

long post

That's all very true, but let me ask you this, if the peloton is getting cleaner, wouldn't a guy who takes more risks, or has earlier access to a new doping-product suddenly jump out much more, and be (for example) virtually unbeatable in the classics?

In 2008 the CERA-guys (Riccò, Kohl, Schumacher, Piepoli, Sella) certainly were doing extremely well, wasn't that a sign of the natural hierarchy in a cleaner peloton, or was it just a couple of teams going full out? That's a bit of the irony of it. In a cleaner peloton, doping becomes much more effective, at the end of the nineties the best you could do was match your opponent, in a cleaner peloton the rewards are much greater.

 

[Big Doopie]

That's all very true, but let me ask you this, if the peloton is getting cleaner, wouldn't a guy who takes more risks, or has earlier access to a new doping-product suddenly jump out much more, and be (for example) virtually unbeatable in the classics?

possibly, yes. depends. maybe we'll see that he has access to a doping product that no one else has -- it's happened before.

In 2008 the CERA-guys (Riccò, Kohl, Schumacher, Piepoli, Sella) certainly were doing extremely well, wasn't that a sign of the natural hierarchy in a cleaner peloton, or was it just a couple of teams going full out? That's a bit of the irony of it. In a cleaner peloton, doping becomes much more effective, at the end of the nineties the best you could do was match your opponent, in a cleaner peloton the rewards are much greater.[/QUOTE]

agreed. however, in a cleaner peloton, it might also be the same people dominating throughout the season...gilbert, evans...and a cleaner peloton does not necessarily mean parity -- as natural talent would come to the fore, presumably.

good points. just don't know.

 

[hfer07]

Gilbert is turning into a freak show- let's say he conquers all the rest of the classics from now on and continues the same path to next April-then what?.......

Ironically-Valverde was heavily criticized for winning too often in the classics...

 

[patterson_hood]

I'd like to think he is clean, there are athletes in other sports who are completely dominant, but I do find it hard to believe that a country the size of the USA can only produce one sprinter who can compete with the Jamaicans... discussion for a different forum maybe.

 

[Wallace]

Ironically-Valverde was heavily criticized for winning too often in the classics...

Actually, from what I remember, Valverde was criticized for having a blood bag with his dog's name on it in Fuente's fridge. That, and the way the Spanish authorities did everything possible to protect him, seemed for some reason to bother a lot of people. I don't know. People around here are awfully sensitive sometimes.

 

[The Ripper]

The thing about Gilbert is that it could be seen either way. He is now so dominant that he must be doing something. Or, the peloton is so much cleaner and his talent so strong that he is able to win much, much more. Both are plausible. There does tend to be very little 'negative' following him, which leads me to think he may not be. He also performs well most of the year, rather than only showing up 1-2 times per year (another good sign).

Of course, I could be wrong

 

[peloton]

Gilbert used to be very anti doping, even saying that is was impossible to be competitive at the Tour.
Can't hear the same anti-dope statements anymore, just like Evans, both suddenly zipped their lips.
Right.

 

[hfer07]

Actually, from what I remember, Valverde was criticized for having a blood bag with his dog's name on it in Fuente's fridge. That, and the way the Spanish authorities did everything possible to protect him, seemed for some reason to bother a lot of people. I don't know. People around here are awfully sensitive sometimes.

so by your rationale-Do we need to have Gilbert's name tagged on a blood bag or a dirty doctor to realize he's doping?

 

[Moller]

Gilbert used to be very anti doping, even saying that is was impossible to be competitive at the Tour.
Can't hear the same anti-dope statements anymore, just like Evans, both suddenly zipped their lips.
Right.

You should watch this then, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FgtgoO6Lsg

The argument about Gilbert is nonsense (among them being the fact that he died his hair means he's a doper)
Yes, he's winning more, but look how he's done it, all his winning efforts have come in the last few k's even metres. You don't need to be juiced to beat the schlecks in a sprint either. Gilbert has always been 'knocking on the door' of the big classics and was due to make a big breakthrough, its probably been helped by the fact that it's a 'cleaner' peloton.

It's a bit like Kelly in cycling weekly saying that Evans got his 'wheelsucker' tag before the current 'change' in the peloton. Calling someone a wheelsucker becuase the can only follow dopers like Rasmussen and Contador, and then calling them a doper when they can start to win is a bit nonsensical.

 

[pmcg76]

so by your rationale-Do we need to have Gilbert's name tagged on a blood bag or a dirty doctor to realize he's doping?

Well its a lot better than only using the fact that he is winning as evidence of doping.

Ironically, the last time we had a rider this dominant all season long was back in the pre-EPO 80s when a certain Eurosport co-commentator was around.

 

[peloton]

You should watch this then, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FgtgoO6Lsg

The argument about Gilbert is nonsense (among them being the fact that he died his hair means he's a doper)
Yes, he's winning more, but look how he's done it, all his winning efforts have come in the last few k's even metres. You don't need to be juiced to beat the schlecks in a sprint either. Gilbert has always been 'knocking on the door' of the big classics and was due to make a big breakthrough, its probably been helped by the fact that it's a 'cleaner' peloton.

It's a bit like Kelly in cycling weekly saying that Evans got his 'wheelsucker' tag before the current 'change' in the peloton. Calling someone a wheelsucker becuase the can only follow dopers like Rasmussen and Contador, and then calling them a doper when they can start to win is a bit nonsensical.

I've seen that clip, it was done in March, before he dominated ALL
the hilly classics.
I'm not saying he is doping, what I was trying to say that he, and Evans, who are generally considered as 'clean' riders, could have spoken out more
about anti doping, yet these two, the 'clean' ones, pretty much refuse to give a straight answer, and that's ok by the English media.
Why didn't anyone in the press ask Evans about the Floyd revelations about Phonak II, his team?? Or ask Gilbert why he bleached his hair?

And what happened to the Lotto's Sven S. with the 190+doses of EPO??

 

[ianfra]

There are many people on this forum who don't like winners and so call them dopers. The biggest dopes on this forum are the ones who post all this nonsense. What are they on? Probably drinking booze and smoking cannabis. The big mouths like Mrs Murphy et al should get a life!

 

[hfer07]

Well its a lot better than only using the fact that he is winning as evidence of doping.

well-Valverde won a lot and never tested positive BTW is you go back to my two previous posts-you'd understand better where am I going with this.....

Ironically, the last time we had a rider this dominant all season long was back in the pre-EPO 80s when a certain Eurosport co-commentator was around.

who-the guy who tested positive twice & had his mechanic collected urine to pass it on to the testers as his? that guy?

 

[Fus087]

Or ask Gilbert why he bleached his hair?

Some did, and he said something along the lines of "it looks better with my new champion's jersey".
Seriously, he felt like it, and he bleached his hair.
If you were a professional cyclist, I don't think you'd fancy to spend hours in press conferences being cornered about your choice of hair colour, answering questions how the bleaching could potentially blur doping traces and discussing subjects like that at great length.

Awful lot of paranoia around here.

 

[L'arriviste]

I've seen that clip, it was done in March, before he dominated ALL
the hilly classics.
I'm not saying he is doping, what I was trying to say that he, and Evans, who are generally considered as 'clean' riders, could have spoken out more
about anti doping, yet these two, the 'clean' ones, pretty much refuse to give a straight answer, and that's ok by the English media.
Why didn't anyone in the press ask Evans about the Floyd revelations about Phonak II, his team?? Or ask Gilbert why he bleached his hair?

And what happened to the Lotto's Sven S. with the 190+doses of EPO??

That was BMC. You're confusing Sven Schouteten with former Lotto rider Wim Vansevenant and his haul of TB500.

 

[pmcg76]

well-Valverde won a lot and never tested positive BTW is you go back to my two previous posts-you'd understand better where am I going with this.....

who-the guy who tested positive twice & had his mechanic collected urine to pass it on to the testers as his? that guy?

The reason Valverde got so much grief was not because he was winning but becasue he was linked very clearly to Puerto but rode and kept winning for three years whilst under this cloud. Thats very different from Gilbert.

Yep that guy but if you believe what happened in cycling during the 80 was more believable (which you do) then why is Gilbert so unbelievable.

 

[hfer07]

The reason Valverde got so much grief was not because he was winning but becasue he was linked very clearly to Puerto but rode and kept winning for three years whilst under this cloud. Thats very different from Gilbert.

that part I won't argue- the politics behind that ruling were absurd-however- Valverde was tainted by politics-Neither a positive test nor by suspicious performances out of this planet-like the ones Gilbert is currently delivering.-he's simply dropping everyone at will- like they're not even around....

Yep that guy but if you believe what happened in cycling during the 80 was more believable (which you do) then why is Gilbert so unbelievable.

Kelly's wins are more credible due to the nature of his victories-IAW his triumphs came mostly on well disputed battled sprints & mostly balanced/equally capable competition around whereas Gilbert seems currently to be above everyone and don't forget the data collected (watts) he's putting to conquer- that's why I have a hard time believing him

 

[pmcg76]

that part I won't argue- the politics behind that ruling were absurd-however- Valverde was tainted by politics-Neither a positive test nor by suspicious performances out of this planet-like the ones Gilbert is currently delivering.-he's simply dropping everyone at will- like they're not even around....




Kelly's wins are more credible due to the nature of his victories-IAW his triumphs came mostly on well disputed battled sprints & mostly balanced/equally capable competition around whereas Gilbert seems currently to be above everyone and don't forget the data collected (watts) he's putting to conquer- that's why I have a hard time believing him

Well Kelly will always be a legend here in Ireland but seriously, if any rider did now what he done back in the day, it would make Gilberts season seem tame. Take spring 86 for example.

1st Paris Nice
1st Milan-San Remo
2nd Criterium International
2nd 3 Days of De Panne
2nd Tour of Flanders
1st Tour of Basque Country
1st Paris-Roubaix
6th Fleche Wallone
12th Liege-Bastogne-Liege
3rd Vuelta A Espana

That covers a 10 week period and many different types of races and doesnt even cover the latter part of the season. Kelly done this a few times, not a one off season. Gilbert has been dominant in the type of races that suit him but pales in comparison to the machine that was Sean Kelly.

 

[Benotti69]

Well Kelly will always be a legend here in Ireland but seriously, if any rider did now what he done back in the day, it would make Gilberts season seem tame. Take spring 86 for example.

1st Paris Nice
1st Milan-San Remo
2nd Criterium International
2nd 3 Days of De Panne
2nd Tour of Flanders
1st Tour of Basque Country
1st Paris-Roubaix
6th Fleche Wallone
12th Liege-Bastogne-Liege
3rd Vuelta A Espana

That covers a 10 week period and many different types of races and doesnt even cover the latter part of the season. Kelly done this a few times, not a one off season. Gilbert has been dominant in the type of races that suit him but pales in comparison to the machine that was Sean Kelly.

Kelly was called 'the animal' and he was always hungry for wins. He contested every single point for the green jersey in the TdF when he should've been saving himself for more stage wins. He was always super fit at the beginning of the season, he rode his bike all winter. He won his local club's (Waterford Wheelers) hamper race every xmas FFS.

I wonder does he ever regret that the dope they take nowadays came too late for him as i imagine he would love to have a done a Chris Horner and raced till he was 40.

 

[roundabout]

Question is whether Kelly was clean then.

Probably not so I don't really get the comparison.

 

[Benotti69]

Question is whether Kelly was clean then.

Probably not so I don't really get the comparison.

Willy Voet's book talks about Kelly's doping.

 

[hfer07]

Question is whether Kelly was clean then.

Probably not so I don't really get the comparison.

the comparison is about dominance in the Classics- which Gilbert seems to be as effective as Kelly at the highest of his powers