Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

[patricknd]

Time out: Who can we primarily thank for turning the sport into such a dope-infested s**tshow that we have to devote hundreds of pages of detailed debate over whether or not a single rider is doping based on less than a handful of performances?

Race radio?

 

[Polka Dot]

For me he is the most exciting racer in the Peloton when on form. I think he is clean but has the heart of a lion!

 

[mewmewmew13]

PG is one classy rider. He's clean da**it!
Go Philippe !!

 

[Escarabajo]

Yeah sorry about that. It's just that while I accept he probably is on something, he's not like some of these guys that suddenly produce great results and the association that brings got on my nerves a bit.

He's only done really well in Ardennes week since he joined Lotto. Think he got a few top 15-20s at Liege + Fleche. Came close to winning Brabantse Pijl the year before he joined Lotto.

Also with FDJ won quite a few races around February time - Het Volk x2 (including a 50km solo), Haut Var + some hilly Spanish races. None of them have hills of this calibre, but still. Got 3rd in MSR 08 the first year of Le Manie, I think.

Anyway he has definitely moved up a gear in the Ardennes at Lotto. Maybe the training is improved (people have said their training is/was behind the times compared to other teams - IIRC Sylvain Chavanel) and he is in his peak years now.

That's feels like grasping at straws though, and probably is.

No problems.

Threre is really not much on him, really. Not at the level of Moncoutie, but nothing really that would catch my eye. Those short explosive bursts are no proof of anything yet IMHO.

 

[hrotha]

The minute I saw Gilbert won, I just knew.... I knew that this thread would be started and accusations would fly. I would like to see ANY hard evidence of him doping. It is absolutely hilarious that the first thoughts of a person when the win a race is "he's gotta be doped to the gills!!!" I could understand if Ricco or Diluca was performing like this. But this is a guy that has never even been mentioned in any investigation. It's pretty sad this many people actually would make this assumption. It almost makes me never want to come in the clinic again....
almost...its too dang funny to not visit just to see the stuff flung in here...

Whenever you feel like that, just remember: none of us were cynics when we started following the sport. Totally not our fault.

 

[For The World]

Whenever you feel like that, just remember: none of us were cynics when we started following the sport. Totally not our fault.

Half of it actually is. You choose whether you're going to be completely cynical or not. Guilty until proven innocent, and "you can't win unless you're doped" is the modus operandi in this forum and, as others have said, just because a rider has won races all in a similar fashion (an uphill sprint relying on outright power), doesn't mean he's doping.

Gilbert seems to have a very structured season with peaks for certain periods of the year. Is this to possibly hide whether he's doping or not, or is it simply that he has very specific goals, and he trains just for those? He doesn't do a great deal in the middle of the year. Just look at his palmares - he wins at the start and the end of the season, whereas a lot of other riders are all racing for the Grand Tours in the middle of the season. He has a lot of time to let his body recover, and being 28 years old, he's hitting prime time now. Notice how his wins and placings have gradually increased since the start of his career (in which 2007 seemed to be an odd year). It isn't as if he's never been around and then he's suddenly stomping on everyone like everyones favourite American.

I'd be all for running a barrage of tests on Philippe Gilbert (or any rider that is too good to be true) just to see if he's really doping or not, but if they all came up negative, the only thing that would be said here would be along the lines of "oh, he's just using better masking agents" or "they took too long to perform the tests". It's a no win situation if you let yourself be so cynical.

 

[The Hitch]

This option is impossible. Everyone dopes. And all doping works exceptionally well. This is a stupid theory.

Now many cycling observers, including professional journalists and others who have been outspoken about doping have pointed to resolutely clean riders doing well as a positive sign.

But don't believe them. Anyone who entertains this thought risks losing the smug self-satisfaction of knowing everyone dopes and their superiority over the naive 'fanboys'.

So stop thinking this nonsense and get back to hating the sport.

Christ do you ever stop with this crap. Always the same conspiracy theories about how the clinic is out to get all the good guys.

Add a little bit of trolling about how we (Those who dont believe the peloton is clean) are smug and arrogant, feel superior about it, and moreover hate the sport and you get a typical Mambo95 clinic post.

Come to think of it arrogance, hating the sport, attacking the good guy, your portrayal of us seems identical to the character profiles of the pure evil guys in disney movies. I await to see who the evil sidekick is that you assign to us, and who you nominate to be the protagonist (might it be Gilbert) against this clinic darksquad.


Also please give us a list of those "clean cyclists" doing well. Someone other than David Moncoutie would be prefferable. Also how you know they are clean (ergo their good performances being a sign of less doping).

Ps - the reason "sports journalists agree with me and wrote that sadi rider was clean, is not sufficinet.

The minute I saw Gilbert won, I just knew.... I knew that this thread would be started and accusations would fly. I would like to see ANY hard evidence of him doping. It is absolutely hilarious that the first thoughts of a person when the win a race is "he's gotta be doped to the gills!!!"

How do you know what my first thoughts were? Actually I thought Gilbert was a doper long before he won an Ardennes classic.

And I could have started this thread a lot earlier. Had his name been "Fabian Cancellara" I even need to as it would already be done. The bits that pushed me to do it today was Gilbert fanboy 0002 El Pistolero who defends Contador to the gills for his doping, getting on valverdes back for doping and more importantly Gilbert fanboy 0001 - David Harmonn, talking about how great Gilbert is cos hes "anti doping".

 

[The Hitch]

The minute I saw Gilbert won, I just knew.... I knew that this thread would be started and accusations would fly. I would like to see ANY hard evidence of him doping. It is absolutely hilarious that the first thoughts of a person when the win a race is "he's gotta be doped to the gills!!!"

How do you know what my first thoughts were? Actually I thought Gilbert was a doper long before he won an Ardennes classic.

And I could have started this thread a lot earlier. Had his name been "Fabian Cancellara" I even need to as it would already be done. The bits that pushed me to do it today was Gilbert fanboy 0002 El Pistolero who defends Contador to the gills for his doping, getting on valverdes back for doping and more importantly Gilbert fanboy 0001 - David Harmonn, talking about how great Gilbert is cos hes "anti doping".

 

[ultimobici]

If PG is doped then this clip is not only of a hypocrite but a mentally deficient one to boot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FgtgoO6Lsg

It's fine to strike an anti-doping pose when questioned, but this is overtly anti-doping.

 

[Yeahright]

Half of it actually is. You choose whether you're going to be completely cynical or not. Guilty until proven innocent, and "you can't win unless you're doped" is the modus operandi in this forum and, as others have said, just because a rider has won races all in a similar fashion (an uphill sprint relying on outright power), doesn't mean he's doping.

Gilbert seems to have a very structured season with peaks for certain periods of the year. Is this to possibly hide whether he's doping or not, or is it simply that he has very specific goals, and he trains just for those? He doesn't do a great deal in the middle of the year. Just look at his palmares - he wins at the start and the end of the season, whereas a lot of other riders are all racing for the Grand Tours in the middle of the season. He has a lot of time to let his body recover, and being 28 years old, he's hitting prime time now. Notice how his wins and placings have gradually increased since the start of his career (in which 2007 seemed to be an odd year). It isn't as if he's never been around and then he's suddenly stomping on everyone like everyones favourite American.

I'd be all for running a barrage of tests on Philippe Gilbert (or any rider that is too good to be true) just to see if he's really doping or not, but if they all came up negative, the only thing that would be said here would be along the lines of "oh, he's just using better masking agents" or "they took too long to perform the tests". It's a no win situation if you let yourself be so cynical.

+1 Good post. Around here if a guy wins one race he's probably doping, if he wins two races in a row then bring out the noose to hang him.

 

[JPM London]

+1 Good post. Around here if a guy wins one race he's probably doping, if he wins two races in a row then bring out the noose to hang him.

Sorry Yeahright, this is not about you specifically, but about all the "people on here so-and-so" posts in general.

As a forumer and as a moderator I'm increasingly tired of reading the same tired lines over and over again about "how the clinic is".

The forum consists of many, many different individuals. As far as I know, I don't know a single poster on here personally, in real life. All posts on here by anybody reflect their own personal thoughts (or maybe they don't, hey, people tell tall stories from time to time). As there are many people on here posting everyday it shouldn't be surprising that more then one think and more than one post thoughts along the lines of "everybody dopes", "rider x is definitely clean because he's a nice guy", "blood passport works/doesn't work/is a hoax". That doesn't mean the "clinic" is a mass of a highly calibrated opinion excluding only yourself - it basically just means that there is somebody on here with a view different than yours. With that knowledge you have two options: Either accept it or argue the facts with the person in question.

This thread was started because someone (and probably not just one person) is frustrated by what he/she/it feels is yet another win by yet another cheat. Rightly or wrongly, that is the sentiment behind the thread. At the same time it's quite clear from the posts in this thread that some other people think exactly the opposite. However, so far in this thread nothing much has been discussed apart from what "the clinic" thinks and how wrong it is.

The funny bit here is that this exact post doesn't really belong in this thread either - it should rightly be in the "about the forum", however, I also believe you need to take care of things where they occur.

Please get onto a discussion of whether or not you think Gilbert dopes/doped or not and, not least, why. Stop the "you smell of poo-poo" posts. Thanks...

 

[JA.Tri]

Love PG

I love the way he races, his attitude to the way he attacks...just awesome!!!

He presents as a thoughtful guy with consideration of the peloton. His stated history/attitude to doping reads (I interpret) as a non-doper. His riding does not convince me he is a doper (in fact I believe, hope, think he is not a doper). His particular method of winning...high lactate tolerance for a brief period uphill is not (IMO) evidence of doping.

His ability at this uphill attack is certainly an outlier at > 3sigma...but then there is always the exception to prove the rule "grins".

Unlike the 6.3w/kg uphill for kms on end, there is little concrete evidence of doping. Yes he performs exceptionally against the best however it is under particular circumstances. This paradigm has (to my knowledge) little research available. Therefore it appears we all are struggling to quantify this ability vis a vis a doping/non doping performance.

 

[sublimit]

The minute I saw Gilbert won, I just knew.... I knew that this thread would be started and accusations would fly. I would like to see ANY hard evidence of him doping. It is absolutely hilarious that the first thoughts of a person when the win a race is "he's gotta be doped to the gills!!!" I could understand if Ricco or Diluca was performing like this. But this is a guy that has never even been mentioned in any investigation. It's pretty sad this many people actually would make this assumption. It almost makes me never want to come in the clinic again....
almost...its too dang funny to not visit just to see the stuff flung in here...

+1

Yeah well there is some funny stuff here, sounds like the purpose of this particular thread is to bait El Pistelero but I might be wrong. I dont think there's much to discuss anyway.

Some of the Radioshack performances this year have raised my eyebrows but this is just pointless.

 

[Scatto]

So from the points you're listing here - because he's a very good professional cyclist who wants to win everything, trains with someone who was previously caught using PEDs and doesn't complain about someone winning, he is doping?

It's such a shame that because you know someone with a shady past, you can be automatically linked to performing the same actions as they have. Guilty by association is certainly strong with this one.

I would be going mad if I was the best racer but got no fame because known dopers (as was Valverde for everyone familiar with pet names) or refurbished dopers (as is Vinokourov) strip off your victories. It takes a lot of training to go on and supress that anger. Someone (Madiot?) must have had a special project or even a mission with PG to let him set his own targets, independent from other riders criminal background. It's like being a pimp paying taxes. Respect.

I said that despite this challenge, I believe PG is rather clean. But it doesn't matter so much, because he's almost as charming as FVDB, and more serious about his job.

Should've been world champ & winner of Flanders, by the way.

 

[movingtarget]

Those who say doping wouldnt be neccesary in short efforts, only in 10k climbs and 50 k time trials, should take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_athletics (especially the 100m section)



Nah im not baiting anyone. The guys i have in mind arent likely to visit this thread anyway. Its a legitimate discussion.

I personally believe he is dirty. I also believe that all my favourite riders are dirty. I dont buy that there are good guys (Gilbert, Andrew Schleck, etc) who dont dope, and bad guys ( Contador, Valverde, Spanish people) who do. At the top I feel they all do it. Its unfortunate but life is cruel. I continue to love cycling despite it.

So if everyone is doping, what is Gilbert taking that the others aren't ? Gilbert has been winning classics over the past few years. It is not a sudden rise to the top. Gilbert is still young. Rebellin was winning these types of races when he was an old man. If Gilbert can repeat this sort of form later in the year, then I will get suspicious. I just think that he rides the right races and the race fell into his lap because of the way the the final hill was climbed. After the way Evans won last year, none of the favourites was prepared to attack early or even before the climb. Two years ago he did the same thing at the end of the season. He won three races in a row ending with a win in the Tour of Lombardy. Maybe it's just lot's of training, smart preparation and coming into form at the right time ? I have to admit I was bemused with the ease in which he crossed the line but he looked exhausted when he got off the bike.

 

[hrotha]

So if everyone is doping, what is Gilbert taking that the others aren't ?

Kohl started doping as an amateur, but he went for a deluxe program in 2008 and suddenly podiumed the Tour.

 

[Ferminal]

So if everyone is doping, what is Gilbert taking that the others aren't ?

Gilbert, Cancellara, Contador... some are just better than others, I wouldn't say those three are doing anything prohibited which their nearest rivals aren't.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves though.

Gilbert is great, and his uphill accelerations are unrivaled, but he isn't miles (theoretically) than the GT specialists He's much better than the nearest hilly classics specialist (Kolobnev?). But remember what blackcat said earlier. I doubt Gilbert would appear clearly better in Lombardy if Andy, Samu, Evans etc showed up in their peak GT form.

Which is also why I think he might have a tougher time on Sunday. Andy and Vino in particular are targeting L-B-L, moreso than they did AGR and FW. Plus it's the true test of hilly classics ability, not just a glorified sprint.

 

[Anonymous]

Jury is out for me on Gilbert.

My argument in favour is he does work very hard to specifically target certain races, its not like he shows the same form all year. He focus's on the Ardennes and the end of the season.

When he starts showing this sort of form in Grand Tours and all year round then I will question him.

For now Im on the undecided side, but he does just seem to be a talent who focus's hard on certain races.

 

[Escarabajo]

If PG is doped then this clip is not only of a hypocrite but a mentally deficient one to boot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FgtgoO6Lsg

It's fine to strike an anti-doping pose when questioned, but this is overtly anti-doping.

I looks like he is one of the clean guys, but honestly what a rider says about doping is really no proof of anything. We really need more than this. But thanks for posting that.

 

[Escarabajo]

Nice posts by Ferminal and JP London. Thanks for the comments.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

+1

Yeah well there is some funny stuff here, sounds like the purpose of this particular thread is to bait El Pistelero but I might be wrong. I dont think there's much to discuss anyway.

Some of the Radioshack performances this year have raised my eyebrows but this is just pointless.

While I agree with the bolded it is still a valid discussion, and I believe you may have read the first few posts and skipped the main revelation.

As much as I queried 'Roundabout' and his posts on the times up the Mur they did bring up PGs assosiation with Freddy Viane.

 

[Kvinto]

Oh, how funny is it, this thread is the last necessary step of enrolment Philippe Gilbert in the list of true champions

 

[Escarabajo]

While I agree with the bolded it is still a valid discussion, and I believe you may have read the first few posts and skipped the main revelation.

As much as I queried 'Roundabout' and his posts on the times up the Mur they did bring up PGs assosiation with Freddy Viane.

Can you explain some more about this person please?

Gloogle send me back to here.

Thanks

 

[The Hitch]

So if everyone is doping, what is Gilbert taking that the others aren't ?

Nothing. Im not denying that Gilbert is a ****ing awesome talent who trains very hard and in a dope free world probably would be owning the Ardennes classics anyway.

Im just saying that I think he dopes.

 

[The Hitch]

The purpose of this thread is not to bait anyone and screw those whose first defense is to accuse me of that.

There are a hundred better ways to bait El Pistolero than to start a thread about Gilbert doping, especially since anyone who reads Pistis posts should know that whether or not riders dope does not affect how much he does or doesnt like them - see his contributions on the COntador clinic threads.

As I have made very clear (and should be made clear by the title which is a blatant copy of the Cancellara thread title) this is me saying if your going to accuse Cancellara of doping, do it to Gilbert.

It would be nice to either get an apology from those who said this or an explenation why they felt neccesary to accuse me of trolling.

Lets see if they have the balls to do it.