djerkson said:
Well, there you have it, take a look at the palmares from 1999-2002. Then take a closer look at the palmares of the Fleche Wallone, AGR and LBL from 2003 up to 2010 (Valverde, Di Luca, Rebbelin, Astarloa, Vino, Hamilton, Schumacher
). No comments there I guess?
I don't get what you are saying. Were all those guys doped? Sure. But are you claiming that nobody was doped in the 1999-2002 period, were multiple different Belgian cyclists (VDB, Aerts, Baguet, Merckx, Van Petegem) were winning or podiuming major hilly classics? Was there a sudden lapse in doping use in the late 90's? If not, how do you explain that Belgian cyclists were suddenly a lot better in the hills in those years, and why isn't that explanation not equally valid now (just a good generation).
Vdb was doped up all the way, no need to take him in account (no matter how much I liked him, which I truly did, RIP his guts). The fact that 4 Belgian cyclists win 4 mountain stages in 4 difficult races in this year alone is a sign, we weren't able to do so in the past 15-20 (!!) years. The fact that Thomas De Gendt can beat Andy Schleck in the Tour de Suisse in a stage which ends on the top of a mountain of 1st category says quite a lot. Are Belgian cyclists doped up more these days?You tell me!
Of course VDB doped. Belgian cyclists had good results in all kinds of races in those days, and all of them were doped. That's exactly my point, they weren't cleaner than the rest. Most of those results aren't really that impressive to be honest. Declerq was just a right tactical move, pretty good, but not a level we haven't seen other rider capable of. De Gendt wins in a breakaway, and on paper it sounds nice that you can beat Andy Schleck, but we all know the difference between Andy in a prep race and the real thing (dozens of decent cyclists have beaten Andy at one time in the Tour de suisse).
But you're making a serious attempt at re-writing history. Belgian cyclists were doing quite fine in the mountains. Tons of riders finishing in the top-15 in Grand Tours (Axel Merckx, Vanderwouwer, Devolder, Monfort, Vanhuffel, Aerts) in the last 15 years, all during years were everyone was using EPO and blood doping. Was
2005an extremely clean year as well? And that requires a level that at least equal, but most likely a lot higher than what guys like De Clercq showed. The current results by Belgian cyclists are far less exceptional than you paint them to be, there is no reason to support the idea that the current peloton is cleaner
and that Belgian cyclism is profiting more from that than any other country. There's one really standout talent (Gilbert), but there have been more of those in the last 20 years (Museeuw, VDB, Boonen), the rest is just bussiness as usual.
It's not just Gilbert: There's Vandenbroeck, Bakelandts, Hermans. Vansummeren wins P-Roubaix, Nuyens wins Tour of Flanders, how about these guys then?
What about Bakelants and Hermans? Decend to good talents, but nothing exceptional about them, let alone warranting far-fetched explanations as proof that Belgian cycling is proviting from the clean-up in the peloton. I don't see what's so exceptional about Vansummeren en Nuyens either. Belgian cyclists won the Ronde van Vlaanderen/Paris-Roubaix double in 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009 and 2011, but suddenly the last example is proof of less doping?
VDB is the only real outlier, but then again, I'm not sure if I would use someone with an 8 on the suspicion scale in a debate about cleanness.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram