Is Team Columbia really clean?

Jun 1, 2009
4
0
0
Given Team Columbia's monumental (and almost daily) success at the Giro, the Tour of Switzerland and other races; it strains credulity to think that they are truly a clean team. Columbia’s riders are regularly trouncing other riders in the peleton- some of whom themselves are invariably doping. How is Team Columbia consistently beating these doped riders?

If Team Columbia claims to be clean then why isn’t Garmin also not winning scores of races? Actually the difference in wins between Columbia and Garmin is quite substantial. Furthermore, the difference between Columbia and any other Pro Tour team in terms of wins is also quite substantial.

It’s fairly implausible to believe that strength training and standing in tubs of cold water after a race (to speed recovery) account for Columbia’s phenomenal performances on the road. The Telekom origins of Columbia, with Telekom’s subsequent revelations of systematic and long-term doping does give rise to the inevitable question if Columbia is, as advertised, truly above board.

I think it is crucial to ask such tough questions and seek comprehensive answers to the anomalous Columbia phenomenon. It is becoming very tiresome to root for successful riders only to discover months, years or decades later that they were taking everyone for a ride by doping while pretending that they were clean. This corruption happens again and again. I hope someone is able to sort out the marketing from the truth and get to the bottom of this. I for one have had enough of the days of the likes of Bjarne Riis destroying the peleton climbing Sestriere (during the 1996 Tour) in the big ring with his mouth closed. What a bunch of garbage. Give me a break. I think the average cycling fan has endured enough hypocrisy. Time to send in the investigative journalists.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,318
0
0
crouleur said:
Given Team Columbia's monumental (and almost daily) success at the Giro, the Tour of Switzerland and other races; it strains credulity to think that they are truly a clean team.
Of course Columbia is riding clean! Neither Lance Armstrong not Johann Bruyneel are part of the team.

Further, just look at the pedigree - T-Mobile and Team Telekom are shining examples of how pro teams win - just like Bjarney Riis' SaxoBank.
 
Apr 12, 2009
1,087
1
0
I don't trust them at all, dont trust garmin either, I think most riders are doped, I think garmin and columbia try to root out dopers but the riders don't want to stop, but I think they're also very talented.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
away from the doping, they have the best sprinter in the world, the best lead out man in the world, two of the best domestiques in the world, and probably the most promising young rider in the pelaton..

clean pelaton, doped pelaton, they would be winning races..

something else to bear in mind, there aim is stage wins.. they dont really have a serious GT contender..that isnt there style.. stage races is there game...

i also think if you are that cynical you cant beleive any wins you see its time to find a new sport..
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,318
0
0
dimspace said:
something else to bear in mind, there aim is stage wins.. they dont really have a serious GT contender..that isnt there style.. stage races is there game...
So doping doesnt count if you are just going for individual wins...

...riiighhht.

And just how do those stage winners manage to hang on during all those nasty stages... day after day?
 
Jun 1, 2009
4
0
0
dimspace said:
something else to bear in mind, there aim is stage wins.. they dont really have a serious GT contender..that isnt there style.. stage races is there game...

i also think if you are that cynical you cant beleive any wins you see its time to find a new sport..
Even if Columbia only goes for stage wins, it is statistically improbable that the team wins almost every stage of the Tour of Switzerland (and a bunch of other races throughout the entire year with great regularity) if they were not doped. Such dominance is practically unheard of in modern cycling. Also, the domestiques who give Cavendish an armchair leadout on the flat stages should be totally wiped out by their efforts in subsequent stages. Instead they are also winning.

BTW I am not "cynical" but rather highly sceptical regarding anomalous wins. Who wouldn't be sceptical after 40+ years of doping scandals??? Like I said, I am bothered by the hypocrisy but that doesn't mean I don't love cycling. I'll decide for myself which sports I follow, thank you very much! What I am saying is that it would be nice if someone could sort out who is riding honestly before I go cheering for the wrong (i.e. doped) rider for the umpteenth time. Thus I suggest that investigative journalists rip the cover off of this ridiculous omerta once and for all.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
dimspace said:
i also think if you are that cynical you cant beleive any wins you see its time to find a new sport..
really well said.

about he best short response to the all dope all the time crowd yet.
 
Jun 1, 2009
4
0
0
jackhammer111 said:
really well said.
about he best short response to the all dope all the time crowd yet.
History will show which "crowd" is right. Oh wait a minute, 40+ years of doping scandals has already vindicated our "crowd"! Time to get real, perhaps?
 
May 6, 2009
8,524
1
0
I want to see all their SRM figures and the cross referenced between the UCI and WADA. I don't trust the UCI especially if Uncle Bob slips in a few back handers and then I want to see WADA also analyse the figures to make sure nothing dodgy is going on. Maybe you can get another independent body to check them as well.

A lot of it seems to be good to be true and it makes it hard to know what to think especially when they have quite a few riders who have a strong anti-doping stance and the likes of George Hincapie and Michael Barry have spoken out against doping (even though they spent the majority of their careers at USPS/Discovery Channel).
 
Mar 11, 2009
79
0
0
dimspace said:
away from the doping, they have the best sprinter in the world...
agreed.

if they were winning every other classic and hill top finish then I would be worried, you gotta admit a world-class sprinter will always rack up victories faster than anyone else...
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,916
0
0
crouleur said:
BTW I am not "cynical" but rather highly sceptical regarding anomalous wins. Who wouldn't be sceptical after 40+ years of doping scandals??? Like I said, I am bothered by the hypocrisy but that doesn't mean I don't love cycling. I'll decide for myself which sports I follow, thank you very much! What I am saying is that it would be nice if someone could sort out who is riding honestly before I go cheering for the wrong (i.e. doped) rider for the umpteenth time. Thus I suggest that investigative journalists rip the cover off of this ridiculous omerta once and for all.
I agree with you completely but sadly good journalism is very hard to find these days and it's certainly not limited to the cycling reporters. American political reporting is probably in even worse shape these days is it seems that all we have there is hyper-partisan idiots on either side of the party divide that simply spew out exactly what the politician whose side they are on says. There is very little fact checking and the reporters themselves allow spin, myths, and propoganda to be broadcast effectively through the media. It seems most people prefer fantasy to reality in cycling and life.
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,916
0
0
toppermost said:
agreed.

if they were winning every other classic and hill top finish then I would be worried, you gotta admit a world-class sprinter will always rack up victories faster than anyone else...
This is true.
 
Apr 12, 2009
1,087
1
0
Hey again I would like to hope that every rider is clean one day. But the sad truth is that seems less likely everyday, the fact that a clean team can beat a team of riders that take drugs and then dominate them in races and I should believe they're clean, sure they're talented but so was I at one point.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
1
0
So what are we talking about in 2009:

Kuurne-Brussel-Kuurne
Eisel

Ronde van Murcia
2 stage: Henderson
3 stage: Rabon

Eroica
Lovkvist

Milaan-San Remo
Cavendish

Criterium International
3 stage: Martin (TT)

Gent-Wevelgem
Boason Hagen

Ronde van het Baskenland
4 stage: Albasini
5 stage: Pinotti

Ronde van Romandië
Proloog: Rabon (TT)
3rd stage: Team Colombia (TTT)

Giro d'Italia
1st stage: Team Colombia (TTT)
2nd stage: Cavendish
7th stage: Boason Hagen
8th stage: Sivtsov
9th stage: Cavendish
11th stage: Cavendish
13th stage: Cavendish

Bayern Rundfahrt

1st stage: Greipel
3rd stage: Greipel
4th stage: Martin (TT)
5th stage: Greipel
Overall: Greipel

Dauphine Libéré
4th stage: Grabsch (TT)

Ronde van Zwitserland
2nd stage: Eisel
3rd stage: Cavendish
5th stage: Albasini
6th stage: Cavendish
7th stage: Kirchen
8th stage: Martin

ITT Italy: Pinotti

source: Timo 2.0
I wouldn't jump to any conclusions (yet), because most of the wins are either sprints, or (T)TTs and the team is stacked with those guys.

It also seems as if they fielded some strong teams in races with a relatively weak competition. I mean if Eisel and Greipel are good enough to pull Cavendish's train, they can be pretty good finishers in races where no other biggies show up.

The fishy thing is the 'pedigree' aspect, and that is something that will probably always haunt Columbia.
 
Jun 13, 2009
99
0
0
dimspace said:
i also think if you are that cynical you cant beleive any wins you see its time to find a new sport..
jackhammer111 said:
really well said.

about he best short response to the all dope all the time crowd yet.
+1 agree completely
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
So what are we talking about in 2009:



I wouldn't jump to any conclusions (yet), because most of the wins are either sprints, or (T)TTs and the team is stacked with those guys.

It also seems as if they fielded some strong teams in races with a relatively weak competition. I mean if Eisel and Greipel are good enough to pull Cavendish's train, they can be pretty good finishers in races where no other biggies show up.

The fishy thing is the 'pedigree' aspect, and that is something that will probably always haunt Columbia.
In baseball there are teams that have relief pitchers that are good enough to be closers on most other teams.

That what it's like on columbia and their sprint guys.

Except that riding for other teams they'd still have to beat Cav.
 
Well like dude says, you gotta look at the pedigree of those guys.

Eisel
Greipel
Cavendish
Kirchen

always win races. Albasini always peaks at his home race. And Martin and Boason Hagen are the two biggest future stars in the peleton.

So I don't see the results as anomalous in the sense of they're doing anything different than before. George still chokes at Paris Roubaix.
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,916
0
0
hulkgogan said:
Well like dude says, you gotta look at the pedigree of those guys.

Eisel
Greipel
Cavendish
Kirchen

always win races. Albasini always peaks at his home race. And Martin and Boason Hagen are the two biggest future stars in the peleton.

So I don't see the results as anomalous in the sense of they're doing anything different than before. George still chokes at Paris Roubaix.
Also Eisel, Kirchen, and Cavendish showed very early on in their careers that they had huge potential by getting very high placings or winning outright in their first couple of years as pro. I don't mention Greipel just because I have not personally seen him race much. But Eisel and Kirchen were finishing in the front group in classics in their first year as pros and Cav was winning sprints in his first year as well.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Bala Verde said:
So what are we talking about in 2009:



I wouldn't jump to any conclusions (yet), because most of the wins are either sprints, or (T)TTs and the team is stacked with those guys.

It also seems as if they fielded some strong teams in races with a relatively weak competition. I mean if Eisel and Greipel are good enough to pull Cavendish's train, they can be pretty good finishers in races where no other biggies show up.

The fishy thing is the 'pedigree' aspect, and that is something that will probably always haunt Columbia.
Bala... Ita called autologous blood doping. Plasma spun off in a centrifuge, put in a preserving solution and frozen with Nitrogen at -80 C... Keeps for 10 years deep frozen in this way.

You'd never ever have seen them on TV with the sponsor logos all over them if they were clean... AT ALL. They;d have been outside top 15 in a TTT (WHICH IS ALL AEROBIC POWER) and their riders would have been 40+ minutes behind after the first climbs. Seriously. Verde... Have you ever ridden in a TTT before? I think not. I have in numerous TTTs. Its ALL about FTP power and or 6-8 minute V02 max.

Or they could draw off whole blood 2-3 weeks before races. Rest assured they are doping big time. But they have good talent and they train very very hard and have good money for a cycling team too. Its all in the $$$, has nothing to do with sporting aspect. UCI is ultra corrupt, just look at the lame crit checks (not within 2 hours of a finish.) And the team doc has all the say in the matter...If a rider is "sick" and "dehyrated" oh some saline... And lactate ringer. LOL :)

Not Flaming by the way, important to bring that up.
 
Mar 10, 2009
2
0
0
The team is testing, the UCI is testing at the tour the AFLD will be testing. Are we assuming that this is all a waste of time?

I think I agree with an earlier response, these guys are getting into breaks and winning sprints, not riding off the front in the big ring and leaving all the top guys, they are taking their opportunities and/or have 2 or 3 of the top sprinters in the game.

If you don't want to believe find yourself a new sport, quit carping for the sake of it!
 
May 6, 2009
8,524
1
0
Bala Verde said:
So what are we talking about in 2009:



I wouldn't jump to any conclusions (yet), because most of the wins are either sprints, or (T)TTs and the team is stacked with those guys.

It also seems as if they fielded some strong teams in races with a relatively weak competition. I mean if Eisel and Greipel are good enough to pull Cavendish's train, they can be pretty good finishers in races where no other biggies show up.

The fishy thing is the 'pedigree' aspect, and that is something that will probably always haunt Columbia.
Mate, not having a go or anything, but that can't be right (your source). I mean Gerdermann won the overall Bayern Rundfahrt and Cavendish "only" won 3 stages at the Giro. That's not including wins at the Australian TT Championships (Rogers), a stage at the Tour Down Under, and two stages apiece at Qatar and California (Cavendish two apiece) and not forgetting a stage at Tirreno (you know who again) and IIRC Greipel won two stages at Dunkerque and a Philly. And before I forget Cavendish won another two stages at 3 Days of de Panne.

*phew*

I have counted 40 wins for Columbia so far, but I could be wrong.
 
Mar 18, 2009
981
0
0
I noticed that only one of you mention Rogers!

Why is that?

Is it because he hasn't really been in the mix for Columbia since 07(which then was still T-Mobile) when he was in virtual yellow on the road in the TDF and broke his collar bone?
 
Apr 1, 2009
233
0
0
We are talking professional cycling here. So if one team is winning a vastly disproportionate number of races/stages, then, well, if it quacks like a duck....
 
We've had a fair few riders caught, during the past two seasons. So even the most naive follower of the sport must admit that the PED problem is still pretty
widespread.
During the past two seasons, three of the teams running "medical monitoring programmes" are by far the most successful teams in the peloton.
Columbia, Saxo and Astana have carved up the lion's share of major results.

Which begs the question: If they are doing it clean, where is the PE in PEDs?

We all know that the most successful team of it's generation, Telekom/T Mobile, ran a systemmatic, "in house" doping programme.
After re-inventing itself as High road/Columbia, it continues to be the most successful team in the peloton, with an even better record.
 
Mellow Velo said:
We've had a fair few riders caught, during the past two seasons. So even the most naive follower of the sport must admit that the PED problem is still pretty
widespread.
During the past two seasons, three of the teams running "medical monitoring programmes" are by far the most successful teams in the peloton.
Columbia, Saxo and Astana have carved up the lion's share of major results.
Garmin must be on the discount monitoring program. Aside from Vande Velde their plan does not seem to work that well.

The Caisse and Cervelo must be kicking themselves. If only they would have paid for monitoring programs then they would have an even larger lead in the Pro Tour team rankings.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY