Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Benotti69]

Quite simple really, because as has been pointed out a zillion times now, the one major game changer is blood doping which has been dialled back due to the biological passport. Over 3 weeks, yes it will still make a significant different, over one day not so much, then factor in tactics, form etc and it is entirely plausible.

Would Martin stand a chance against 150 guys with 50% hct, not a hope in hell but with a limited number of blood dopers, it's not nearly half as unbelievable.

A more important question would be how did a totally clean rider beat guys over 3 weeks who had access to testosterone, cortisteroids, etc with much weaker testing than is currently in place. I think most people would recognise that is far more implausible.

I dont agree that testing is or was working. The big teams have too many doctors to let riders get caught out by testing.

I think teams take a much smarter attitude to doping and that is only because of French Gendarme and Italian government agencies , but i dont think they dope any less that clean riders can compete in the major races. Look at Piti, 2006 the year of Fuentes he finished 2nd at La Vuelta, 2012 he finished 2nd la Vuelta and 3rd in 2013. Seems to have maintained his level.

 

[pmcg76]

I would agree with you listing these doping teams as dots to join against LeMond, but LeMond tried to shoot cycling's golden goose when the goose was making cycling a popular sport. If LeMond doped it would've come out as too many had a vested interest in Armstrong's success. LeMond did pay for trying to kill the goose, he lost his bike business, but he never lost his reputation for being clean and he continued to speak out against doping. His wattage numbers are what riders are measured against.

And likewise, there is zero against Dan Martin, been a pro for 6 years. Not a whisper, no links to dodgy doctors, nothing. Steady natural improvement over his career, get's sick, has off-days, no major gains in TT, no dominating performances, tactically astute. Yet you have no problem saying he is doping. You very clearly have double standards

 

[pmcg76]

I dont agree that testing is or was working. The big teams have too many doctors to let riders get caught out by testing.

I think teams take a much smarter attitude to doping and that is only because of French Gendarme and Italian government agencies , but i dont think they dope any less that clean riders can compete in the major races. Look at Piti, 2006 the year of Fuentes he finished 2nd at La Vuelta, 2012 he finished 2nd la Vuelta and 3rd in 2013. Seems to have maintained his level.

That could be as simple as Valverde riding doped in a highly doped peloton versus Valverde riding cleaner in a cleaner peloton. You are assuming Valverde is doping as much now as he was in 2006.

 

[Benotti69]

And likewise, there is zero against Dan Martin, been a pro for 6 years. Not a whisper, no links to dodgy doctors, nothing. Steady natural improvement over his career, get's sick, has off-days, no major gains in TT, no dominating performances, tactically astute. Yet you have no problem saying he is doping. You very clearly have double standards

Let us see. Alan lim, Matt White, Del Moral, Vaughters, Zabriskie, Danielson, Millar, VandeVelde, Dekker.

JV is smart, but there is a lot of experience with doping at Garmin.

No i dont have a positive on Garmin or Dan Martin and I would love to believe he is clean, but my common sense detectors about cycling cant see it. Maybe I will revise that at some stage.

But this aint the thread to discuss Dan Martin.

 

[pmcg76]

it's not a view really.
i'd say it's common sense derived from simple chance calculations and some basic historical knowledge.

No it's not common sense. That's a bit like saying a lot of Catholic priests were child molesters, thus all current Catholic priests are likely to fall into the same bracket. Its an over simplistic small minded way of looking at things.

If you believe that nothing ever changes, they you live in a very paranoid delusional world.

 

[Benotti69]

That could be as simple as Valverde riding doped in a highly doped peloton versus Valverde riding cleaner in a cleaner peloton. You are assuming Valverde is doping as much now as he was in 2006.

But that would be too black and white. It could well be that simple. But i doubt the 'cleanER' is anything but. It aint hard to make it cleaner than the days of Pantani and Riis so it can be called cleanER. The 50% rule did that, the test for epo also meant logistics to beat the testers had to be implemented, the BP has also led to adjustments but this word cleanER seems to imply that if LeMond were around now he would have a chance? I dont think so, I think Horner and Froome would have beaten LeMond easy so it aint that cleanER.

 

[pmcg76]

Let us see. Alan lim, Matt White, Del Moral, Vaughters, Zabriskie, Danielson, Millar, VandeVelde, Dekker.

JV is smart, but there is a lot of experience with doping at Garmin.

No i dont have a positive on Garmin or Dan Martin and I would love to believe he is clean, but my common sense detectors about cycling cant see it. Maybe I will revise that at some stage.

But this aint the thread to discuss Dan Martin.

Again the same brush can be applied to LeMond. You can say there is nothing against LeMond, then you have to apply the same criteria to other people. If having team-mates, managers who doped is a sign of guilt, then it should apply to everyone, LeMond included.

 

[Benotti69]

No it's not common sense. That's a bit like saying a lot of Catholic priests were child molesters, thus all current Catholic priests are likely to fall into the same bracket. Its an over simplistic small minded way of looking at things.

If you believe that nothing ever changes, they you live in a very paranoid delusional world.

Very view priests spoke out against the church. Omerta is very strong. But not speaking out made them part of the abuse.

There have been changes in testing practices, but the team are always ahead. Why do you think that has changed? The teams employ a lot of doctors.

 

[pmcg76]

But that would be too black and white. It could well be that simple. But i doubt the 'cleanER' is anything but. It aint hard to make it cleaner than the days of Pantani and Riis so it can be called cleanER. The 50% rule did that, the test for epo also meant logistics to beat the testers had to be implemented, the BP has also led to adjustments but this word cleanER seems to imply that if LeMond were around now he would have a chance? I dont think so, I think Horner and Froome would have beaten LeMond easy so it aint that cleanER.

We will never know because we will never see top level LeMond exposed to modern training methods, diet and equipment. I have never understood where this idea that LeMond is the limit for physical development comes from. Its silly to say that an athlete from 20 years ago is the peak of mankind.

Using LeMond as such is a complete strawman.

However my bet would be that LeMond would do very well.

 

[Benotti69]

Again the same brush can be applied to LeMond. You can say there is nothing against LeMond, then you have to apply the same criteria to other people. If having team-mates, managers who doped is a sign of guilt, then it should apply to everyone, LeMond included.

I would but as i posted earlier, LeMond tried to damage the sport (in the eyes of the sport) by speaking out about Armstrong. If he was a doper it would've come out. He has been vociferous in his anti doping for a long time so someone would've taken great umbridge about his hypocrisy and outed him.

This again is for the LeMond thread and not really relevant to the OP.

 

[pmcg76]

Very view priests spoke out against the church. Omerta is very strong. But not speaking out made them part of the abuse.

There have been changes in testing practices, but the team are always ahead. Why do you think that has changed? The teams employ a lot of doctors.

But does that mean current priest's are likely to be like their predecessors?

 

[gooner]

It is a view held, because the sport is full of people who earn a living from doping. These people did not roll over and say oh blood passport, *** forget cycling lets see if any of the Ladies Curling team want some epo and testorterone. It is also held because McQuaid didn't have a problem with doping. The BP was not working, hence Ashenden left it. It didn't catch Armstrong so why would testing catch only those that McQuaid wanted out of the sport and those too stupid, like Ricco.

I hope Cookson will bring changes to make doping difficult. A start would be 4 year bans minimum along with independent anti doping and making teams pay for it.

But till then, it has been business as usual.

And that still gives you no right to call Martin a doper. You judge his performances independently and in their own right.

You can't be credible with a doping only view to any winner. That's a set default position.

 

[pmcg76]

I would but as i posted earlier, LeMond tried to damage the sport (in the eyes of the sport) by speaking out about Armstrong. If he was a doper it would've come out. He has been vociferous in his anti doping for a long time so someone would've taken great umbridge about his hypocrisy and outed him.

This again is for the LeMond thread and not really relevant to the OP.

No it's relevant because you keep employing these double standards. Nothing has come out about LeMond, likewise nothing has come about about D.Martin so both should be treated equally. Who knows, maybe tomorrow both could be exposed as huge frauds.

Let me point this out as well, there were very strong whispers against the Renault team in the 84 Tour such was their dominance. 9 stage wins without a sprinter and 1st and 3rd on GC. Guimard's team were renowned for their heavy usage of corticosteroids.

 

[Benotti69]

And that still gives you no right to call Martin a doper. You judge his performances independently and in their own right.

You can't be credible with a doping only view to any winner. That's a set default position.

I have every right to be suspicious about winners in this sport that has proved to be a cesspit. It was run by people who had no interest in a clean sport. The testing is a joke. The riders dont care for a clean sport. The teams are run by ex dopers and full of doctors to enable the doping.

It took 15 years to finally catch the Armstrong and only because he was a bully. They would've left Armstrong alone if he was a nice guy like Indurain.

So Martin and others who claim to be clean want to be believed, they need to do more! IMO.

 

[Benotti69]

No it's relevant because you keep employing these double standards. Nothing has come out about LeMond, likewise nothing has come about about D.Martin so both should be treated equally. Who knows, maybe tomorrow both could be exposed as huge frauds.

Let me point this out as well, there were very strong whispers against the Renault team in the 84 Tour such was their dominance. 9 stage wins without a sprinter and 1st and 3rd on GC. Guimard's team were renowned for their heavy usage of corticosteroids.

So i view it in black and white and a very narrow one eyed view, but when I dont call out LeMond i am now not so black and white or narrow one eyed!

You dont seem to be understanding my point of view. LeMond finished in '93. That is 20 year ago and there has been ample time and people apparently under instruction looking for his doping. Martin is still riding. Ask me in 20 years after Martin retires.

 

[gooner]

I have every right to be suspicious about winners in this sport that has proved to be a cesspit. It was run by people who had no interest in a clean sport. The testing is a joke. The riders dont care for a clean sport. The teams are run by ex dopers and full of doctors to enable the doping.

It took 15 years to finally catch the Armstrong and only because he was a bully. They would've left Armstrong alone if he was a nice guy like Indurain.

So Martin and others who claim to be clean want to be believed, they need to do more! IMO.

And I have the right to pick flaws in your argument as I see fit. To me it is a set default position and it was backed up when I remember you going into the JV thread throwing the same argument around only 2 minutes after he crossed the line to win LBL.

I'm not surprised to see sniper agree either. He just said he's a doper out of nowhere after he beat Fuglsang at the Tour.

A short narrowed minded view.

 

[martinvickers]

I would but as i posted earlier, LeMond tried to damage the sport (in the eyes of the sport) by speaking out about Armstrong. If he was a doper it would've come out. He has been vociferous in his anti doping for a long time so someone would've taken great umbridge about his hypocrisy and outed him.

This again is for the LeMond thread and not really relevant to the OP.

In which case why has no one outed, for example, Wiggins, who can't keep a straight thought in his head from one week to the next? If he's a doper, from his 2009 days at latest, why has he not been outed after all his,I'm clean, I'm not dirty like them stuff? Particularly since there is no great Armstrong patron to fear...

 

[Benotti69]

In which case why has no one outed, for example, Wiggins, who can't keep a straight thought in his head from one week to the next? If he's a doper, from his 2009 days at latest, why has he not been outed after all his,I'm clean, I'm not dirty like them stuff? Particularly since there is no great Armstrong patron to fear...

Give it time, give it time. Armstrong wasn't outed till 2003 and he was a bully. Wigans aint a bully, an ar$e, but not a bully.

 

[pmcg76]

So i view it in black and white and a very narrow one eyed view, but when I dont call out LeMond i am now not so black and white or narrow one eyed!

You dont seem to be understanding my point of view. LeMond finished in '93. That is 20 year ago and there has been ample time and people apparently under instruction looking for his doping. Martin is still riding. Ask me in 20 years after Martin retires.

No you view is very black and white but incredibly hypocritical as well. Nobody has ever called out LeMond but how many riders have come forward and said that LeMond was definitely clean in the same time frame. Has Kimmage? Perhaps it is because most of the guys from LeMond's era are ometra as well and have no wish to get involved in a slanging match about events from 20 years

 

[Benotti69]

No you view is very black and white but incredibly hypocritical as well. Nobody has ever called out LeMond but how many riders have come forward and said that LeMond was definitely clean in the same time frame. Has Kimmage? Perhaps it is because most of the guys from LeMond's era are ometra as well and have no wish to get involved in a slanging match about events from 20 years

Wily Voet was from LeMond's era. He talked.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Sorry to **** in...cogadh cathartha na heireann of CN? carry on, folks.

 

[pmcg76]

Wily Voet was from LeMond's era. He talked.

About riders he worked with. I don't think he uttered a word about other riders. Did he mention Fignon, Hinault, Delgado, Roche etc. Don't recall him doing so.

 

[martinvickers]

Give it time, give it time. Armstrong wasn't outed till 2003 and he was a bully. Wigans aint a bully, an ar$e, but not a bully.

That's all any of us can do. If we were able to hold our water a litle better, and not attempt to make certainties of bare hunches in the mean time, we might get a little further

 

[pmcg76]

I have every right to be suspicious about winners in this sport that has proved to be a cesspit. It was run by people who had no interest in a clean sport. The testing is a joke. The riders dont care for a clean sport. The teams are run by ex dopers and full of doctors to enable the doping.

It took 15 years to finally catch the Armstrong and only because he was a bully. They would've left Armstrong alone if he was a nice guy like Indurain.

So Martin and others who claim to be clean want to be believed, they need to do more! IMO.

You don't start from the position of suspicion, you start from the position of guilt and then work backward. There is a huge difference.

 

[martinvickers]

Sorry to **** in...cogadh cathartha na heireann of CN? carry on, folks.

utterly confused - do you mean Walsh v Kimmage?