Join the dots? How dirty is Lotto?

[Mrs John Murphy]

Gilbert's strong performances this spring.

Very strong Giro ride so far, stage win and lots of attacks from different Lotto riders.

Matt Lloyd and JVDB II scoring 8 on the UCI dirty scale.

While not at Cack/Saxo/Astana levels of sustained dirtiness over the years, is it time to start looking at them a little bit more critically?

 

[SC1990]

No. On that basis anytime anyone does well, they most be on drugs.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

And why exactly shouldn't 'good' performances be questioned? Afterall, pretty much every good performance since 1990 has been down to the right doctor and drugs.

It seems like child like naivety to think at any but a handful of riders are 'clean' given what has taken place over the last 20 years. The UCI's 2% dirty, 98% clean is probably the wrong way round. The question was not is lotto dirty but how dirty.

Performance is one element - the second is the fact that they had two riders on the UCI dirty list. JVDB II's reputation as a charger as well.

 

[Benotti69]

Considering the lastest investigations into teams, Fuentes Part II, Ferarri still at it, i am inclined to agree it 98% doping and 2% clean.

And now a find in Spain revolving around master racers. WTF

 

[Eyeballs Out]

It's all "altitude training" innit

 

[hughmoore]

Clearly Matt LLOYD having two car accidents and getting sacked was to throw the UCI off the scent.





Hugh

 

[c&cfan]

Clearly Matt LLOYD having two car accidents and getting sacked was to throw the UCI off the scent.





Hugh

and they weren't blood tested since paris-nice until romandie. how's that?

 

[Met de Versnelling]

Fed up of everyone "joining the dots". And i'm fed up of every rider that wins something being fingered by forum warriors for doping.

How are we meant to promote a cleaner sport, when a large amount of people accuse every bloody rider.

Stupid.

So you saying De Clercq's win is doped? To me, it looked like a youthful piece of opportunism that came off brilliantly. If he'd lost out to Scarponi on the line, i bet no one would cast aspersions on his ride, and say what a great attempt to do something.

 

[roundabout]

De Clercq is the only rider who won on that climb by attacking from far out in recent years.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Not asking questions and being critical of riders, teams and the authorities is what has got this sport into the mess it is currently in.

If people had asked more questions then maybe the EPO era could have been dealt with instead of being swept under the carpet.

If people had asked more questions earlier then maybe Armstrong would have been busted in 1999 instead of 12 years later.

Maybe if more questions had been asked about doping in Spain then Puerto etc might not have spiralled out of control.

Burying your head in the sand and saying 'don't question the riders' is not going to clean up the sport. Unless of course you are so naive that you think that because it's not discussed then it can't be happening.

If you don't like riders being questioned then don't blame the people asking the questions - blame the riders, the DS's, the authorities and the journalists who for years have lied to the fans about doping, who covered up scandals, who protected dopers and omerta upholders and who spun lie after lie about how the sport was cleaning up.

I'd love to believe that Gilbert this spring was done clean, but after so many lies you'll have to forgive me for being i) cynical and ii) questioning the team (especially in the light of Lloyd and JVDB scoring 8 on the dirty scale).

 

[Mambo95]

Have you ever heard of the story of 'The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf'?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I don't believe in fairy tales or miracles.

Don't blame me for your naivety.

 

[Benotti69]

Have you ever heard of the story of 'The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf'?

where was he in '99?


Lotto have a history with doping directeurs;

Walter Godefroot was disqualified three times for doping. On 25 May 2007 Bjarne Riis, winner of the 1996 Tour de France and member of Team Telekom of which Godefroot was coach, admitted using EPO. Riis claims Godefroot turned a blind eye to drug use on the team

Patrick Lefevere was accused of doping by a Belgian newspaper. Het Laatste Nieuws ran articles on 23 and 24 January 2007 entitled "Lefevere, 30 Years Of Dope. Sued the paper and won.

 

[L'arriviste]

where was he in '99?


Lotto have a history with doping directeurs;

Walter Godefroot was disqualified three times for doping. On 25 May 2007 Bjarne Riis, winner of the 1996 Tour de France and member of Team Telekom of which Godefroot was coach, admitted using EPO. Riis claims Godefroot turned a blind eye to drug use on the team

Patrick Lefevere was accused of doping by a Belgian newspaper. Het Laatste Nieuws ran articles on 23 and 24 January 2007 entitled "Lefevere, 30 Years Of Dope. Sued the paper and won.

Bit unfair to put PL in the frame as a "doping directeur" being as how none of the mud stuck to him. Par contre, I will allow you the insulin-guzzling Stefano Zanini at Silence-Lotto. Hendrik Redant earlier became embroiled in the TVM scandal but nothing stuck and Jean-Luc VDB and Wally Planckaert had wayward relatives. Zooming out like that though, you could probably go on forever.

 

[Benotti69]

Bit unfair to put PL in the frame as a "doping directeur" being as how none of the mud stuck to him. Par contre, I will allow you the insulin-guzzling Stefano Zanini at Silence-Lotto. Hendrik Redant became embroiled in the TVM scandal but nothing stuck and Jean-Luc VDB and Wally Planckaert had wayward relatives. Zooming out like that though, you could probably go on forever.

Mud being thrown in pro cycling sticks, mostly not in the legal sense, because no one likes to spit in the soup, but it sticks in every other sense.

Hardly unfair when his favourite rider was Johan Museeuw?

 

[pmcg76]

Not asking questions and being critical of riders, teams and the authorities is what has got this sport into the mess it is currently in.

If people had asked more questions then maybe the EPO era could have been dealt with instead of being swept under the carpet.

If people had asked more questions earlier then maybe Armstrong would have been busted in 1999 instead of 12 years later.

Maybe if more questions had been asked about doping in Spain then Puerto etc might not have spiralled out of control.

Burying your head in the sand and saying 'don't question the riders' is not going to clean up the sport. Unless of course you are so naive that you think that because it's not discussed then it can't be happening.

If you don't like riders being questioned then don't blame the people asking the questions - blame the riders, the DS's, the authorities and the journalists who for years have lied to the fans about doping, who covered up scandals, who protected dopers and omerta upholders and who spun lie after lie about how the sport was cleaning up.

I'd love to believe that Gilbert this spring was done clean, but after so many lies you'll have to forgive me for being i) cynical and ii) questioning the team (especially in the light of Lloyd and JVDB scoring 8 on the dirty scale).

Ah but the problem is you want it both ways, for example you claim that 98% of riders are doped to the gills. You then accuse OPL based on Gilberts performances and the fact that JVDB and Lloyd score an 8 on the UCI chart.

If you are using the UCI chart as some form of evidence, then what about the fact that the biggest majority of riders listed fall into the 0-2, clearly not blood doping category thus making a mockery of your 98% doped to the gills claim.

Of course know you will try and point out that the UCI chart doesnt mean guys arent doping, just better at covering it up right. Or perhaps that they might not be blood doping but are taking HGH or other non blood related products.

But then at the same time, it is claimed these products are nowhere near as effective as blood doping yet we have LeMevel who was a 0 on the chart sitting in the Top 5 of the Giro with guys who you clearly believe are blood doping and therefore significantly more jacked than LeMevel. How is it possible that LeMevel is in the top 5, surely he should be near the back if he aint blood doping.

You are also one of the most ardent, Cancellara is doped guys yet he scores a 0 on the suspicious chart. Of course Fab must have paid the UCI off but apparently he was the only one as most other top guys fall in the 2-4 category.

If you are going to use the UCI suspicion chart as evidence of doping, then at least be consisent or at least stop being so hypocritical. Either its right or it BS. You are randomly picking numbers to suit your own agenda and beliefs.

I am not personally closed minded to the idea of riders doping but neither am I willing to go whistling in the wind either. De Clercq won that stage with a good performance but for anyone who watched it live, it was obvious the main pack were holding back and they mistimed their chase. If they had ridden like normal, De Clercq would have been caught and spit out the back. No questions asked.

So your latest mantra is that every time somebody attacks, that is proof of doping

I dont have problem with asking questions but every time somebody wins a race, they should be questioned on it. WTF. Where do we draw the line with that, do we question guys who win at Picardy, at Joe Martin stage race. Gert real.

 

[L'arriviste]

Mud being thrown in pro cycling sticks, mostly not in the legal sense, because no one likes to spit in the soup, but it sticks in every other sense.

Hardly unfair when his favourite rider was Johan Museeuw?

I wouldn't disagree with you on the general seediness of Belgian cycling over the years, but I think we have to have more on an individual than a list of his favourite riders to call him a "doping DS". There was nothing obvious to my knowledge recorded during his years as a DS at Lotto.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

pmcg - do we have to draw a line or have hard and fast rules?

The UCI list doesn't have to be entirely right or entirely wrong. I don't think it is hypocritical at one level to question low scores by some riders as unlikely, while citing the high scores as reasons to raise questions. If I were saying that Menchov/Popovych/CB are innocent and clean and the list is wrong then I think you could accuse me of hypocrisy in citing the Lloyd and JVDB scores.

The list might be wrong, flawed and subject to corruption and influence but that doesn't mean that those with high scores are victims and we should ignore or not question the teams with riders scoring 7-8-9-10

You can raise questions about Lotto based on a number of issues - Gilbert, and/or the UCI scores, how they've been riding etc etc.

The comment about the blood testing was also pretty weird as well.

 

[Benotti69]

I wouldn't disagree with you on the general seediness of Belgian cycling over the years, but I think we have to have more on an individual than a list of his favourite riders to call him a "doping DS". There was nothing obvious to my knowledge recorded during his years as a DS at Lotto.

Patrick Lefevere was at Mapei, i imagine he brought their ideals with him to Lotto. No he hasn't been proved to have enabled doping but the dots are there.

 

[pmcg76]

pmcg - do we have to draw a line or have hard and fast rules?

The UCI list doesn't have to be entirely right or entirely wrong. I don't think it is hypocritical at one level to question low scores by some riders as unlikely, while citing the high scores as reasons to raise questions. If I were saying that Menchov/Popovych/CB are innocent and clean and the list is wrong then I think you could accuse me of hypocrisy in citing the Lloyd and JVDB scores.

The list might be wrong, flawed and subject to corruption and influence but that doesn't mean that those with high scores are victims and we should ignore or not question the teams with riders scoring 7-8-9-10

You can raise questions about Lotto based on a number of issues - Gilbert, and/or the UCI scores, how they've been riding etc etc.

The comment about the blood testing was also pretty weird as well.

The thing is you and a few others are the people saying repeatedly 98% of the peloton is doped to the gills, yet the UCI list suggests the opposite. I agree there are a few guys on the list that are lower than I would expect and I agree this could be as a result of manipulation but generally not the guys in the 0-2 range, there are a few in the 2-4 range I would be particularly weary about. Yes, Cancellara does stick out. Leaving the dodgy ones aside, the majority of riders are in the lower range which still flies in the face of your 98% figure.


Fact is if the figures are anyway representative of the actual reality in regards to blood doping, then the peloton is a lot cleaner than people suggest. Therefore it does not seem as unrealsitic for cleaner guys to pull out big results, especially in one day races where blood doping is less of a factor. Over longer races, especially GTs I would be more cautious about making such claims.

That is why I am more restrained in throwing accusations around based solely on performance, I understand the questioning of Gilbert and JVDB but OPL at the Giro, c'mon. De Clercq won a stage but when the crap really hit the fan on Etna, where was De Clercq and the rest of OPL, well behind. To me, that is not evidence of doping.

As I said LeMevel is riding with the big guys at the moment which I dont expect to last but according to the theorists in here, that is impossible without blood doping yet he has a 0 score on the UC chart. Are you seriously suggesting LeMevel is paying off the UCI. I dont believe so.

I dont mind people questioning performances but the evidence people sometimes use as proof is often random and contradictory.

 

[Benotti69]

Did the UCI initiate the 'suspicion list' soley for TdF testing and it was updated for other events or were they asked to compile it for the TdF?

Is there a 'suspicion list' for other years or is this the first?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I thought I replied but it seems to have vanished into the ether.

I think you are conflating issues here.

I do not think the biopassport is effective as either a method of detection or deterrence. None the less, when a rider sets off the warning sirens then we need to take it seriously.

Just because it misses people does not make Lloyd, Menchov, Popovych, JVDB clean.

Le Mevel is a bad example - he was riding for FDJ at the time of the list being compiled and he now rides for Garmin who are in the wake of the Matt White affair getting themselves a bad rep. I'd like to know what he is scoring now rather than last year. Clean riders can go bad, whether doped riders can ride clean I am not so sure.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

If you are using the UCI chart as some form of evidence, then what about the fact that the biggest majority of riders listed fall into the 0-2, clearly not blood doping category thus making a mockery of your 98% doped to the gills claim.

Only the riders that fall into the 0-1 category have no suspicious anomalies in their blood profiles. The majority of riders do not fit into those two categories.

But what would happen if these riders were tested more often? It's anyone's guess, really. Blood tests are relatively few and far between. A "4" - a stable passport MOST of the time - could have just as easily been a "0" with a bit of luck.

 

[pmcg76]

I thought I replied but it seems to have vanished into the ether.

I think you are conflating issues here.

I do not think the biopassport is effective as either a method of detection or deterrence. None the less, when a rider sets off the warning sirens then we need to take it seriously.

Just because it misses people does not make Lloyd, Menchov, Popovych, JVDB clean.

Le Mevel is a bad example - he was riding for FDJ at the time of the list being compiled and he now rides for Garmin who are in the wake of the Matt White affair getting themselves a bad rep. I'd like to know what he is scoring now rather than last year. Clean riders can go bad, whether doped riders can ride clean I am not so sure.

What I find strange is your reasoning on how you decide who is doping.

I find the idea of someone dismissing the value of the UCI list but then saying it should be heeded as strange. Basically you are saying if the list suggests someone is clean, then its wrong but if it suggests someone is doping it is correct. That is hypocrisy on the highest level. You lack credibility by even suggesting that. It becomes clear that your thought process has pre determined everyone is dirty regardless of what information is available.

Let me ask you a direct question. How many of the riders in the 0-1 category do you think are manipulating their blood? Is there any part of the UCI list you give credit to? You must if you think LeMevel has only started blood doping since he moved to Garmin.

You seem to be suggesting Lfdj are clean so that concurs with what was on the UCI list except there are plenty other teams with a better record than Lfdj, Bbox, Cofidis, AGR etc. So using your own logic, then all the riders in the 0-1 category should get the same benefit of doubt as Lfdj to being clean. Right.

This once again represents a far bigger proportion of riders and teams that you are willing to give credit to as being cleaner/not blood doping. Of the Tour peloton we are talking about approx 40%. So following on from that thought process, there is a far greater possibility for non blood doping riders to perfrom as the blood doping group is not as large as you suggest it is.

How does this all tie in with OPL, well if there are less riders blood doping and this procedure does not give such a big advantage in one day races, then Gilbert's perfromances do not seem so outageous if he is clean.

Secondly, you are tarring the whole OPL team based on the fact that JVDB and Matt Lloyd are high on the UCI list. Yet, most teams even Lfdj have a rider higher up on the list than the rest of the team. That doesnt mean every single rider on those team is doping but you are suggesting it does.

Perfromances, yes OPL have done better than expected at the Giro but that is hardly evidence. De Clercq got lucky but you fail to recognise that fact. What about RadioShack, they are doing rubbish. Have they suddenly become the clean team now as opposed to the biggest doping team in the peloton based on their placing on the UCI listing. You paint with too big a brush stroke and fail to see your own double standards.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

No, it isn't hypocrisy to suggest that the list is flagging up some riders while missing the majority.

It isn't hypocrisy to ask questions about the riders and their teams who scored highly.

Lotto are having a strong Giro which goes alongside a strong spring with Gilbert - if it were a team with a 'dirty' reputation like Cack, Astana or Katusha there would be a lot more eyebrows being raised in their direction but because its Lotto there are far fewer questions being asked (imo that is hypocrisy).

You are conflating issues when you compare a rider who came 42nd in last years TDF on one team and who is now a potential top 5 finisher while riding on for a different team. Performance changes when you get on a better programme.

Needless to say we will have to agree to disagree.