Pro Cyling = Doping? Who's not?

[craig1985]

I would say Evan is cleaner then most GC riders. As much as I admire Contador, I would not be naive to think otherwise (that he is not on a program of some sort).

 

[luckyboy]

No way Mellow V, the Spanish are the cleanest.

Mellow V? I'm luckyboy

 

[Ripper]

Mellow V? I'm luckyboy

I got distracted and confused

 

[ianfra]

A lot of people here falsely accuse Cancellera of doping. Check out his 1999 world junior title (tt) win. Has he been at it since then. Sorry rhetorical question as I know (OK believe) that this guy is clean.
And it is true that French riders have by and large been clean and since the reduction of doping in the bunch, French riders have once again started to come to the fore.
I'm also waving the flag for the brits because from my own personal experience I know what goes into the UK anti-doping strategy.

 

[Cerberus]

I think Riis needed to win the Tour again in '97 to prove EPO worked ("Just like it worked for him in '96".) Unfortunately for the honking Riis, he placed 26 minutes down on a clean Ullrich that year, the eventual winner.

Hmmmmmmm....

"Clean" Ulrich on Doping:"I am not in a position to help those who still are unable to add one and one and to know what was going on in cycling". Perhaps you should find a different champion of clean cycling.

 

[petesam]

did Ulrich actually say that? At least he's honest...

 

[Cerberus]

did Ulrich actually say that? At least he's honest...

He sais that:
http://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/All-will-be-revealed-Ullrich-20090308

 

[JPM London]

For me too, 2008 was a different and defining year. Not so much because of Vandevelde and Evans, but Sastres victory. I think he was and is clean...

Any views on that??

Funnily enoug it was that tour LA saw and thought "heck, I'll come back". Maybe he thought the pace was getting too slow and he needed to show how things were done in his day (two years earlier)?

Apart from that I don't think Spanish riders are that clean. I'd have to go with the French as cleanest, although I'm loathe to say any specific nation is better or worse than others.

 

[luckyboy]

For me too, 2008 was a different and defining year. Not so much because of Vandevelde and Evans, but Sastres victory. I think he was and is clean...

I have a hard time believing that any of those three are clean. There's no evidence to say they aren't, but I just don't think that cyclists can challenge for the Tour without doping.

 

[Green Tea]

I have a hard time believing that any of those three are clean. There's no evidence to say they aren't, but I just don't think that cyclists can challenge for the Tour without doping.

I was just wandering, Do you guys regard something like creatine to be doping???... If a rider took something synthetic within WADA regulation which wasn't banned but could go towards increasing performance???...

Is that doping also?. Taking a synthetic substance (within WADA)?.

 

[Ripper]

Taking something considered legal is A-OK. However, I smell a bait and trap by a smelly green pooper.

 

[Cerberus]

For me too, 2008 was a different and defining year. Not so much because of Vandevelde and Evans, but Sastres victory. I think he was and is clean...

Any views on that??

Well if you want to pick someone at the top you think are clean I suppose Sastre and Evans are good picks. Neither of them have been credibly implicated in doping scandal. Vandevelde looks somewhat less clean to me because of his performance jump, whereas Evans and Sastre have been fairly steady. Ultimately though I agree with luckyboy that anyone seriously contesting the Tour is probably powered by something a bot more potent than clear water and clean living.

 

[JPM London]

...Vandevelde looks somewhat less clean to me because of his performance jump...

Isn't that mainly because he had some years where he crashed left and right? Or am I confusing him with someone else??

 

[CycloErgoSum]

The doping isn't the problem - it's the lying about it. Nothing worse than a hypocrite.

Would would happen if the entire peloton said to the UCI, 'We dope. Watcha gonna do about it? We're the stars everyone wants to see. If you suspend us, you'll have no business'?

 

[Hugh Januss]

The doping isn't the problem - it's the lying about it. Nothing worse than a hypocrite.

Would would happen if the entire peloton said to the UCI, 'We dope. Watcha gonna do about it? We're the stars everyone wants to see. If you suspend us, you'll have no business'?

Um, the UCI would go on protecting their favorites much like they do now?

 

[CycloErgoSum]

According to many posters on here, every great performance is due to doping, not so. Most top riders aren't foolish enough to dope.

This is where the majority go wrong. They believe there are only 2 factors which lead to an increase in cycling performance. Long, hard miles & doping.

So what we have is, every rider puts in the amount same hours & miles, the only difference being the amount of EPO a rider does & his ability to mask it goes on to perform the best.

What senseless rubbish.

Get with the times.

You've admitted you take EPO and HgH in the creatine thread, so what's your excuse for indulging? To see what the fuss is about? One cannot draw conclusions about doping's efficacy from an anecdote.

 

[Cerberus]

Isn't that mainly because he had some years where he crashed left and right? Or am I confusing him with someone else??

Unless he crashed every year from turning pro until 2008 then it doesn't really account for it. He starts out around number 80-90 in GTs then a couple of times get up to 25 and then at age 31, he suddenly becomes a serious contender. His performance jump isn't quite as striking as that of say Riis, but I still feel it's a fairly suspicious.

 

[Cerberus]

The doping isn't the problem - it's the lying about it. Nothing worse than a hypocrite.

Would would happen if the entire peloton said to the UCI, 'We dope. Watcha gonna do about it? We're the stars everyone wants to see. If you suspend us, you'll have no business'?

Ignoring just how impossible that scenario is, what would happen, regardless of what UCI did, is that the sport would take a gigantic facedive. The hypocrisy allows people who want to to close their eyes and pretend the sport is clean, or at least partially clean. Coming clean would also very likely force politicians to take some fairly drastic action. Where there is doping there will always be lies.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Ignoring just how impossible that scenario is, what would happen, regardless of what UCI did, is that the sport would take a gigantic facedive. The hypocrisy allows people who want to to close their eyes and pretend the sport is clean, or at least partially clean. Coming clean would also very likely force politicians to take some fairly drastic action. Where there is doping there will always be lies.

I'm not too sure about a facedive, given most hardcore cyclists believe pros dope. I'd hazard a guess that a lot of the general public think so too given the publicity everytime someone tests positive in cycling. I agree politicians would have their hand forced to investigate contraband, but on the bright side, LA wouldn't have to shake their hands everywhere he goes!

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Um, the UCI would go on protecting their favorites much like they do now?

Good point; the scenario has probably already occured behind closed doors.