Remco Evenepoel

[Netserk]

Weird question since no one was referring to WADA.

Great. Entirely possible.

I think it's more likely than not that Evenepoel currently dopes. By that I mean using products and methods which violates the anti-doping rules aka. the WADA code.

So by that route I referred to the WADA code here:

If you are now absolutely sure that Evenepoel dopes (I am too), when did you first think it was more likely to be the case than not? Or rather, when would that be in retrospect? 2019? 2018?

That is, if Evenepoel violates the code now, his first violation of the code marks when he started doping. That event happened at a specific moment. While it's unknown to us when it happened, I don't think Evenepoel would have been much in doubt when it occurred.

I don't think it's unclear or difficult to answer when it became more likely than not in your opinion that that said event happened (low confidence guesses are not only allowed, they are good). I'm not so much interested here in whether or not he doped as a junior per se, rather I'm interested in your beliefs and generally in the forum users beliefs of how early Evenepoel started doping.

By merely replying that it's "entirely possible", I take it that on the balance you think it's more likely than not that he was clean throughout his junior years?

 

[Netserk]

yep, SPOT ON

You either tolerate speeding in general or you don't. No exceptions allowed. Tolerating speeding only in the case of emergencies, e.g. getting to a hospital as fast as possible when time is of the essence, makes one a hypocrite.

Except of course that that is untrue. You are proving too much with such a standard, and it expands hypocrisy to the extend that it is meaningless. It's simply a false understand of the term.

 

[pastronef]

You either tolerate speeding in general or you don't. No exceptions allowed. Tolerating speeding only in the case of emergencies, e.g. getting to a hospital as fast as possible when time is of the essence, makes one a hypocrite.

Except of course that that is untrue. You are proving too much with such a standard, and it expands hypocrisy to the extend that it is meaningless. It's simply a false understand of the term.

that's real life, not pro cycling

 

[Blobs]

That's the point, that teenager won't stay ahead. Not only because of levelling playing field but also because he started before his natural max. He has no idea how to train, change, read his body. Not only will his advantage diminish he will also be riddled by physical problems.

And I doubt his father will use microdosing epo on a 16year old with no return.

Do you believe that, in all of sports history, there has never been an example of someone who started doping as a teenager and later reached the top of their sport? Is that simply impossible? I would guess that that has probably happened plenty of times.

What do you mean by "no return"? Does winning a lot of races and getting a lucrative pro contract, not count as return?

 

[Blobs]

You either tolerate speeding in general or you don't. No exceptions allowed. Tolerating speeding only in the case of emergencies, e.g. getting to a hospital as fast as possible when time is of the essence, makes one a hypocrite.

Except of course that that is untrue. You are proving too much with such a standard, and it expands hypocrisy to the extend that it is meaningless. It's simply a false understand of the term.

That comparison makes no sense. Even the most avid anti doper would tolerate it in an emergency. No one would condemn a rider who gets cancer and takes EPO to survive.

 

[Netserk]

That comparison makes no sense. Even the most avid anti doper would tolerate it in an emergency. No one would condemn a rider who gets cancer and takes EPO to survive.

Are there other cases than emergencies where it's allowed to tolerate speeding without having to always tolerate all speeding? Am I a hypocrite if I tolerate mild speeding when there isn't any traffic, but not when there is?

You are using the term hypocrite wrongly. Your usage here is not that of its meaning.

Hypocrisy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel

^^That is completely consistent with only tolerating some form of a behaviour while not tolerating other forms of it.

...

You may think that opposing some forms of doping requires one to oppose all forms of doping categorically, but that is false. It's possible to make an honest and consistent distinction and thus not be hypocritical about it.

 

[red_flanders]

I do think he was on something good, early. I also think he's exceptionally talented. To be that far ahead of the competition (especially as a beginner against much more experienced riders) I would think you'd need a combination of the two.

All speculation of course, but also not really relevant to my point. What I take issue with, is the hypocrisy of tolerating some dopers and berating other. We don't know their talent to doping ratios, and so the guy who starts at 15 could be seen as the natural talent, given a free pass to dope, and be celebrated as a hero, while the guy who tries to do it clean but realises he can't, and succumbs to the pressure at 24, might be vilified.

You either tolerate doping in general or you don't. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.

Do you by any chance remember when Lance and Hincapie said that suff? I'm guessing it's on The Move podcast? I'd love to hear humble Lance. That sounds like a unicorn to me

There’s nothing I can do about the doping, it’s always been there. If you watch the sport, you tolerate it. Call me a hypocrite? Piss off. I don’t like any of it, but people who insult my intelligence with their ridiculous proclamations of clean riding who would ne pack fodder without dopimg? Yeah that bugs me more than legit talents who just get on with it. Take issue all you want.

Yes, it was on The Move, some time this spring, I don’t recall when.

 

[Blobs]

Are there other cases than emergencies where it's allowed to tolerate speeding without having to always tolerate all speeding? Am I a hypocrite if I tolerate mild speeding when there isn't any traffic, but not when there is?

You are using the term hypocrite wrongly. Your usage here is not that of its meaning.

No, if you're not against speeding then speeding is not hypocritical. If you say "I'm 100%" against speeding, but then still do it, that is.

Hypocrite: "A person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"

Being against doping but tolerating it for some riders, fits that definition.

 

[Netserk]

No, if you're not against speeding then speeding is not hypocritical. If you say "I'm 100%" against speeding, but then still do it, that is.

Hypocrite: "A person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"

Being against doping but tolerating it for some riders, fits that definition.

Who here claims to be equally against all forms of doping?

 

[red_flanders]

Regarding Lance Armstrong's comment, we all know he'd be at the exact same level as these current top performers despite what he claims. Why? Because a 29 year old L.A. in 2023 would be on the exact same program as these current top guys are. Aka he wouldn't be still using his 2001 methods (his own peak) versus the 2023 methods.

And for what it's worth, Armstrong was a massive talent as well. The man was a physical beast ready to do absolutely anything (& whatever it takes) to win. He'd take one look at Evenepoel/Pogacar & get with the program.

My point was simply that it’s obvious to anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together that the current level isn’t possible clean. What Armstrong could or couldn’t do against these guys? I’m sure you’re right. I’m also pretty confident his program was more ridiculous than what’s happening now. Mostly they were talking about the level of training and commitment needed now being more than they endured, but the undercurrent about doping seemed obvious to me.

 

[Blobs]

There’s nothing I can do about the doping, it’s always been there. If you watch the sport, you tolerate it. Call me a hypocrite? Piss off. I don’t like any of it, but people who insult my intelligence with their ridiculous proclamations of clean riding who would ne pack fodder without dopimg? Yeah that bugs me more than legit talents who just get on with it. Take issue all you want.

Yes, it was on The Move, some time this spring, I don’t recall when.

Do you think there's a current rider who could win grand tours without doping? Wouldn't they all be pack fodder without it, if we're being honest?

Who here claims to be equally against all forms of doping?

I don't know if anyone has claimed that, and I haven't implied that anyone did. I feel like we're headed into a pedantic discussion about what does or doesn't fit the description of a hypocrite, which is pointless. I'm just saying that in my opinion it's irrational to discriminate between who can and can't dope based on who you like. It's my opinion that if two riders are doing the same illegal thing, one is not cheating the other, no matter what results they had as a junior.

 

[Netserk]

I don't know if anyone has claimed that, and I haven't implied that anyone did. I feel like we're headed into a pedantic discussion about what does or doesn't fit the description of a hypocrite, which is pointless. I'm just saying that in my opinion it's irrational to discriminate between who can and can't dope based on who you like. It's my opinion that if two riders are doing the same illegal thing, one is not cheating the other, no matter what results they had as a junior.

So you cannot point to anyone here who is a hypocrite. When you call someone a hypocrite, you imply that they have made a hypocritical claim. Well, show your cards.

Who here is this aimed at specifically?

All speculation of course, but also not really relevant to my point. What I take issue with, is the hypocrisy of tolerating some dopers and berating other. We don't know their talent to doping ratios, and so the guy who starts at 15 could be seen as the natural talent, given a free pass to dope, and be celebrated as a hero, while the guy who tries to do it clean but realises he can't, and succumbs to the pressure at 24, might be vilified.

You either tolerate doping in general or you don't. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.

...

Fair enough that you don't understand other users' beliefs, and you are free to deem (your misrepresentation of) them as irrational. But being irrational is not being hypocritical.

 

[Blobs]

So you cannot point to anyone here who is a hypocrite. When you call someone a hypocrite, you imply that they have made a hypocritical claim. Well, show your cards.

Who here is this aimed at specifically?

I haven't called anyone a hypocrite. I just said that I believe tolerating doping for some riders, but not others, is hypocritical. I don't feel like singling anyone out, but claims that imply that are frequently made on this forum.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Clearly, one of his doping products is baby formula.

 

[Red Rick]

Problem with that is that you are making the assumption that Junior racing involves enough money to warrant those doping levels.

Nobody starts with a sport, goes into the best form of doping at the beginning and is expected to be top in that sport. If you do, you will never make it, because you don't have a clue how your body goes/excels/issues/... That is just one big major recipe for breaking your body. (higher stress then tendons can handle), taking testosterone during puberty...
they also don't have a fully fledged physique yet on which you can properly designate the correct doping choices. There is absolutely no long term gain in that. (rather the contrary). So assuming that someone is on a high level/high cost/high maintainance doping shedule before making a single $ is extremely far fetched. At best odds, during the juniors most of the doping are on the very light side of things.
Its a whole other matter when we are talking about U23. People after puberty and with lots of training in the bag already and with a vision on pro-tour teams.

I personally know people who were recommended doping as kids despite not being really on the trajectory towards becoming a pro athlete.

And if I'm really gonna put on the tinfoil hat, I wouldn't stick my hand into the fire for the cleanliness of youth football either.

 

[Riek s]

Do you believe that, in all of sports history, there has never been an example of someone who started doping as a teenager and later reached the top of their sport? Is that simply impossible? I would guess that that has probably happened plenty of times.

What do you mean by "no return"? Does winning a lot of races and getting a lucrative pro contract, not count as return?

There is difference between a 19year old and a 16 year old. One is after the other is during puberty.
I'm pretty sure that the junior racing is the cleanest compared to U23 and pro's. (not saying it is without doping)

You are arguing that Remco, because he was better in the juniors he would have been on the dope of the pro's. But in that case his progression compared to the others would have stagnated.

Take Plapp for example. The guy he beat at the WC during his junior days. They are probably both on the sweet stuff now, yet the difference between them is still present.

For me its rather clear that Remco is one of the biggest inherited talented in the peleton and it seems to be combined with an above average response to the sweet stuff. Some others seem to have an abnormal response on the sweet stuff while having good inherited talent. (and i think that is what some are arguing. altough i could be wrong in that )

I personally know people who were recommended doping as kids despite not being really on the trajectory towards becoming a pro athlete.

And if I'm really gonna put on the tinfoil hat, I wouldn't stick my hand into the fire for the cleanliness of youth football either.

wild. but i'm assuming that the doping in the prof peleton is next level dangerous stuff.

 

[Blobs]

There is difference between a 19year old and a 16 year old. One is after the other is during puberty.
I'm pretty sure that the junior racing is the cleanest compared to U23 and pro's. (not saying it is without doping)

Well I agree that it's cleaner, but you made it sound like it would basically be impossible to dope at 16 and then reach the top of your sport. That would have to mean that every single athlete who has ever reached the top would have been clean at 16, and that just doesn't seem plausible to me.

You are arguing that Remco, because he was better in the juniors he would have been on the dope of the pro's. But in that case his progression compared to the others would have stagnated.

I'm not arguing that. Just that he was probably on a top program relative to his peers. Not to the pros. That would still leave plenty of room for improvement, both natural and medical, up until today.

For me its rather clear that Remco is one of the biggest inherited talented in the peleton and it seems to be combined with an above average response to the sweet stuff. Some others seem to have an abnormal response on the sweet stuff while having good inherited talent. (and i think that is what some are arguing. altough i could be wrong in that )

I agree with all of that

 

[Riek s]

Well I agree that it's cleaner, but you made it sound like it would basically be impossible to dope at 16 and then reach the top of your sport. That would have to mean that every single athlete who has ever reached the top would have been clean at 16, and that just doesn't seem plausible to me.

I'm not arguing that. Just that he was probably on a top program relative to his peers. Not to the pros. That would still leave plenty of room for improvement, both natural and medical, up until today.


I agree with all of that

so we are in sync!

 

[topt]

Sure, that makes sense. He’s not actually talented, it’s just magic doping from day 1. FFS.

I bet it was even before day 1

 

[topt]

Remco is a talented reactor since he’s been on it from crushing everything in the Juniors. The doping is clearly improving him as he ages. But of course, it’s all just down to his natural talent and aero abilities.

he is also the only one that had access to the good stuff even before got on his bike, unless there is also no doping in belgian top football teams, at this rate I will believe anything.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

The thing about Evenepoel is that there is nothing apart from his results that gives stuff to talk about. Do I think it is likely that in the times of some super super aliens there is someone purely fueled by talent who is able to beat them? Nope. But whatever his secret is, it likely started very early and in a way that doesn't shout suspicious. There is no crazy rise of level, no complete change of rider's profile or something like that. There are a few things that one could talk about, the short time when he needed to adjust to the WT, where they might have upped his game, his strong improvement in the sprinting department. But overall it looks pretty harmonious. He's probably my least favourite rider right now, but apart from the results pretty much every other alien looks more suspicious.

He’s the only one of the current generation whose father was a pro cyclist in the 90s and who has Johan Bruyneel as a family friend. That is very different from a Roglic or a Vingo or a Pogacar in terms of background and early access.

No argument with the last. Except...what's the scrutiny? Forums? The UCI is clearly not targeting money-making riders and haven't been for some time. There's no scrutiny that matters. Performances across the board are spectacular. You even have Armstrong and Hincapie saying they could never hang with the current crop of superstars, THOSE guys are blown away.

As far as doing it clean, who knows? Do you think he was on some program 2 levels above all the other riders as a junior, and still is? Because he's killing everyone now like he was then. What other explanation is there for his performances since he got on a bike? The blindingly obvious conclusion is that he's just a lot better than everyone else, and has been from day one. Not sure why this is even a discussion. He's a massive talent. They exist.

He’s likely a super talent, as are the other top riders, but it isn’t “blindingly obvious” that he’s “just a lot better than everyone else,” as he had inside guide to doping from a father and a family friend. What about athletes like Roglic and Vingegaard (or dare I say Froome) who had no access or resources or mentorship and yet reached (so far) even higher highs?

You are making he assumption that because there is risk involved and it's not profitable early on, that no one would ever do it. I just don't agree with that.

Remco was already on his way to becoming a pro athlete before he started cycling. He is the son of a former pro cyclist who rode in the 90's. The idea that when he switched to cycling he was going to do whatever it takes right off the bat, legal or illegal, to get to the top, does not seem unreasonable to me.

Image seeing a teenage bodybuilding contest where the competitors are generally around 80 kg and then there is one guy who is 110 kg and totally shredded. Would you not be a little suspicious that maybe he took steroids?

This seems like a logical post to me.

 

[Nick2413]

He’s the only one of the current generation whose father was a pro cyclist in the 90s and who has Johan Bruyneel as a family friend.

It’s funny imagining them all hanging out in the living room and Remco assuring them he’s clean, while they’re slapping their knees howling with laughter.

 

[Scarponi]

He’s got the classic steroid rage though haha

 

[Red Rick]

Sure, that makes sense. He’s not actually talented, it’s just magic doping from day 1. FFS.

Being a good responder is also a talent....

But inseriousness, if you're super talented, it also means that it becomes very clear very quickly that you're gonna be a future professional at which the decision to start doping becomes all the easier.

 

[Mayomaniac]

Being a good responder is also a talent....

But inseriousness, if you're super talented, it also means that it becomes very clear very quickly that you're gonna be a future professional at which the decision to start doping becomes all the easier.

I mean, the notion that a 16 year old Football talent from a decent football nation is probably already on more professional stuff that cyclists in his age group sounds reasonable to me.