Riders beating assumed dopers

Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
Stannard beat 3 QS riders yesterday in a 4 man break, a QS performance so potentially dominant that it prompted the re-emergence of the QS thread

The QS riders are assumed to be dopers - fair to say this forum takes that as a given?

So why are some of the 'regulars' agnostic on Stannard?

Is it not a Clinic maxim that clean riders can't beat dopers, or as it has been put before, every doper in the peloton?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
TailWindHome said:
....baiting and trolling as per usual........

Is it not a Clinic maxim that clean riders can't beat dopers, or as it has been put before, every doper in the peloton?
When a posters puts forward the idea that clinic is somehow one single entity with one single voice it is obvious trolling.
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
Benotti69 said:
When a posters puts forward the idea that clinic is somehow one single entity with one single voice it is obvious trolling.
Nothing on topic to add?

Do you think clean riders can beat dopers?
 
TailWindHome said:
Nothing on topic to add?

Do you think clean riders can beat dopers?
What could possibly be more on topic than what he said?

Benotti probably thinks clean riders can't beat dopers under normal circumstances. But he probably thinks Stannard dopes, too. There's no inconsistency here.
 
Do I think Stannard is clean? Nope. I don't feel certain that he is a doper, but I do think that is more likely than him being clean. Yesterday did not change my position. He beat three others not by being stronger than them, but by being smarter than them. Since there isn't any doping that can make you smarter (afaik), it doesn't really change much that he beat them compared to if he lost to Boonen in a sprint.




I assume Bassons was clean. He rode in a time with many dopers. He won a stage in the Dauphine. Clearly he beat a lot of dopers there. If you think Bassons is clean, then obviously you also think that clean riders can beat dopers (unless you think all his competitors that day were clean riders as well :eek:)
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
hrotha said:
What could possibly be more on topic than what he said?

Benotti probably thinks clean riders can't beat dopers under normal circumstances. But he probably thinks Stannard dopes, too. There's no inconsistency here.[/QUOTE]

Expressing the bit in bold would have been on topic.
Even expanding to explain what 'normal circumstances' would mean.

He choose not to do that.
 
Feb 22, 2011
465
0
0
hrotha said:
Nope, it is not.
+1

There is some ambiguity in your use of the words but there has never been a moment I did not think that a "clean" rider could beat a "doper."

While I do believe it gets exponentially harder to ride within the letter AND spirit of the rules as the races get longer, I believe not only it is possible, but it happens. Talent, training, diet, equipment, team, tactics, luck, etc.--all those things matter in the real world.

The Clinic is not predicated on the idea that "they all dope" or "only doped riders can win a bike race."
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
another desperate attempt to justify Froome and Dawg beating known dopers and climbing faster than Lance.

which is of course vastly different from Stannard beating unproven dopers yesterday. ;)
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
All other things equal, yes, a properly doped rider will likely beat a clean rider.
There's plenty of scientific and anecdotal evidence confirming doping gives you a significant edge, especially in endurance sports of which cycling is a paradigm example.
That said, all other things aren't always equal.

On a side: the notion that doped riders pay less attention to detail and marginal gains (technics, nnutrion, etc.) than clean riders is imo among the most absurd claims to have been thrown out there (i think by Brailsford and/or Vaughters, perhaps Walsh, or all together?). (perhaps somebody can dig me up a quote or a link:eek:)
 
Feb 22, 2011
465
0
0
TailWindHome said:
Stannard beat 3 QS riders yesterday in a 4 man break, a QS performance so potentially dominant that it prompted the re-emergence of the QS thread

The QS riders are assumed to be dopers - fair to say this forum takes that as a given?

So why are some of the 'regulars' agnostic on Stannard?

Is it not a Clinic maxim that clean riders can't beat dopers, or as it has been put before, every doper in the peloton?
If doping doesn't help, why do it?
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
the sceptic said:
another desperate attempt to justify Froome and Dawg beating known dopers and climbing faster than Lance.

which is of course vastly different from Stannard beating unproven dopers yesterday. ;)
You win "The Most Moronic Comment of the Day"(MMCD for short)...
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
TailWindHome said:
Stannard beat 3 QS riders yesterday in a 4 man break, a QS performance so potentially dominant that it prompted the re-emergence of the QS thread

The QS riders are assumed to be dopers - fair to say this forum takes that as a given?

So why are some of the 'regulars' agnostic on Stannard?

Is it not a Clinic maxim that clean riders can't beat dopers, or as it has been put before, every doper in the peloton?
Could the fact that Standard followed wheels for the last 40 KM and that QS made big tactical errors have anything to do with who won? Oh yes this is the clinic where no one wins clean. my answer must be for the other part of the forum where foolish optimists believe races can be won clean.
 
The premise in this thread seems to be assuming the Clinic is one hive mind, and that we make the assumption all dopers are superior to all clean riders.

There are some riders who, even with dope, are simply not as talented as others, and some clean riders are talented to the degree that they are better than some dopers.

I don't necessarily believe all 119 riders who finished ahead of Steve Houanard in the TT at Tirreno-Adriatico 2012 had to be doping. I'm sure many of them will have been, but with all due respect to Steve who I have rather made an example of by bringing him up in many of these discussions, some of the elite talents - including those who dope - may well be strong enough to, clean, beat low level domestique guys who are using the dope to try to continue their career even if at just a base level domestique wage.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY