Rolland doping?

[benpounder]

They're a pro conti team because their riders are around that level and now they pull this stunt off. It's suspicious to say the least. Especially with Voeckler... Young talents have to break through some day, so perhaps this was Rolland's day.

They are a pro conti team because they dont need (nor cant) spend the money necessary to become a pro team. As a successful french team, they get invited to all the races that they are prepared to do.

Now it may turn out that Rolland and Voeckler (and others) are doped, but I dont see anything freakish (like, say Pantani's 97 ride) about it.

 

[Tank Engine]

Nonsense. It's just a proven fact that green is the fastest colour. It's a very light dye, which saves precious weight and makes riders lighter for climbing in the mountains. Just look at historical precedent. Liquigas won 2 of the 3 GTs last year wearing their lime green jerseys; this year they make it mostly white, and have been less successful! Europcar had riders with potential in the blue Bouygues jerseys, but the switch to green has given them a new lease of life in the climbs.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, orange is a very unstable dye. Lightweight Basques are great natural climbers, but the heavy shifts of weight caused by the orange dye in their jerseys make bike handling very difficult when going downhill. See also Rabobank - they also use a richer orange, which sometimes weighs them down on climbs.

For an extreme example, look at this handsome gentleman, clad in orange in 2007:

He was 11th in the Giro d'Italia, struggling with the heavy weight of his jersey. His teammates Pozzovivo and Baliani were 17th and 24th, and not particularly visible except for Baliani in the break into Bergamo.

Now look at what happened when CSF Group Inox bought out the team:

Notice how their results improved upon switching from orange to green - Sella was especially shrewd, and got himself into the KOM jersey, thus removing the remaining vestiges of orange on the team's jersey, and saving vital milligrams. And what happened? Shorn of the difficult to balance ballast provided by the heavier dyes, they soared in the mountains like angels, Sella winning 3 stages and Pozzovivo, Baliani and Pérez Cuapio dominating mountain stages en route to 6th, 9th and 12th - and this after Sella lost 11 minutes due to a crash!

Rolland's case is similar - just a shrewd, some might say lucky, tactical decision by the kit designers.

Wow that's right. Cav was getting dropped by everyone on all the climbs on the stage to the Plateau. He gets the green jersey and suddenly he's finishing at the head of the grupetto

 

[MacRoadie]

That was not what I was getting at. You were dismissing the notion that several riders from the same team performing way above the expectations is suspicious, as if teamwide doping programs didn't exist.

I absolutely was not. There is not one iota of suggestion in my post about team doping. I'm happy to believe that there is team doping and I'm aware of just as much (if not more) anecdotal evidence as the next guy. I'm just not willing to buy into that theory applied to a couple of guys over a single week in one grand tour.

What exactly WERE the expectations of Rolland?

What are our "expectations" of Voeckler? Should we be surprised he wore the yellow as there was no precedence? Or do we accept yellow, but only in flat stages? Or yellow but only on moderate climbs? Or yellow when so-called contenders fail to attack one another?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Of course there's going to be suspicion - it's pro cycling...

What I find more suspicious is the apparent drop in "superhumaness" by so many of the top contenders (possibly a cleaner peloton?). That coupled with some big guns dropping due to crashes and illness, could absolutely result in a softer field in which a conti-level team could perform.

 

[MacRoadie]

Of course there's going to be suspicion - it's pro cycling...

What I find more suspicious is the apparent drop in "superhumaness" by so many of the top contenders (possibly a cleaner peloton?). That coupled with some big guns dropping due to crashes and illness, could absolutely result in a softer field in which a conti-level team could perform.

But don't you get it? They still have "superhumaness": they are doped to the gills.

They just didn't figure on Tommy V. and his sidekick Rolland to drop the phoney French Surrender Monkey facade and go mega-super-ultra doped to the gills. They are still super human, it's just that Europcar has found "ultrahumaness"...

The only problem was that, being a "B Grade" team, they could only afford to get two riders, Rolland and Voeckler, on the team-wide doping program...

 

[Bala Verde]

Rolland's palmares:

http://www.dewielersite.net/db2/wielersite/coureurfiche.php?coureurid=18019

and some notable results:

2004 2e in 2e stage Route de l'Avenir (FRA)

2006 3e in 2e stage Tour du Haut Anjou, U23 (FRA)
2006 3e in 3e stage Tour du Haut Anjou, U23 (FRA)

2007 1e in 2e stage Tour du Limousin, Uzerche (FRA

2008 3e in 3e stage Paris - Nice, Saint-Étienne (FRA)
2008 2e in 4e stage Critérium du Dauphiné, Annemasse (FRA)
2008 1e in Mountains Classification Critérium du Dauphiné (FRA)

2009 19e in GC Paris - Nice (FRA)
2009 5e in 4e stage Circuit Cycliste Sarthe, Pré-en-Pail (FRA)
2009 16e in 8e stage Tour de France, Saint-Girons (FRA)
2009 18e in 9e stage Tour de France, Tarbes (FRA)
2009 22e GC Tour de France (FRA)

2010 6e in 4e stage Critérium du Dauphiné, Risoul (FRA)
2010 8e in 5e stage Critérium du Dauphiné, Grenoble (FRA)
2010 8e in GC Critérium du Dauphiné (FRA)
2010 4e in 10e stage Tour de France, Gap (FRA)
2010 21e in 17e stage Tour de France, Col du Tourmalet (FRA)

2011 13e in 1e stage Critérium du Dauphiné, Saint-Pierre-de-Chartreuse (FRA)
2011 18e in GC Critérium du Dauphiné (FRA)

2011 10e in 12e stage Tour de France, Luz-Ardiden (FRA)
2011 10e in 14e stage Tour de France, Plateau de Beille (FRA)
2011 6e in 18e stage Tour de France, Galibier - Serre Chevalier (FRA)
2011 1e in 19e stage Tour de France, Alpe-d’Huez (FRA)

no pancake baker....

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Tweet from @thomas_lequipe:

Sanchez a grimpé l'Alpe d'Huez en 41'45, Rolland en 42'22. Ils sont loin des records de Pantani (37'35) ou d'Armstrong (37'36) #cyclisme

 

[MacRoadie]

Tweet from @thomas_lequipe:

Sanchez a grimpé l'Alpe d'Huez en 41'45, Rolland en 42'22. Ils sont loin des records de Pantani (37'35) ou d'Armstrong (37'36) #cyclisme

Five minutes and 12% slower than Armstrong...

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Wow.

So now, you're a doper if SOMEONE ELSE is riding well.

Just amazing.

Read my post. I didn't say he's a doper.
I'm also not talking about "someone else riding well". I'm talking about an entire team suddenly being the best mountain team but more specifically about a guy with no preparation for a GC, who has been going in breaks, attacking and countering for two weeks in a row, in and out of the mountains, not being a natural climber at all, making some of the actual climbers look like a heavyweight. I'd say "riding well" is one hell of an understatement. But by all means, act coy all you want. Not interested in debating this any further in that case though.

 

[hrotha]

I absolutely was not. There is not one iota of suggestion in my post about team doping. I'm happy to believe that there is team doping and I'm aware of just as much (if not more) anecdotal evidence as the next guy. I'm just not willing to buy into that theory applied to a couple of guys over a single week in one grand tour.

What exactly WERE the expectations of Rolland?

What are our "expectations" of Voeckler? Should we be surprised he wore the yellow as there was no precedence? Or do we accept yellow, but only in flat stages? Or yellow but only on moderate climbs? Or yellow when so-called contenders fail to attack one another?

The thing is, it's not even just Voeckler and Rolland. Charteau, Gautier and Jerome were up there too when all hell broke loose. They were the strongest team. And we saw what Kern was capable of at the Dauphiné and the French TT championship. Enough to be very suspicious, considering the history of the sport, you'll understand. Of course there's no proof. There seldom is.

 

[MacRoadie]

Read my post. I didn't say he's a doper.
I'm also not talking about "someone else riding well". I'm talking about an entire team suddenly being the best mountain team but more specifically about a guy with no preparation for a GC, who has been going in breaks, attacking and countering for two weeks in a row, in and out of the mountains, not being a natural climber at all, making some of the actual climbers look like a heavyweight. I'd say "riding well" is one hell of an understatement. But by all means, act coy all you want. Not interested in debating this any further in that case though.

Here is your post in it's entirety:

Is he the 28th fastest winner or 28th fastest time? In the TdF or in any race (Dauphiné as well)?

PS: this was the 27th time it was in the TdF. That means approx. 170 x 27 riders did the climb. A total of about 4500 uphill chrono's.

As for him being suspect. If there is one thing making me doubt his performance, it's the way his teammates have been riding.

Exactly what DID you mean then by "one thing making me doubt his performance"? Doubt it in what way?

You make ridiculous statements about his "entire team" being the "best mountain team" (take a look at Garmin with Danielson/Vande Velde/Hesjedal two days ago) and a guy "with no preparation for a GC" attacking "for two weeks", etc.

You couldn't come up with a more factually inaccurate post if your life depended on it.

I'm not being coy, I'm simply overwhelmed by the sheer cycling ignorance of that post.

 

[MacRoadie]

The thing is, it's not even just Voeckler and Rolland. Charteau, Gautier and Jerome were up there too when all hell broke loose. They were the strongest team. And we saw what Kern was capable of at the Dauphiné and the French TT championship. Enough to be very suspicious, considering the history of the sport, you'll understand. Of course there's no proof. There seldom is.

So, to support the argument that the team has no history to support the assertion that they are all doping, you provide a history of prior victories.

And imagine that, the whole team at the front when they have the yellow jersey. That has to be a first. Tell me how they all FINISHED...

Exactly how does a French man performing well at the French TT championships suggest he is doping? I suppose in a perfect world, NOBODY would win it and then we'd enjoy zero suspicion...

I also suppose that list of Rolland's palmares really only means he's been doping all along...


What is truly amazing is that I am one of the most vociferous anti-dopers on this forum. I have very close friends who have been affected by the doping culture, and I've been faced with it first hand, yet I find myself sitting here arguing with a bunch of people hell-bent on branding every single person who doesn't fit their myopic life-view of cycling performance as a doper.

It used to be suspicions grew slowly WRT a possible doper, but it would appear that many on here (surprisingly many of our newer members) seem to have elevated their game and can now brand a guy a doper after a half-dozen (or fewer) stages in a single GT. What's next? Win a race, doper for life?

 

[hrotha]

So, to support the argument that the team has no history to support the assertion that they are all doping, you provide a history of prior victories.

This history of prior victories goes as far back as... June 2011.

And imagine that, the whole team at the front when they have the yellow jersey. That has to be a first. Tell me how they all FINISHED...

Why would it matter? They were up there doing their job when the bunch had been reduced to what, 25-30 riders? I'm not talking about them pulling between the climbs. I'm talking about the Galibier here.

Exactly how does a French man performing well at the French TT championships suggest he is doping?

It's not that he won, it's the way he crushed everyone.

Look, I'm not saying they definitely dope, I need more data, but you can't just come out and say there's no grounds for suspicion.

 

[MacRoadie]

This history of prior victories goes as far back as... June 2011.

Well, this list for Rolland goes back a little further:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=621781&postcount=31

Rolland's palmares:

http://www.dewielersite.net/db2/wiel...oureurid=18019

and some notable results:

2004 2e in 2e stage Route de l'Avenir (FRA)

2006 3e in 2e stage Tour du Haut Anjou, U23 (FRA)
2006 3e in 3e stage Tour du Haut Anjou, U23 (FRA)

2007 1e in 2e stage Tour du Limousin, Uzerche (FRA

2008 3e in 3e stage Paris - Nice, Saint-Étienne (FRA)
2008 2e in 4e stage Critérium du Dauphiné, Annemasse (FRA)
2008 1e in Mountains Classification Critérium du Dauphiné (FRA)

2009 19e in GC Paris - Nice (FRA)
2009 5e in 4e stage Circuit Cycliste Sarthe, Pré-en-Pail (FRA)
2009 16e in 8e stage Tour de France, Saint-Girons (FRA)
2009 18e in 9e stage Tour de France, Tarbes (FRA)
2009 22e GC Tour de France (FRA)

2010 6e in 4e stage Critérium du Dauphiné, Risoul (FRA)
2010 8e in 5e stage Critérium du Dauphiné, Grenoble (FRA)
2010 8e in GC Critérium du Dauphiné (FRA)
2010 4e in 10e stage Tour de France, Gap (FRA)
2010 21e in 17e stage Tour de France, Col du Tourmalet (FRA)

2011 13e in 1e stage Critérium du Dauphiné, Saint-Pierre-de-Chartreuse (FRA)
2011 18e in GC Critérium du Dauphiné (FRA)

2011 10e in 12e stage Tour de France, Luz-Ardiden (FRA)
2011 10e in 14e stage Tour de France, Plateau de Beille (FRA)
2011 6e in 18e stage Tour de France, Galibier - Serre Chevalier (FRA)
2011 1e in 19e stage Tour de France, Alpe-d’Huez (FRA)

no pancake baker....

 

[hrotha]

Well, this list for Rolland goes back a little further:

Yes, but that wasn't the list I provided, was it?

Anyway, no, I don't think he was doping when he got that palmares. Maybe he was, but I have no particular reason to believe so. I'm also not questioning Voeckler's previous victories (again, maybe he was doping, but I don't see any specific info pointing in that direction). Rolland has always been a very promising rider, and seeing him in the top 10, by itself, is not that much of a surprise (the way he did it, however, definitely is). But it's definitely another piece in the mosaic.

 

[MacRoadie]

Look, I'm not saying they definitely dope, I need more data, but you can't just come out and say there's no grounds for suspicion.

I'm not suggesting you can't be suspicious. I AM syaing that the suspicion has to be measured and reasonable. Half the posters in this thread are CONVINCED Rolland and Voeckler are dopers, and seem willing to massage the facts in whatever manner they deem necessary to justify their conviction (pun intended).

 

[MacRoadie]

Yes, but that wasn't the list I provided, was it?

Anyway, no, I don't think he was doping when he got that palmares. Maybe he was, but I have no particular reason to believe so. I'm also not questioning Voeckler's previous victories (again, maybe he was doping, but I don't see any specific info pointing in that direction). Rolland has always been a very promising rider, and seeing him in the top 10, by itself, is not that much of a surprise (the way he did it, however, definitely is). But it's definitely another piece in the mosaic.

And, if you look at the rest of the team, you have:

Christoph Kern:

1999
3rd World U-19 Road Race Championship
2002
1st Liège-Bastogne-Liège U23

Anthony Charteau:

2005
1st, Stage 6, Volta a Catalunya
2006
1st, Polynormand
2007
1st Overall, Tour de Langkawi
1st, Stage 3
2nd, Paris–Camembert
3rd, Tour du Limousin
2010
1st Overall, La Tropicale Amissa Bongo
1st, Stage 4
1st King of the Mountains, Tour de France[2]
2011
1st Overall, La Tropicale Amissa Bongo
1st, Stage 2, Route du Sud
3rd, Boucles de l'Aulne

Cyril Gautier:

2008
1st, U23 European Championships
1st, Stage 2, Kreiz Breizh
2010
1st, Route Adélie
2011
3rd, Les Boucles du Sud Ardèche

Nothing to set the world on fire, but all showing at least strong promise in young careers (with Kern being more of the journeyman).

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

What is truly amazing is that I am one of the most vociferous anti-dopers on this forum. I have very close friends who have been affected by the doping culture, and I've been faced with it first hand, yet I find myself sitting here arguing with a bunch of people hell-bent on branding every single person who dioesn't fit their myopic life-view of cycling performance as a doper.

It used to be suspicions grew slowly WRT a possible doper, but it would appear that many on here (surprisingly many of our newer members) who seem to have elevated their game and can now brand a guy a doper after a half-dozen (or fewer) stages in a single GT. What's next? Win a race, doper for life?

Totally agree.

 

[Polish]

What is truly amazing is that I am one of the most vociferous anti-dopers on this forum. I have very close friends who have been affected by the doping culture, and I've been faced with it first hand, yet I find myself sitting here arguing with a bunch of people hell-bent on branding every single person who doesn't fit their myopic life-view of cycling performance as a doper.

What's next? Win a race, doper for life?

I do not think it is "amazing" as much as it is "ironic".

All the anti-doping preaching = everyone is a doper now.
All the anti-doping preaching = the sport of pro cycling is a now a joke.

Be careful what you wish for yikes.

 

[MacRoadie]

I do not think it is "amazing" as much as it is "ironic".

All the anti-doping preaching = everyone is a doper now.
All the anti-doping preaching = the sport of pro cycling is a now a joke.

Be careful what you wish for yikes.

Be careful how you paraphrase.

I have been consistent from Day One on my approach to doping. I don't suspect for one minute that the peloton is clean, nor am I willing to blindly believe that any particular rider or team is dirty based simply on "expectations" or "impressions". Especially those made over a single week of racing

But then, you know that as we have had to recite our empirical support for the belief that Armstrong is dirty more times than most would care to mention. You are either ignorant of that, or willfully ignoring it. You'd like for our opinions on Armstrong to be sheer speculation, as that would fit perfectly with your witch-hunt talking point model. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

You'd like to think we simply pick and choose who we suspect of doping, but go back through my posts and try to find a pattern of me declaring someone a doper, and someone else clean. You won't find it because I don't have a magic wand or crystal ball, nor the ability to read tea leaves. Unlike Johann, looking into someone's eyes simply tells me their eye color, not their innermost secrets. If I believe someone doped, there is strong evidence to support that belief.

I do, however, have the ability to understand the mechanics and science of performance sports, the ability to understand the nature and context of the circumstances surrounding those who speak out on the doping in cycling, and enough personal and anecdotal experience in competetive cycling to formulate an educated opinion on the alleged practices of certain individuals.

You'd like to think I carry a pitchfork, but I don't.

That's the beauty of forming educated, empirically-based opinions on the subject matter of doping rather than being spoon-fed the pablum that you rely upon ad nauseum and then fomenting the forum by blindly repeating it.

When you decide to finally produce a cogent, original thought, then I might actually make the effort to consider an opinion of yours on its merit. Until then, the fact that the rest of us can and will choose not to paint dopers OR non-dopers in broad brush strokes will remain. That's the beauty of prerogative and independent thought.

I think Armstrong doped based on the body of available data supporting that conclusion. I have no reason to believe Voeckler dopes until someone provides me with empirical data to suggest he does.

You, however, believe what you are told to believe.

And it's not "anti-doping preaching", it's a desire for clean sport. Something else you'll hopefully figure out someday.

 

[craig1985]

They are clean because their teams are part of the MPCC:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mpcc-riders-are-all-clean-legeay-says

 

[biker77]

Number of posts on this forum do not correlate with number of years watching cycling so if you dismiss my opinion up to you.

I watched a very different tour stage today than what I am used to. Top GC contenders all looked like they had put in some effort at the end while in years past they all looked fresher than most people after walking to the mailbox.

I am suprised a domestique wins the day with what appears to be plenty of energy in the third week of the biggest race on the planet.

 

[frenchfry]

Number of posts on this forum do not correlate with number of years watching cycling so if you dismiss my opinion up to you.

I watched a very different tour stage today than what I am used to. Top GC contenders all looked like they had put in some effort at the end while in years past they all looked fresher than most people after walking to the mailbox.

I am suprised a domestique wins the day with what appears to be plenty of energy in the third week of the biggest race on the planet.

I suggest you go back and read MacRoadie's post.

By the way, Rolland is not a domistique. He is a GC rider, and was Europcar's GC hope until Voeckler got the jellow jersey and the team objectives changed. He specifically prepared the TDF, and the Alpe d'Huez climb in particular. He didn't go in breaks on the flat stages because his objectives at the start were GC classification or a mountain stage.

Unless we were watching different races yesterday, Rolland certainly did not finish with lots of energy. Along with Contador and Sanchez they were all struggling at the 2.5 km mark. Maybe he looked good the last few hundred slightly downhill meters but that means nothing.

In the end Rolland is 10th overall, not exactly exceptional unless you feel that French riders can only crack the top 10 if doped - which may or may not be a stupid assumption.

 

[frenchfry]

Be careful how you paraphrase.

I have been consistent from Day One on my approach to doping. I don't suspect for one minute that the peloton is clean, nor am I willing to blindly believe that any particular rider or team is dirty based simply on "expectations" or "impressions". Especially those made over a single week of racing

But then, you know that as we have had to recite our empirical support for the belief that Armstrong is dirty more times than most would care to mention. You are either ignorant of that, or willfully ignoring it. You'd like for our opinions on Armstrong to be sheer speculation, as that would fit perfectly with your witch-hunt talking point model. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

You'd like to think we simply pick and choose who we suspect of doping, but go back through my posts and try to find a pattern of me declaring someone a doper, and someone else clean. You won't find it because I don't have a magic wand or crystal ball, nor the ability to read tea leaves. Unlike Johann, looking into someone's eyes simply tells me their eye color, not their innermost secrets. If I believe someone doped, there is strong evidence to support that belief.

I do, however, have the ability to understand the mechanics and science of performance sports, the ability to understand the nature and context of the circumstances surrounding those who speak out on the doping in cycling, and enough personal and anecdotal experience in competetive cycling to formulate an educated opinion on the alleged practices of certain individuals.

You'd like to think I carry a pitchfork, but I don't.

That's the beauty of forming educated, empirically-based opinions on the subject matter of doping rather than being spoon-fed the pablum that you rely upon ad nauseum and then fomenting the forum by blindly repeating it.

When you decide to finally produce a cogent, original thought, then I might actually make the effort to consider an opinion of yours on its merit. Until then, the fact that the rest of us can and will choose not to paint dopers OR non-dopers in broad brush strokes will remain. That's the beauty of prerogative and independent thought.

I think Armstrong doped based on the body of available data supporting that conclusion. I have no reason to believe Voeckler dopes until someone provides me with empirical data to suggest he does.

You, however, believe what you are told to believe.

And it's not "anti-doping preaching", it's a desire for clean sport. Something else you'll hopefully figure out someday.

Excellent post, and it reflects my feelings as well. It feels strange defending doping accusations, yet I am perturbed by the lack of logic and reasoning (not to mention "evidence") regarding the accusations against Rolland and Voeckler. It is as if French riders don't have the right to integrate the top 10 without suspicion of doping even though many indicatiors would show the opposite.

One policy I have is never to accuse on these forums a rider of doping simply based on performance or nationality. I may think it to myself, but thats as far as it goes. Once there is empirical proof a rider has been proven a doper he is fair game but until then I don't believe it is fair to throw out unjustified accusations.

What we are seeing here is a consistant distortion of facts and evidence to forward an unfounded conclusion, and I don't feel this is furthering the debate.

 

[blackcat]

one only has to look at the face of Rolland to tell he has had some might fine atrophy gear and testo/growth factors, to 1. strip all non-functional tissue from his body, and especially his face. And see his jaw line. Out of the Amelie Mauresmo, "I am a guy's jawline" school for the Better Living thru Chemsitry and Doping Alchemy.