• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Sagan Clean?

Mar 17, 2014
73
0
0
Since, y'know, Flanders, WC, TDF and all. Sagan clean, minimal dope, or extra-dope?

He wins, so that's an obvious black mark against him.

He hasn't "come from nowhere," has serious skills and an impressive palmares.

Hairy legs, wheelies and non-robotic personality aside...

Can't find much in the way of rumors after cursory search of the internet.

Personally, I doubt it. Muy mucho doubt.
 
May 26, 2015
313
0
0
He looks like he is as clean as any winner could've ever been in such a demanding sport. I doubt any other monument winner (that was a favorite) was cleaner than him, at least if we are looking at the past 100 years.

Before 1916 trains were the new epo, so who knows.

He certainly looks cleaner than Lemond ever did.

Besides, we all got written confirmation from Anquetil in the 50s that you can't win anything on bread and water. What are you pretending? What's the real meaning of your question? What is considered "doping"? Is he allowed to drug himself as much as those riders that kept their wins, right?

Let him ride. What a joy he brings to this sport.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
sagan is a nobrainer

world class, naturally talented athlete? check
ruthless doper? check
excellent responder? check
too valuable to fail? check
 
Obviously one of the more naturally talented riders in the peloton, dope or not. Looks on another level this season, though. Looks like he's doing what it takes to scrape up the cobblestone races this season and I wouldn't be surprised to see him win next Sunday.

His team only adds to the suspicion.
 
Re:

the delgados said:
Dear OP:
I swear I'm not saying this to be mean, but your question reminds me of a child who asks if Santa is real.
They're on the gear.
Full stop.
this
and rightly you used they

but as Sniper says, a few riders in the peloton are too big to trip the wire, too valuable for the circus
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
the delgados said:
Dear OP:
I swear I'm not saying this to be mean, but your question reminds me of a child who asks if Santa is real.
They're on the gear.
Full stop.
this
and rightly you used they

but as Sniper says, a few riders in the peloton are too big to trip the wire, too valuable for the circus

That's why I don't understand why any governing body offers up the occasional sacrificial lamb.
You see it in cycling, hockey and minor league baseball. I don't understand why they think popping a no-name athlete reinforces public trust that said sport is clean. It defies logic.
 
Oct 4, 2011
614
0
0
Re:

Saint Unix said:
Obviously one of the more naturally talented riders in the peloton, dope or not. Looks on another level this season, though. Looks like he's doing what it takes to scrape up the cobblestone races this season and I wouldn't be surprised to see him win next Sunday.

His team only adds to the suspicion.
Not possible to deduce someones natural talent vs the rest if dope is involved. Only way to do that is to have a clean sport.
Just out of interest if dope is involved how do you deduce he is a natural talent in the peleton ?
Finally with dope in the peleton how do you know anyone is naturally talented ?
 
Mar 17, 2014
73
0
0
Re:

the delgados said:
Dear OP:
I swear I'm not saying this to be mean, but your question reminds me of a child who asks if Santa is real.
They're on the gear.
Full stop.

oh...I don't think he's clean which, re-reading my post, wasn't all that clear; but that was the "muy mucho doubt" part. Lots of doubt that he's clean--I was answering the post title. Full stop. ; )

At least he can handle a bike though. Good ole mtb skills for ya.
 
Apr 3, 2011
1,837
0
0
Re:

Saint Unix said:
Obviously one of the more naturally talented riders in the peloton, dope or not. Looks on another level this season, though. Looks like he's doing what it takes to scrape up the cobblestone races this season and I wouldn't be surprised to see him win next Sunday.

His team only adds to the suspicion.
My reaction once he crossed the line today: he should think twice whether he really wants to win Roubaix this year... I'd rather recommend the usual cramps/can't sprint after 200kms... in order not to raise the eyebrows too much. On the other hand, he would not look so dominant if Spartacus cared to join the party when Kwiato attacked.
 
Jun 30, 2014
5,465
0
0
It's not just his team, it's also his connection with Slongo from 2010 to 2013.
In 2013 Sagan was incredibly strong, but then Slongo went to Astana, Sagan was still great, but he wasn't a strong as 2013 Sagan when he signed with Tinkoff.
The whole Cannondale team underperformed after Slongo's departure, they went from 36 wins in 2013 to 17 wins in 2014.
 
Aug 31, 2012
5,221
0
0
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
pastronef said:
the delgados said:
Dear OP:
I swear I'm not saying this to be mean, but your question reminds me of a child who asks if Santa is real.
They're on the gear.
Full stop.
this
and rightly you used they

but as Sniper says, a few riders in the peloton are too big to trip the wire, too valuable for the circus

That's why I don't understand why any governing body offers up the occasional sacrificial lamb.
You see it in cycling, hockey and minor league baseball. I don't understand why they think popping a no-name athlete reinforces public trust that said sport is clean. It defies logic.

I think you overestimate the extent to which the key decision makers in sports governance manage doping, and the extent to which they have control. There's no smoke-filled room where they get together to identify sacrificial lambs. Instead, I imagine there is a tacit understanding that some transparency and anti-doping is needed, provided by largely independent but influencable bodies, but that marketable stars should be protected because it's bad for business if they're caught. The collusion that enables widespread doping is of the don't ask don't tell kind. They trust athletes to to manage their doping well. I imagine sacrificial lamps are actually very rare.
 
Feb 6, 2016
953
0
0
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
the delgados said:
pastronef said:
the delgados said:
Dear OP:
I swear I'm not saying this to be mean, but your question reminds me of a child who asks if Santa is real.
They're on the gear.
Full stop.
this
and rightly you used they

but as Sniper says, a few riders in the peloton are too big to trip the wire, too valuable for the circus

That's why I don't understand why any governing body offers up the occasional sacrificial lamb.
You see it in cycling, hockey and minor league baseball. I don't understand why they think popping a no-name athlete reinforces public trust that said sport is clean. It defies logic.

I think you overestimate the extent to which the key decision makers in sports governance manage doping, and the extent to which they have control. There's no smoke-filled room where they get together to identify sacrificial lambs. Instead, I imagine there is a tacit understanding that some transparency and anti-doping is needed, provided by largely independent but influencable bodies, but that marketable stars should be protected because it's bad for business if they're caught. The collusion that enables widespread doping is of the don't ask don't tell kind. They trust athletes to to manage their doping well. I imagine sacrificial lamps are actually very rare.
Very good post (although I'm not sure what good a sacrificial lamp would do, apart from possibly making anti-doping agencies even more in the dark than usual).
 
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
Saint Unix said:
Obviously one of the more naturally talented riders in the peloton, dope or not. Looks on another level this season, though. Looks like he's doing what it takes to scrape up the cobblestone races this season and I wouldn't be surprised to see him win next Sunday.

His team only adds to the suspicion.
Not possible to deduce someones natural talent vs the rest if dope is involved. Only way to do that is to have a clean sport.
Just out of interest if dope is involved how do you deduce he is a natural talent in the peleton ?
Finally with dope in the peleton how do you know anyone is naturally talented ?
he clearly has better bike handling skills then the others and is one of the best descenders of the peloton. you don't get to that level without some natural talent.

either way, he is clearly doping. he gained severel pounds of muscle mass during the off-season, while doing an endurance sport and without gainning fat. that's impossible for a natural person/athlete.
 
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
the delgados said:
pastronef said:
the delgados said:
Dear OP:
I swear I'm not saying this to be mean, but your question reminds me of a child who asks if Santa is real.
They're on the gear.
Full stop.
this
and rightly you used they

but as Sniper says, a few riders in the peloton are too big to trip the wire, too valuable for the circus

That's why I don't understand why any governing body offers up the occasional sacrificial lamb.
You see it in cycling, hockey and minor league baseball. I don't understand why they think popping a no-name athlete reinforces public trust that said sport is clean. It defies logic.

I think you overestimate the extent to which the key decision makers in sports governance manage doping, and the extent to which they have control. There's no smoke-filled room where they get together to identify sacrificial lambs. Instead, I imagine there is a tacit understanding that some transparency and anti-doping is needed, provided by largely independent but influencable bodies, but that marketable stars should be protected because it's bad for business if they're caught. The collusion that enables widespread doping is of the don't ask don't tell kind. They trust athletes to to manage their doping well. I imagine sacrificial lamps are actually very rare.
Agree. My post was poorly worded and was written in haste.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re:

the delgados said:
Dear OP:
I swear I'm not saying this to be mean, but your question reminds me of a child who asks if Santa is real.
They're on the gear.
Full stop.
put it in reverse mister semenko.

next thing you gonna tell us Easter bunny is not real and a fictional construction
and that the maple leaf missile is not a p0rnstar
 
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
Not possible to deduce someones natural talent vs the rest if dope is involved. Only way to do that is to have a clean sport.
Just out of interest if dope is involved how do you deduce he is a natural talent in the peleton ?
Finally with dope in the peleton how do you know anyone is naturally talented ?
Unless he's been on the gear since he was a child he's obviously naturally talented. He's been destroying the field his entire life.

He's arguably the best bike handler in the peloton too, even if that's completely irrelevant as far as aerobic capabilities go.
 
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
the delgados said:
Dear OP:
I swear I'm not saying this to be mean, but your question reminds me of a child who asks if Santa is real.
They're on the gear.
Full stop.
put it in reverse mister semenko.

next thing you gonna tell us Easter bunny is not real and a fictional construction
and that the maple leaf missile is not a p0rnstar
Ha! I'm right here, you know.
I swear I'm not a porn star.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
pastronef said:
the delgados said:
Dear OP:
I swear I'm not saying this to be mean, but your question reminds me of a child who asks if Santa is real.
They're on the gear.
Full stop.
this
and rightly you used they

but as Sniper says, a few riders in the peloton are too big to trip the wire, too valuable for the circus

That's why I don't understand why any governing body offers up the occasional sacrificial lamb.
You see it in cycling, hockey and minor league baseball. I don't understand why they think popping a no-name athlete reinforces public trust that said sport is clean. It defies logic.
they dont need to offer up JTL. There will be a natural occurrence[sic] of riders breaching the AD regs. Then it is how much political support a rider like JTL (see: Radcliffe) can muster.

JTL has no support. The admin body at British Cycling and AD UK, and the British Olympic Committee now can uphold their ethic and claims they promote, that they perform this role and achieve a holus bolus clean sport. They dont. They wont. They cant. They never will.

Anti-doping is a paradox. There is p'raps one-millionth the money in R&D and operational budget in BigPharma v WADA.

And the motives exist on the individual athlete's side. Every new regulation, the individual will just switch their behaviour to subvert new regulation like in principles from Game Theory.

WADA has legitimacy, where they may constrain doping from making doping a freak show. Now, I know, you may say, doping has made sport indeed a freak show.

But, ceteris paribus, what would doping look like with the Pantani Riis JamieBurrow Armstrong doping, 7.5/7.8 watts per kilo doping.
much more egregious, fulll full full full retardretardretard retar^99 exponential full genius dopin.

so that is the comparison. the comparison that is releveant. Not the current Froome comparison
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
Saint Unix said:
Obviously one of the more naturally talented riders in the peloton, dope or not. Looks on another level this season, though. Looks like he's doing what it takes to scrape up the cobblestone races this season and I wouldn't be surprised to see him win next Sunday.

His team only adds to the suspicion.
Not possible to deduce someones natural talent vs the rest if dope is involved. Only way to do that is to have a clean sport.
Just out of interest if dope is involved how do you deduce he is a natural talent in the peleton ?
Finally with dope in the peleton how do you know anyone is naturally talented ?
this.

however, there is some alchemy that experienced followers think they can deduce if a rider is on a mere maintenance program, or as Millar would call it a "recovery therapy" and just managing or maintaining your natural benchmarks of hormones.

now, this becomes a problem, because it IS natural that under heavy stress and workload your hormones and testosterone will drop. It is natural that during a three week GT your blood will develop more plasma (is that a pleonasm?), and as the plasma increases but the red-cells stay the same, the hematocrit will become lower, even tho the red-cells have not reduced, this is natural, so maintaining your "benchmark", would this require you to supplement with EPO to increase your red-cells?
 
I see what you're saying, blackat.
Earlier I had an idea that I didn't properly explain; an idea I thought was wise at the time, but now it seems pretty stupid (Full disclosure: I was a bit drunk. Not now, though!)
You wanna hear it?
I knew you would!
Here goes:
Doping in sports is here to stay. Always has and always will be.
For those who care about the children, why not erase any positive doping test and say, "Hey, look! The best athletes in the world are clean as a whistle. You can be too!"
I know it's a dumb idea, but the facade surrounding pro sports seems pretty stupid, too.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
I think you overestimate the extent to which the key decision makers in sports governance manage doping, and the extent to which they have control. There's no smoke-filled room where they get together to identify sacrificial lambs. Instead, I imagine there is a tacit understanding that some transparency and anti-doping is needed, provided by largely independent but influencable bodies, but that marketable stars should be protected because it's bad for business if they're caught. The collusion that enables widespread doping is of the don't ask don't tell kind. They trust athletes to to manage their doping well. I imagine sacrificial lamps are actually very rare.
^Semenko(delli) aint stupid.

but, here...

with the Murdoch press in Australia... (I am gunna try and use this as an analogy)

with Newscorp in Australia, occasionally the press corps from Rupe's News (newsunlimited), occasionally the journos will arc up (be indignant) when the public say "oh, you are only printing and writing what Rupe told you"

well, no. This is not what the criticism is. The criticism is voiced in rhetoric, you the Newscorp reporter, only print the stuff Rupert told you. This is rhetoric.

What occurs, you the journo, knows what is acceptable to the editor in the newscorp stable.

You wont deliver copy to the editor, that he will not publish, and is unacceptable.

The editor has to deliver a paper that is acceptable to the proprietor.

There, is is a syllogism, you can see the numerous layers of a barrier to entry. In aristotelian logic term: sample fallacy, a survivor fallacy, a selective sample.

If you cant write newslimited copy, you do not get the journalists salary at newslimited will you.



Serious Sam my reply
There can be corruption built in to systems. The corruption may have organically manifested, and it was never structurally imposed by the architect of the system. Or even Cookson, McQuaid, and Verbruggen. The corruption happened because there were not checks and balances built in at the weak points, or where the future weak points would occur.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts