Sastre sings the omerta song

[hrotha]

In a mostly clear sport with very little doping most of us would agree with Sastre, so again, whose fault it is that we're all cynical *******s?

 

[movingtarget]

I never thought sport was a level playing field to start with. Even with differences in diet, training and preparation I still think there are some naturally gifted athletes in most sports that for whatever reasons, have physical advantages over most of their competitors. Whether it's a higher resistance to pain or a more efficient set of lungs. I think it happens. Of course it's a small percentage. I am not saying that doping is not rife in sport but I still think some people are just physically gifted in much the same way some seven year olds have the mental capacity and dexterity to play a Mozart Concerto. We should not be assuming that sportsmen or women that string a few wins together all have to be doping. If we all thought that, why do we bother watching at all ? There is plenty of other TV rubbish out there to waste time on.

 

[The Hitch]

I never thought sport was a level playing field to start with. Even with differences in diet, training and preparation I still think there are some naturally gifted athletes in most sports that for whatever reasons, have physical advantages over most of their competitors. Whether it's a higher resistance to pain or a more efficient set of lungs. I think it happens. Of course it's a small percentage. I am not saying that doping is not rife in sport but I still think some people are just physically gifted in much the same way some seven year olds have the mental capacity and dexterity to play a Mozart Concerto. We should not be assuming that sportsmen or women that string a few wins together all have to be doping.

Doping like all things in science is improving. Gadgets are improving, healthcare is improving, transport is improving and so is doping.

So starting from the first Tour de france in 1903 doping has been improving gradually up to now and will continue to improve for another 100 years (for the sake of argument)

So if you look at this 200 year period at some point doping will reach a point where it becomes so advanced that it becomes more important than talent. Where the advantage it gives is SO big that simple talent and passion and all that, just isnt a sufficient substitute.

Maybe the cocaine and amphetamines of the 70's werent enough. Maybe the epo of the 90's is not enough. Or the Cera of the 00's. But then surely the gene doping of the future when they can alter your body make up will be.

Surely you wont deny this fact?
That just like technology eventually reached the point where you can talk to people thousands of miles away, and astronomers eventually reached the point where they can send people into space, doping has to eventually reach the point where it easily overtakes talent as the defining characteristic of a champion.

And many of us believed that this point in time, x has occured at some point in the last 20 years, and we have evidence we point to for believing this. And if this point in time has been reached then the unfortunate reality is that being one of the great gt riders of a time where everyone else was doping heavily, is very suspicious.

2
Also you should consider that the talented guys with the " physical advantages over most of their competitors" do dope. Maybe if only the cat 2 racers of this world took epo and the top gc guys were all clean you could argue that Sastre and co have superior physical advantages which allow them to compete with dopers. But the fact is we know that the super talented guys, the best of the best do dope too.

So what kind of ubermench do you envision Sastre or others to be if you think they are SOOOOO superior to the best of the best, that they can compete with people who are BOTH very very very very talented, and doped to the gills?

If he didnt exist it would be neccesary to invent him i suppose.

If we all thought that, why do we bother watching at all ?

cos i like it

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

It is interesting to note the Yearly comparisons between Greg Lemond's Grand Tour Results and Carlos Sastre's Grand Tour Results. Lemond of course had a Vo2 max of 92.5 ml/mn/kg . The highest ever recorded By a Professional Cyclist. What is Carlos Sastre's Vo2 Max? Somewhere in the eighties perhaps? Take these results in the Light of Jesus Manzano's Statement :


Manzano contends that it is too difficult to do more than one three week Tour without medical help. "Of course you could race without doping, but a cyclist would not be able to do the Tour and Vuelta, for example. You would be there, but there would be things you couldn't do because you would be at the limit. You would recover a little bit, but if your iron dropped, how would you recover?" A statement in regard to doping.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/mar04/mar29news


Greg Lemond's Grand Tour Record : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond

1984 – Renault
Tour de France - 3rd overall

1985 - Tour de France - 2nd overall
Giro d'Italia - 3rd overall

1986 - Tour de France - 1st overall
Giro d'Italia - 4th overall

1989 - Tour De France - 1st overall
Giro d'Italia - 39th overall

1990 - Tour De France - 1st overall
Giro d'Italia - 105th overall

1991 - Tour De France - 7th overall

Greg Lemond was a clean cyclist with a Vo2 max of 92.5 ml/mn/kg.

Carlos Sastre's Grand Tour Record : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Sastre#Grand_Tour_General_Classification_results_timeline




Grand Tour 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Giro 101 - - 38 - - - 43 - - 4 8
Tour - - 20 10 9 8 21 3 4 1 16 20
Vuelta - 8 WD - 35 5 2 4 2 3 - 8

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Grand Tour 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Giro 101 - - 38 - - - 43 - - 4 8
Tour - - 20 10 9 8 21 3 4 1 16 20
Vuelta - 8 WD - 35 5 2 4 2 3 - 8

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Note sure what the Lemond/Sastre results are supposed to show, but I thought I would format them to make them a bit more readable at least.

Greg Lemond's Grand Tour Record : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond

1984 – Renault
Tour de France - 3rd overall

1985 - Tour de France - 2nd overall
Giro d'Italia - 3rd overall

1986 - Tour de France - 1st overall
Giro d'Italia - 4th overall

1989 - Tour De France - 1st overall
Giro d'Italia - 39th overall

1990 - Tour De France - 1st overall
Giro d'Italia - 105th overall

1991 - Tour De France - 7th overall


Grand Tour _84 _85 _86 _87 _88 _89 _90 _91
......Giro --- --- __4 --- --- _39 105 ---
......Tour __3 __2 __1 --- --- __1 __1 __7
....Vuelta




Carlos Sastre's Grand Tour Record : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Sastre#Grand_Tour_General_Classification_results_timeline



Grand Tour 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
.....Giro 101 -- -- 38 -- -- -- 43 -- -- +4 +8
......Tour -- -- 20 10 +9 +8 21 +3 +4 +1 16 20
....Vuelta -- +8 WD -- 35 +5 +2 +4 +2 +3 -- +8

 

[The Hitch]

Note sure what the Lemond/Sastre results are supposed to show, but I thought I would format them to make them a bit more readable at least.

Greg Lemond's Grand Tour Record : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond

1984 – Renault
Tour de France - 3rd overall

1985 - Tour de France - 2nd overall
Giro d'Italia - 3rd overall

1986 - Tour de France - 1st overall
Giro d'Italia - 4th overall

1989 - Tour De France - 1st overall
Giro d'Italia - 39th overall

1990 - Tour De France - 1st overall
Giro d'Italia - 105th overall

1991 - Tour De France - 7th overall


Grand Tour _84 _85 _86 _87 _88 _89 _90 _91
......Giro --- --- __4 --- --- _39 105 ---
......Tour __3 __2 __1 --- --- __1 __1 __7
....Vuelta




Carlos Sastre's Grand Tour Record : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Sastre#Grand_Tour_General_Classification_results_timeline



Grand Tour 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
.....Giro 101 -- -- 38 -- -- -- 43 -- -- +4 +8
......Tour -- -- 20 10 +9 +8 21 +3 +4 +1 16 20
....Vuelta -- +8 WD -- 35 +5 +2 +4 +2 +3 -- +8

What is interesting about those results is that at even at the age of 24 his results were unremarkable. I wasnt watching cycling then but looking at it, would it be wrong to say that if you suggested when Sastre was 24, that he would go on to win the Grandady of them all, people would have laughed at you?

Makes me think, maybe 1 or 2 of the 20-25 year old riders, who have done nothing so far will go on to be big time gc contenders.

Im not even talking about your Dani Martin, or Roman Kreuzigers or even Agnoli, Mollema, people who have shown something,

Sastre came 108 in his first gt at 24.

Maybe Javier Aramendia will win the Tour after all.

 

[roundabout]

To be fair Sastre had to ride as a domestique in 1999 when he was one of the first people in the train when Jalabert had the Maglia Rosa.

He was a lot more impressive in 2000 and 2001 especially after Beloki abandoned the Vuelta

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

Note sure what the Lemond/Sastre results are supposed to show, but I thought I would format them to make them a bit more readable at least.

Good piece of editing there on Your Part. Believe ME before I posted the post preview for Sastres Grand Tour Results they were in the correct format typed out exactly as shown in Wikepedia. But after submiting the reply that is how they ended up looking on the thread post. So rather and go back and type it all out again in a different format I just left the post the way it was. I guess I should have added more underscores.

 

[red_flanders]

To be fair Sastre had to ride as a domestique in 1999 when he was one of the first people in the train when Jalabert had the Maglia Rosa.

He was a lot more impressive in 2000 and 2001 especially after Beloki abandoned the Vuelta

Why was he a domestique?

Why was LeMond not?

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

What is interesting about those results is that at even at the age of 24 his results were unremarkable. I wasnt watching cycling then but looking at it, would it be wrong to say that if you suggested when Sastre was 24, that he would go on to win the Grandady of them all, people would have laughed at you?

Makes me think, maybe 1 or 2 of the 20-25 year old riders, who have done nothing so far will go on to be big time gc contenders.

Im not even talking about your Dani Martin, or Roman Kreuzigers or even Agnoli, Mollema, people who have shown something,

Sastre came 108 in his first gt at 24.

Maybe Javier Aramendia will win the Tour after all.

Well the results of Sastre's 3 Grand Tours in 2010 8th, 20th, 8th overall are startling in light of Jesus Monzana's statement: And even without it, but just as an example.


"Of course you could race without doping, but a cyclist would not be able to do the Tour and Vuelta, for example. You would be there, but there would be things you couldn't do because you would be at the limit. You would recover a little bit, but if your iron dropped, how would you recover?"

Not only did Carlos Sastre Ride and complete all three Grand Tours this year. He was competitive in each race. As I said 8th, 20th, 8th overall. Personally I do not believe that these kind performances are possible from a human physiological and psychological aspect. Without resorting to, how shall I put, ah putting Your Hand in the Cookie Jar. Not accusing Mr. Sastre, but these performances have to be questioned none the less. Sastre is 35 Years old. Not old by any means. Still a Young man. But as You get older it gets harder to recover from intense exercise. Can his grand Tour results of 2010 be compared to any other rider of the past 25 Years.

 

[roundabout]

Lejarreta finished 34-4-10 in 1987, 20-10-5 in 1989, 55-7-5 in 1990 and 3-5-53 in 1991

In 1989 the Vuelta ended on the 15th of May and the Giro started on the 21st.

@ red

my point is that unless Sainz upped the doping in 2000 Sastre's 1999 Giro is not the best indicator of his ability.

 

[hrotha]

I don't think you can compare LeMond's early results to Sastre's. When LeMond was 24, he didn't have a full peloton on EPO ahead of him. PEDs and particularly EPO skew everything. Does a youngster who has only doped for a couple of years get up to his full potential just like a veteran who has been training on PEDs for the best part of a decade? Aren't the lengthening of careers and the increasing difficulty for younger riders to stand out pretty much the defining characteristics of pro cycling in the late 90s-00s?

 

[The Hitch]

Well the results of Sastre's 3 Grand Tours in 2010 8th, 20th, 8th overall are startling in light of Jesus Monzana's statement: And even without it, but just as an example.


"Of course you could race without doping, but a cyclist would not be able to do the Tour and Vuelta, for example. You would be there, but there would be things you couldn't do because you would be at the limit. You would recover a little bit, but if your iron dropped, how would you recover?"

Not only did Carlos Sastre Ride and complete all three Grand Tours this year. He was competitive in each race. As I said 8th, 20th, 8th overall. Personally I do not believe that these kind performances are possible from a human physiological and psychological aspect. Without resorting to, how shall I put, ah putting Your Hand in the Cookie Jar. Not accusing Mr. Sastre, but these performances have to be questioned none the less. Sastre is 35 Years old. Not old by any means. Still a Young man. But as You get older it gets harder to recover from intense exercise. Can his grand Tour results of 2010 be compared to any other rider of the past 25 Years.

I dont think it was that great.

In giro he got into Laquilla which gave him 12 minutes. The favourite going in and halfway in he had a 8 minute lead overy every contender. And he still only came 8th. He wasnt up there in any of the mountains other than Mortirolo. He had a very good itt and thats as good as it got. It might say 8th on the palmares, but if your talking about ability, he was a undisputed team leader who had prepared for the race, got a ginormous lead thanks to pure luck, and he barely scraped the top 10.

Tour was even worse. Giro or no Giro 20th in the Tour is nothing special for a former winner. I didnt see him once other than the riding on after Samu crashed. Again he was a team leader, thats a big advantage, but several domestiques finished above him - Horner, Plaza, Vino, lokwist, and guys who did the Giro as well.

In fact Vino did Tirreno Adriatico, Ardennes winning LBL, had a way way superior Giro to Sastre beating him despite not getting the Laquilla break, and then beat Sastre at the Tour despite riding for Bertie and killing himself in breaks and on a flat stage.

The Vuelta seemed better, untill you consider who was there. Considering he had done Giro Tour its impressive ish, but the only surprise is that he beatr Menchov and Andy.

ANd he didnt do much else. THe other guys rode stage races, classics, monuments. Sastre pretty much started his season in May. A below par Giro a poor Tour and an average Vuelta.


You might say that thats impressive considering he did all 3 but the only one that was affected by that was the Vuelta. He was far more fresh for the Giro than just about anyone else, and he had a worse Tour than many others who did the Giro.

 

[hfer07]

You might say that thats impressive considering he did all 3 but the only one that was affected by that was the Vuelta. He was far more fresh for the Giro than just about anyone else, and he had a worse Tour than many others who did the Giro.

In all fairness- Folks here forgot that Carlos had an horrendous crash in the Giro, in which he hurt his lower back. After the Giro he went under medical observation & therapy for a full month-and he said he wanted to skip the Tour so he could do the Vuelta in better shape--sadly he was "asked" by Cervelo to do the Tour for the Sponsors-so he did & by the time he was doing the Vuelta he simply was burnt out.

PS. I have never said he's 100% Clean, but based on his record/consistency, he's definitely one of the few "clean-ish" among the dirty bunch

 

[icefire]

Well the results of Sastre's 3 Grand Tours in 2010 8th, 20th, 8th overall are startling in light of Jesus Monzana's statement: And even without it, but just as an example.


"Of course you could race without doping, but a cyclist would not be able to do the Tour and Vuelta, for example. You would be there, but there would be things you couldn't do because you would be at the limit. You would recover a little bit, but if your iron dropped, how would you recover?"

Not only did Carlos Sastre Ride and complete all three Grand Tours this year. He was competitive in each race. As I said 8th, 20th, 8th overall. Personally I do not believe that these kind performances are possible from a human physiological and psychological aspect. Without resorting to, how shall I put, ah putting Your Hand in the Cookie Jar. Not accusing Mr. Sastre, but these performances have to be questioned none the less. Sastre is 35 Years old. Not old by any means. Still a Young man. But as You get older it gets harder to recover from intense exercise. Can his grand Tour results of 2010 be compared to any other rider of the past 25 Years.

Eduardo Chozas in 1991:
11th in the Vuelta, 10th in the Giro (1 stage win), 11th in the Tour

 

[Escarabajo]

What is interesting about those results is that at even at the age of 24 his results were unremarkable. I wasnt watching cycling then but looking at it, would it be wrong to say that if you suggested when Sastre was 24, that he would go on to win the Grandady of them all, people would have laughed at you?

Makes me think, maybe 1 or 2 of the 20-25 year old riders, who have done nothing so far will go on to be big time gc contenders.

Im not even talking about your Dani Martin, or Roman Kreuzigers or even Agnoli, Mollema, people who have shown something,

Sastre came 108 in his first gt at 24.

Maybe Javier Aramendia will win the Tour after all.

You have a point, but to be fair that was his only low result. Anything could have happened in that Tour. Sickness or simply lack of interest. I don't think this would prove much unfortunately.