• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

So Suddenly the Tour is clean. Where did this idea come from

Today, i heard the ES studio say they thought the Tour is now cleaner.

Then Harmonn, who often declares people clean because he likes them, said, with so much excitement in his voice, that people were now saying the Tour is clean, and then went on with joy about how great this news was.

A lot of people on the forum, preumably but not all, Cadel fanboys, have said Cadel is the first clean winner. One asks if there is something more than xenophobia preventing them from saying that Sastre was also clean.

Worst of all, i randomly switched over to France news or whatever its called and in the worst report on cycling i have ever seen (including the question "can the sport survive without Lance Armstrong"), it was said that everyone is happy that the Tour is now clean.

It went to a panel that was there to discuss politics of whom no one knew anything about the Tour, and the questioner asked "Can I believe in cycling again". Someone, who had obviously been told to watch 5 minutes of the Tour before hand and had answered the Lance question by saying "well yes there is this ummm Tom fickler" procceeded to say that there are drug tests so the Tour must therefore be cleaner

What, how, where, why when?

What am i missing. Why is the Tour suddenly clean, and whatsmore, why are all the people saying its clean, refusing to give any explanation as to how they recieved this glorious information.

What do they know that I dont?

It seems to me someone started a rumour, and people just got very excited.

One key point that i want to mention is that this is NOT the first time people have said cycling is suddenly clean, based on nothing, and they were not correct on previous occasions.

Or is there actually something behind this? Im not disputing that it might be cleaner. I dont have evidence to the contrary but im asking if there is evidence to support this idea.

And importantly, why would the change be so sudden?
Why after 20 years of doping, would it there be a immediate change from dirty to clean. Its been less than 12 months since Contador and Mosquera, its the same year as Ricco got caught again and Sinkiewitz, and all of a sudden July 2011 its all clean again. Why? What great variable changed between February and July 2011?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think there is a big difference between clean and cleaner.

The climbing statistics would suggest that riders are doping less.

The complete failure of radioshack (what riders made it through the crashes) to do anything suggests they are doping a lot less

The fact that on two mountains stages the gruppetto managed to miss the time cut despite the leaders climbing slower then previous years suggests that even the grupetto are doping less.

Of course 95% are still doping.

They are just doping a little less.
 
TeamSkyFans said:
I think there is a big difference between clean and cleaner.

The climbing statistics would suggest that riders are doping less.

The complete failure of radioshack (what riders made it through the crashes) to do anything suggests they are doping a lot less

The fact that on two mountains stages the gruppetto managed to miss the time cut despite the leaders climbing slower then previous years suggests that even the grupetto are doping less.

Of course 95% are still doping.

They are just doping a little less.

I would agree that they are doping less, and it comes down to what the word "cleaner means".

Does it mean same riders are doping less, or less riders are doping the same?

The impression i got from what i read and heard, especially the ones that cadel is the first "clean" (not cleaner" Tour winner, are that doping has been more eliminated than weakened.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Of course its clean - look at the difference between 1999 and now:

Hein Verbruggen, 1999:
"The controls have visibly improved over last year and the year before," he said. "People are more aware of their responsibilities, that is clear.
"Several sporting directors have also called me to say the race is cleaner than in the past."

Hein Verbruggen, 1999:
Most blood tests on this Tour have found riders' haematocrit levels at between 48 and 49 per cent [the upper limit is 50 per cent]. This is very encouraging. The Tour is almost clean, and the team managers have got the same impression.

2006:
At my meeting with the UCI in April 2006, I almost fell off my chair when Hein Verbruggen said that the UCI had so few positive drug tests that they had concluded there was not a drug problem in cycling after all and they were giving serious thought to reducing the number of tests they performed.


Anne Gripper, 2009:
“I’m an optimist by nature but when I look at the 840 riders in the passport programme the vast majority of the peloton have very normal blood values,” Gripper told Cyclingnews. “So I’m really confident that we have a far higher number of clean riders than ever before. Those that choose not to ride clean are being exposed.

Pat McQuaid, 2010:
"Through our biological passport [program], we have noticed that the parameters were improving," McQuaid said. "Most of the riders are clean."
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Visit site
I doubt it became cleaner in just one year. Contador for example rode Alpe Dhuez last year 5 seconds faster than Marco Pantani. In the Dauphiné obviously, but still.

It's just because Contador was lacking in form that people think it's cleaner now.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
roundabout said:
Heh, I'd like to think that we've come a long way since the days when haematocrit levels between 48 and 49 were considered very encouraging. 12 years on Verbruggen reads like something from The Onion.

Well the disturbing part about Verbruggen is what he said 12 years ago sounds similar to what he said earlier this year:
"I think it's the mistake in communication that is made," Verbruggen told Cyclingnews.

"We have to accept that unfortunately in normal life you have crime, and in sport, that crime is doping. There are always people who will try to cheat."

When Cyclingnews pointed out that it is not the media that is involved in doping the riders, Verbruggen said, "It's not the media that dope (the riders) but it's the media that make the perception, they determine what the perception is."

"If you had another kind problem in the sport of one or two percent, you would talk about it that much, you wouldn't give it give it 50 percent of the space.
That's thee problem. I don't blame the media. They have to do what they think they have to do. If they think they can sell you magazines best by talking about doping, then do that. It's a business decision in the end.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
El Pistolero said:
I doubt it became cleaner in just one year. Contador for example rode Alpe Dhuez last year 5 seconds faster than Marco Pantani. In the Dauphiné obviously, but still.

It's just because Contador was lacking in form that people think it's cleaner now.

First time I ever heard this - where does this info come from?


The Hitch said:
Today, i heard the ES studio say they thought the Tour is now cleaner.
<sniped for brevity>

I actually do think things were a lot cleaner (than say the 90's) this year.
Main reason I think this is the times on all the climbs were quite slow in comparison to previous years. Also cleaner type riders were in the mix and there was no ET performances, all the top guys had bad moments - so it resembled races in the 80's.

As for why?
Main reason is that the authorities in France (AFLD, OCLESP, Police etc) are a lot more proactive than other places.
Also - as much as I give out about the selective use of the Biological Passport it does mean make it quite difficult to go on a full program.
 
El Pistolero said:
I doubt it became cleaner in just one year. Contador for example rode Alpe Dhuez last year 5 seconds faster than Marco Pantani. In the Dauphiné obviously, but still.

It's just because Contador was lacking in form that people think it's cleaner now.

No.

Contador rode Alpe d'Huez in about 42 minutes last year in the Dauphine. Certainly not in favorable conditions though.
 
Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
Visit site
I don't agree that that Cadel is the first clean rider to win the TDF. Lets do the numbers
1/ Cadel in the past years has cracked on tough mountains. he has not held it with the pure climbers
2/ Cadel has not lasted more than 2 weeks on other TDF or Giro. His last week has seen an exhausted athlete.
3/ Cadel was right in front in the first week competing with the sprinters and in the last week hanging with the climbers including attacking and leading the chase.
4/ At 34 Cadel is able to recover in the way he couldn't in his 20's??

Everything points to juice. At 34, just say whatever and go for it, if they catch me I don't care, I won the tour and I can retire at 34.

I will overlook this one, better him than AS in yellow...but don't be back at 35...don't push it.
 
El Pistolero said:
I doubt it became cleaner in just one year. Contador for example rode Alpe Dhuez last year 5 seconds faster than Marco Pantani. In the Dauphiné obviously, but still.

It's just because Contador was lacking in form that people think it's cleaner now.
He was 5 minutes slower.
 
May 19, 2011
66
0
0
Visit site
Bull**** it is clean. All these guys are micro dosing things which they know are undetectable at the very least. Some will be using drugs that they cannot even test for yet.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,392
0
0
Visit site
jilbiker said:
I don't agree that that Cadel is the first clean rider to win the TDF. Lets do the numbers
1/ Cadel in the past years has cracked on tough mountains. he has not held it with the pure climbers
2/ Cadel has not lasted more than 2 weeks on other TDF or Giro. His last week has seen an exhausted athlete.
3/ Cadel was right in front in the first week competing with the sprinters and in the last week hanging with the climbers including attacking and leading the chase.
4/ At 34 Cadel is able to recover in the way he couldn't in his 20's??

Everything points to juice. At 34, just say whatever and go for it, if they catch me I don't care, I won the tour and I can retire at 34.

I will overlook this one, better him than AS in yellow...but don't be back at 35...don't push it.


They are not 'the numbers', they are opinions and fairly badly informed ones.

1. He's rarely cracked on mountains, maybe once or twice. He's come in the top 5 in five previous GTs. He usually loses by not being able to respond to fast attacks.

2. He's lasted all three weeks plenty of times before. For example, in the 2007 Tour he came 4th in the final mountain stage and 2nd in the final TT. This time he came 5th and 2nd.

3. He wasn't at any time 'competing with the sprinters'. He challenged Gilbert on uphill finishes, but then so did Contador and Sanchez. The Schlecks tried to, but they're not as good at that sort of finish.

4. He didn't even make his Tour debut until he was 28, so it's only reasonable that he would learn from experience. He was a late convert to road racing.

If you want to believe he's doping then fine, that's your opinion. None of what you says is proof in any way. Most of it is just wrong.
 
Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
Visit site
Mambo95 said:
They are not 'the numbers', they are opinions and fairly badly informed ones.

1. He's rarely cracked on mountains, maybe once or twice. He's come in the top 5 in five previous GTs. He usually loses by not being able to respond to fast attacks.

2. He's lasted all three weeks plenty of times before. For example, in the 2007 Tour he came 4th in the final mountain stage and 2nd in the final TT. This time he came 5th and 2nd.

3. He wasn't at any time 'competing with the sprinters'. He challenged Gilbert on uphill finishes, but then so did Contador and Sanchez. The Schlecks tried to, but they're not as good at that sort of finish.

4. He didn't even make his Tour debut until he was 28, so it's only reasonable that he would learn from experience. He was a late convert to road racing.

If you want to believe he's doping then fine, that's your opinion. None of what you says is proof in any way. Most of it is just wrong.

And no one has ANY proof that LA ever doped or that any rider who has not been caught is/was doping, so it is a clean tour and has always been......right?? :)
 

Mr. O'Clock

BANNED
Jun 19, 2011
60
0
0
Visit site
WorldsGreatest said:
Bull**** it is clean. All these guys are micro dosing things which they know are undetectable at the very least. Some will be using drugs that they cannot even test for yet.

The witch, Armstrong is dead, and under the evil eye of no Italy, holder and the tea party, doping is a thing of the past, please rest assured, Greg da IDE and Kim age all good, work done, cycling clean good job, back patted.
 
I think this Tour was cleaner overall. However I'm not sure about cycling in general. Earlier in the season we had disturbing climbs to Huy, Arrate, Kapelmuur and Sierra Road. The Tour, however, has the means to fight against doping more efficiently, and the AFLD was involved. Could it be that dopers have to be more careful during the Tour, ironically making it one of the cleanest big races? That's a possibility.

The numbers (times and watts) suggest the top guys are indeed going slower. As of late there's been a lot of emphasis put on what watts/kg ratios are possible while clean, and going above them is mighty suspicious. But then there's another side to that: the usual contenders may have to remain within these human limits, but nothing stops a lesser rider from rising from middle of the pack to great but human levels. This would be a sinister explanation for the close racing that has been praised as a sign of cleanliness.

That scenario would still allow the natural talents to shine, though. The general trend of improving French performances is probably a good sign in that regard, but "French cycling is cleaner" is not an absolute truth that will always apply, and I'm afraid the French and others may have become too complacent and lowered their guards. The improvement would be expected in a cleaner peloton if the French were indeed, as a rule, clean(er) these past few years (and all the data seems to suggest that), but that doesn't mean some particularly outstanding performances aren't suspicious. When whole teams perform above expectations, it makes you wary. Some French team might have decided they've had enough of being largely irrelevant and, on top of that, being mocked for not winning big races, while no one else followed their lead in anti-doping matters. It's always a possibility.

These two scenarios combined mean that we wouldn't be able to look at hard data, watt figures or climbing times to pinpoint outlandish performances, because they all would be within human limits. A top-class clean rider could produce 5.8 W/kg in the final climb of a mountain stage, but some guy doing it might still be doping to raise his power from a natural 5.4 W/kg or whatever.

So, to summarize, I think this Tour got clean enough that a very talented clean rider could compete, but there's still dark shadows overhead.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,392
0
0
Visit site
jilbiker said:
And no one has ANY proof that LA ever doped or that any rider who has not been caught is/was doping, so it is a clean tour and has always been......right?? :)

Well there's enough for David Walsh to write a whole book about it and for a federal investigation. There's nothing against Evans. And he's been around a long time, since he was a MTB prodigy. I notice you didn't dispute any of my actual points - you just went for the emotive Armstrong angle (the cycling forum equivalent of Godwin's Law)

Otherwise are you really trying to say that no proof of doping is proof of doping?

People such as me think that's cycling is cleaning up because we see the performances, the actual numbers (not your 'numbers') and the sort of riders who are now succeeding.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Today, i heard the ES studio say they thought the Tour is now cleaner.

Then Harmonn, who often declares people clean because he likes them, said, with so much excitement in his voice, that people were now saying the Tour is clean, and then went on with joy about how great this news was.

A lot of people on the forum, preumably but not all, Cadel fanboys, have said Cadel is the first clean winner. One asks if there is something more than xenophobia preventing them from saying that Sastre was also clean.

Worst of all, i randomly switched over to France news or whatever its called and in the worst report on cycling i have ever seen (including the question "can the sport survive without Lance Armstrong"), it was said that everyone is happy that the Tour is now clean.

It went to a panel that was there to discuss politics of whom no one knew anything about the Tour, and the questioner asked "Can I believe in cycling again". Someone, who had obviously been told to watch 5 minutes of the Tour before hand and had answered the Lance question by saying "well yes there is this ummm Tom fickler" procceeded to say that there are drug tests so the Tour must therefore be cleaner

What, how, where, why when?

What am i missing. Why is the Tour suddenly clean, and whatsmore, why are all the people saying its clean, refusing to give any explanation as to how they recieved this glorious information.

What do they know that I dont?

It seems to me someone started a rumour, and people just got very excited.

One key point that i want to mention is that this is NOT the first time people have said cycling is suddenly clean, based on nothing, and they were not correct on previous occasions.

Or is there actually something behind this? Im not disputing that it might be cleaner. I dont have evidence to the contrary but im asking if there is evidence to support this idea.

And importantly, why would the change be so sudden?
Why after 20 years of doping, would it there be a immediate change from dirty to clean. Its been less than 12 months since Contador and Mosquera, its the same year as Ricco got caught again and Sinkiewitz, and all of a sudden July 2011 its all clean again. Why? What great variable changed between February and July 2011?
Big Sporting events will always feature doped athletes......Its the world we live in.

There are far bigger moral problems out there than doping> The workers from Asia that built my bike were only paid 20 cents an hour! How is that fair? Is it fair that some smart kid is raised in a poor single parent family, heck no! Life isnt a box of chocolates, wake up and smell the coffee, have some!

The world cup soccer players are all doped, how come none of the football fans care about doping? Reason: Anti doping police would all be destroyed by the sheer amount of money involved in football. Cycling does not have that..... Cycling cannon throw WADA chiefs into the sea with anchors tied around the ankles......

As long as the benefits outweigh the consequences.....What consequence is their to a little 400cc refill of your own blood? Right now none.....testosterone none.....ACTH hormone.......insulin......I'll be damned if anybody who's "a big deal" tests positive for those.
 

Mr. O'Clock

BANNED
Jun 19, 2011
60
0
0
Visit site
Pretty much have to say that voeckler, as in his dying throws punched out some major ugly strong Peddaling styles, reminiscent of roids testosterone?
 
Dec 29, 2009
409
0
0
Visit site
we all want to believe in miracles. for some it's the tooth fairy or santa claus. for others it's clean GT champions.

erader
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
WorldsGreatest said:
Bull**** it is clean. All these guys are micro dosing things which they know are undetectable at the very least. Some will be using drugs that they cannot even test for yet.

Am, why would you need to micro-dose if "all these guys" are using undetectable products?

BigBoat said:
Big Sporting events will always feature doped athletes......Its the world we live in.

There are far bigger moral problems out there than doping> The workers from Asia that built my bike were only paid 20 cents an hour! How is that fair? Is it fair that some smart kid is raised in a poor single parent family, heck no! Life isnt a box of chocolates, wake up and smell the coffee, have some!

The world cup soccer players are all doped, how come none of the football fans care about doping? Reason: Anti doping police would all be destroyed by the sheer amount of money involved in football. Cycling does not have that..... Cycling cannon throw WADA chiefs into the sea with anchors tied around the ankles......

As long as the benefits outweigh the consequences.....What consequence is their to a little 400cc refill of your own blood? Right now none.....testosterone none.....ACTH hormone.......insulin......I'll be damned if anybody who's "a big deal" tests positive for those.

Before the Tour, sure - but during it?
I'd say there are big consequences for getting caught in France right now.

How do you think your wife/girlfriend would feel asking her to drive your stash across France with the real risk of jailtime?
That's why Landis paid 10k to have someone come in with the blood - very few Pros can afford that.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,392
0
0
Visit site
The one doping feature of this Tour is how desperate some Clinic posters are to see signs of doping (Blackcat's Eugenics approach for example).

The most rabid posters here don't want a cleaner sport, that is there worst nightmare. They're only interested in maintaining their self-satisfied superior 'we don't believe in miracles' approach, even when those miracles are the same one's that were happening in the 80s.