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

[Escarabajo]

When Andy attacked on his way to the Galibier, no one moved. If one guy chased, others would have to follow. Given the pre-Tour form they were showing, I have a hard time imagining that either Horner or Wiggins wouldn't have reacted to Andy's move. That could've had quite an effect on how the rest of the race played out.

Faster? I don't know.
Harder? I believe so.

Horner was looking ridiculously primed for the Tour. With a healthy Klöden and Brajkovič in the mix? Who knows what would've happened?

We will never know.

I have seen many, many, many times riders in great shape pre-tour and when tour time comes they change or they fail. To tell you the truth that happens every year with 2 or 3 riders. So it is near impossible to predict what would have happened if this “rider was in the race” or that “rider was in the race”.

In fact one of the big differences from the tour to other pre-tour races is the way the body recuperates to high performances day in and day out. Besides the competition becomes harder during the tour making it harder for everyone. This is impossible to simulate before the tour or during training. So if any rider is showing good form that does not tell me much. Sorry.

 

[Escarabajo]

Clean no, cleaner perhaps. I would say cleaner as more riders were in contention going into the final week, most riders had at least one bad day, the only performance i thought was suspect was the day Andy won with his Landis-esque break, but he to faltered......

+1

For me, that was the more suspect performance of this Tour. He sure had a big surge that we did not see in the Pyrenees. Riders usually go backwards in performance not forward.

 

[BigBoat]

Well wait until next year when 2011 TDF winner Cadel Evans is losing by 5 minutes to 2012 TDF winner Alberto Contador. All those informing us cycling is now clean will regain their sanity and proclaim, that cycling is in fact not clean.

Yup.......

 

[Franklin]

+1

For me, that was the more suspect performance of this Tour. He sure had a big surge that we did not see in the Pyrenees. Riders usually go backwards in performance not forward.

Actually that is not the whole picture. If we look to the pre-epo era we also saw exploits like these. Not just because someone got stronger... but because others weakened more. And this TdF did resemble an eighties TdF.

I would be utterly shocked if this was a clean TdF. But cleaner... well, the only measurable indicators really suggest it's cleaner. That could be a coincidence, but if you add the other indicators (people boinking, no trains in the mountains) it's not an extreme stretch to say it's probably cleaner.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Actually that is not the whole picture. If we look to the pre-epo era we also saw exploits like these. Not just because someone got stronger... but because others weakened more. And this TdF did resemble an eighties TdF.

I would be utterly shocked if this was a clean TdF. But cleaner... well, the only measurable indicators really suggest it's cleaner. That could be a coincidence, but if you add the other indicators (people boinking, no trains in the mountains) it's not an extreme stretch to say it's probably cleaner.

People have boinked since before history began, I've just never seen it in a bike race...

The NYT article about the Tour times/power slipping backward was enlightening, if a bit overly optimistic regarding the cleanliness of the peloton.

 

[BigBoat]

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



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.

Good points, but there's enough support in high end teams to dope.... In high end teams where the top rider is paid over a million dollars a year, and winning a stage of the Tour can generate many millions in publicity for the sponsor!

Dont think for a minute that Evans won that final TT without a good 400 cc "refill" to keep his hematocrit up after 3 weeks of hard racing......

Now Juan antonio Flecha who finished 43rd in that TT has released his power date, 390 watts average on the nose. If his power was 390-400 Evans had 430 watts at 150 pounds/68kg. FTP power for nearly an hour nonstop. After 3 days in the high mountains!

How do they recover from those massive efforts put in for hours & hours......With insulin and IGF-1.

A $250,000 is MORE THAN ENOUGH. Maybe that small French team in the race doesnt have enough money to dope properly, maybe.

Certainly not all the big fish teams. They have more than enough money.

 

[Escarabajo]

Actually that is not the whole picture. If we look to the pre-epo era we also saw exploits like these. Not just because someone got stronger... but because others weakened more. And this TdF did resemble an eighties TdF.

I would be utterly shocked if this was a clean TdF. But cleaner... well, the only measurable indicators really suggest it's cleaner. That could be a coincidence, but if you add the other indicators (people boinking, no trains in the mountains) it's not an extreme stretch to say it's probably cleaner.

You have a good point. Now do you think the others got weaker? Maybe Baso but not the others. Sammy and Contador sure faltered that day but on the last week as a whole they were strong too.

About the second bolded section, I agree. No discussion there.

 

[maltiv]

Sastre Alpe d'huez in 39'31" sitting right along side riis's time. Cadel Evans 2011 Ascent 42'30" sounds a whole lot more plausible to me.

Cadel has done Alpe d'Huez in around 40 minutes too...Are you saying he was doped earlier, but not anymore?

 

[masking_agent]

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?

I think it was mentioned to make everyone feel good about the sport again. As with the Tyler Hamilton interview the sport took a real hit. The masking agents have just gotten better for some. And for others, yes, I agree less cycles of ePO.

 

[lean mean &green]

I was going to start a new thread for this but perhaps that's not necessary.

Here's my question:

What type of scrutiny were this year's TdF leaders under?

Will we have access to the number and types of tests that the GC contenders were subjected to? Obviously Hushovd (non-GC) and Voeckler would've been tested every day in yellow, but Evans and A. Schleck only won one stage each (minus the TT) and weren't ever really "leading" the race but for the final day.

And Contador? Given that his entire future is in question based on his past, would he have been subjected to extra monitoring? If not, why not?

So, who did the testing and will we see the records of such (not the results necessarily but the process—types, frequency, etc.)?

you're right, it might be worthy of it's own thread.

greater transparency is a fundamental principle upon which effective antidoping must be built. at present, some national antidoping agencies (NADO's) are better than others in this regard but there are many inconsistencies across the board. there needs to be transparency and a uniform way in which it's published. not really hard at all. publish the tests that were done, the sample type, and on whom within a short specified period of time after an event to the NADO website. WADA code should demand this type of compliance. clean athletes should embrace this measure too.

 

[Franklin]

You have a good point. Now do you think the others got weaker? Maybe Baso but not the others. Sammy and Contador sure faltered that day but on the last week as a whole they were strong too.

First of, that was more to say it could mean anything as it happened in any era. I certainly think the current contenders "maintained" a certain level. But still, it's a nice thought experiment.

It's always hard to say. Alberto certainly improved, but how much of that was physical discomfort?

And Sanchez didn't weaken that much, but he netted a serious loss of time in the alpes, whereupon the Pyrenees where quite successful.

And before the whole clinic ostracizes me... I don't doubt they charged. But it really looks like it's cleaner.

And yes, I'm curious about what havoc JvdB would have caused in such a field

Cadel has done Alpe d'Huez in around 40 minutes too...Are you saying he was doped earlier, but not anymore?

Well, it certainly seems Cadel and his colleagues doped less. Otherwise it's hard to explain the performance of for example Basso and the Schlecks. Their wattages simply are to low compared to earlier years.

As far as I have seen there isn't a single E.T. wattage this TdF... that in itself is a shocker.

 

[hiero2]

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.
. . .

I agree. In the early 90's we saw this LARGE boost in performance, and the drugs involved were pretty much undetectable at the time - EPO and steroids. Now testing has caught up with these guys, and what we are seeing is a natural economic phenomenon - you can still get performance boosts that are relatively undetectable, but the cost is higher and higher, while the boost is smaller and smaller.

At the same time, you can expect, if there are no regulations or the regulations are easily avoided, that the prices of the large boost drugs will go lower and lower, as will the use of them on the food chain. Lower down the food chain there is less testing - so regulations are more easily avoided, yes?

 

[phlatties]

The Clinic Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

i don't have anymore, there are none or it ain't worth it.

if anyone has a sure fix for greed in general then maybe... otherwise, shut up and watch or don't watch. this is racing when you have open class engine sizes that aren't combustible.

 

[hiero2]

. . .
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?

Just one point - I don't see that the change is sudden at all. For the last 10 years or so now the testing regimes have become increasingly good. The docs finally figured out how to reasonably test for EPO and the like, etc. We've slowly begun to figure out what is suspicious wattage ratings, all that. 20 years ago I don't think anybody had ever heard of measuring a cyclist's output in watts! It sure wasn't in the common realm.

From what I see, it has been a slow and gradual change. First to realize that it was going down as a commonplace practice, and to get people to recognize that. Then, to slowly tighten the nooses on verifiable metrics. For the last several years I have kept hoping and thinking "this year is clean" - or at least "this year is cleaner" - only to have some incident indicate that we were not there yet. BUT, with every incident, I have also seen an increase in awareness, and an increase in the risk being taken to dope, and a corresponding apparent decrease in the likelihood of doping as general practice.

 

[sniper]

Just one point - I don't see that the change is sudden at all. For the last 10 years or so now the testing regimes have become increasingly good. The docs finally figured out how to reasonably test for EPO and the like, etc. We've slowly begun to figure out what is suspicious wattage ratings, all that. 20 years ago I don't think anybody had ever heard of measuring a cyclist's output in watts! It sure wasn't in the common realm.

From what I see, it has been a slow and gradual change. First to realize that it was going down as a commonplace practice, and to get people to recognize that. Then, to slowly tighten the nooses on verifiable metrics. For the last several years I have kept hoping and thinking "this year is clean" - or at least "this year is cleaner" - only to have some incident indicate that we were not there yet. BUT, with every incident, I have also seen an increase in awareness, and an increase in the risk being taken to dope, and a corresponding apparent decrease in the likelihood of doping as general practice.

are you joking?
We have documentary evidence of how common EPO still was in 2007 (BMC).
Last year, everybody agrees that AC was fully loaded.
The sole reason everybody speaks of a cleaner tour is because AC didn't win and showed some weaknesses.
So what's your definition of gradual?

 

[Zoncolan]

Last year, everybody agrees that AC was fully loaded.

Who's everybody? I think he was way more loaded in '09 than he was in '10, as witnessed by his performances in all the climbs in that year's Tour (the ITT as well). I guess everybody's level drops when they leave Bruyneel.
As for the Tour being cleaner this year? If the power output numbers that were posted in the other thread: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8839&page=44 are correct, then yes, it was cleaner. It was cleaner looking at the top contenders. Lower down? I dunno. I guess the reason it was cleaner is the AFLD. Unlike the UCI, they seem to be making an effort to keep the Tour at least clean. That means the top guys didn't dare to supercharge as in previous years. Andy Schleck, who was looking to peak for this race, seemed a lot slower than last year.
This race, like every other pro bike race will never be clean, IMHO.
I also think this talk of there being less riders who dope now is ********. They are doping less, if anything. Once a doper, always a doper.

 

[pmcg76]

are you joking?
We have documentary evidence of how common EPO still was in 2007 (BMC).
Last year, everybody agrees that AC was fully loaded.
The sole reason everybody speaks of a cleaner tour is because AC didn't win and showed some weaknesses.
So what's your definition of gradual?

Jeez, its not hard to understand. Pretty much eveyone was jacked up on EPO to the max in the 90s with no restrictions. Over time EPO usage became more restricted and blood doping became prevalent. With the introduction of the blood passport, it seems as this is now somewhat resticted too. Judging by times, watts, etc, it would seem the peloton as a whole is cleaner so there has been a gradual improvement as previously stated.

If 95% of the peloton was jacked to the max but that figure is now 40-50%, then that is a gradual improvement, hell even if it was 70-80% it would be a gradual improvement. I have seen nobody in this thread suggest the peloton is clean but rather cleaner yet people seem to have a problem distinguishing that little difference.

 

[sniper]

Jeez, its not hard to understand. Pretty much eveyone was jacked up on EPO to the max in the 90s with no restrictions. Over time EPO usage became more restricted and blood doping became prevalent. With the introduction of the blood passport, it seems as this is now somewhat resticted too. Judging by times, watts, etc, it would seem the peloton as a whole is cleaner so there has been a gradual improvement as previously stated.

If 95% of the peloton was jacked to the max but that figure is now 40-50%, then that is a gradual improvement, hell even if it was 70-80% it would be a gradual improvement. I have seen nobody in this thread suggest the peloton is clean but rather cleaner yet people seem to have a problem distinguishing that little difference.

Explain to me the 195 BMC ampuls in 2007. What's gradual about that?
But then again, when I speak of cleaner or not, I'm not distinguishing between EPO, bloodtransfusion, CERA, or the latest from China.
It's either cleaner, or it isn't.

Your judgement is based on the Tour. Surely, they may have had troubles getting (or feared bringing) their juice into France, and may have been afraid to juice maximally, for obvious reasons.
So how does that make for a cleaner peloton?

After having carefully and correctly distinguished between "clean" and "cleaner", let us now distinguish just as carefully between a cleaner Tour and a cleaner Peloton.
I agree the Tour looked a lot cleaner (especially with Dirty not at his max, and guys like Vino out). But the peloton cleaner? That's naive, IMO.

Who's everybody? I think he was way more loaded in '09 than he was in '10, as witnessed by his performances in all the climbs in that year's Tour (the ITT as well). I guess everybody's level drops when they leave Bruyneel.
As for the Tour being cleaner this year? If the power output numbers that were posted in the other thread: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8839&page=44 are correct, then yes, it was cleaner. It was cleaner looking at the top contenders. Lower down? I dunno. I guess the reason it was cleaner is the AFLD. Unlike the UCI, they seem to be making an effort to keep the Tour at least clean. That means the top guys didn't dare to supercharge as in previous years. Andy Schleck, who was looking to peak for this race, seemed a lot slower than last year.
This race, like every other pro bike race will never be clean, IMHO.
I also think this talk of there being less riders who dope now is ********. They are doping less, if anything. Once a doper, always a doper.

fully agree with the parts in bold.

 

[jilbiker]

Good points, but there's enough support in high end teams to dope.... In high end teams where the top rider is paid over a million dollars a year, and winning a stage of the Tour can generate many millions in publicity for the sponsor!

Dont think for a minute that Evans won that final TT without a good 400 cc "refill" to keep his hematocrit up after 3 weeks of hard racing......

Now Juan antonio Flecha who finished 43rd in that TT has released his power date, 390 watts average on the nose. If his power was 390-400 Evans had 430 watts at 150 pounds/68kg. FTP power for nearly an hour nonstop. After 3 days in the high mountains!

How do they recover from those massive efforts put in for hours & hours......With insulin and IGF-1.

A $250,000 is MORE THAN ENOUGH. Maybe that small French team in the race doesnt have enough money to dope properly, maybe.

Certainly not all the big fish teams. They have more than enough money.

I remember one pro-cyclist talking about juice and the sport, 3300km in 3 weeks? 4-6 mountain top finish and speeds of 30-50miles/hr. Its impossible not to juice especially when you want to remain competitive in the first 10 places. I cannot figure out how from a physio level it possible to recover from the daily high intensity plunge, the 60mile dash and continue at such high levels.

Until the sport looks at what is possible from a natural perspective and adjust competition demands, juice will continue.

When I look at athletes in various sports, I see juice is quite prevelant. Anyone with bodybuilding experience can detect juice a mile away. I have come to ignore it, if all the top contenders are on it, then there must be something else separating them. For all I may think about LA, the guy had better work ethic than ullrich, he worked hard to win. Basso made a concerted effort to improve his TT after TDF.

One bodybuilder said, if people think they can sit in front of the TV all day, take juice and muscles will appear, you must be joking. Yes we juice but we work hard. Is it right?? No it isn't. Can we do anything about it? Do we want to? baseball chiefs conveniently ignored the juicing as records plunged and tickets and rating flew to the roof. Do we want to reduce programs to say 2700km and no more than 3 mountain finishes? Nay!! Nay!! The fun is to push the athletes to break point, sort of our civilized collesuem. Not much has changed since the Roman days.

Its a business and the more gruesome and tasking it is the bigger the ratings, so they are all in it together. The viewing public, sport chiefs, athletes. Leave the athletes alone.

 

[Winterfold]

This didn't come across clear enough in my first post in this thread but I am saying cleaner not clean.

But it looks like cleaner is not much of an advantage these days...

So riders I think ride clean - Thor, EBH, the frogs, maybe Cadel, used to be Gilbert - are right up there and in the mix.

The eternal pessimists and cynics of The Clinc should take heart - the overall effect of anti-doping is having an effect. Bikes are way better, but times are much slower - 3 mins on HC climbs of 40 minutes is pretty much what doping gives (Millar).

 

[AussieGoddess]

This race, like every other pro bike race will never be clean, IMHO.
I also think this talk of there being less riders who dope now is ********. They are doping less, if anything. Once a doper, always a doper.

I agree.

Over this Tour the riders appeared to have doped less ..... but that doesnt mean there were less riders doping.

Microdosing, better management and better preparation appear to have been the order of the month for this Tour. (as opposed to the super-charging of recent years)

 

[Nick777]

Cadel has done Alpe d'Huez in around 40 minutes too...Are you saying he was doped earlier, but not anymore?

What year was that?

 

[indurain666]

What year was that?

By around he meant 2 or 3 minutes above

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

What year was that?

2006


The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

 

[craig1985]

All the article's in yesterday's Daily Telegraph could not keep telling us how clean Cadel is, it was pretty cringeworthy that I stopped reading half way through.