• 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!

[Suspended] CNF Clinic Award: Best Clean Rider of 2013

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
sniper said:
anybody care to elaborate why Daniel Martin is likely clean?

Goofy smile only a mother could love?
Not offending the world at a victims of sexual violence gala?
JV, "We only admit to doping after the SOL kick in?"
A collective, "Who is that guy up the road with our potential winner?"

To be fair, however it came to pass that Ryder attacked, it was THE perfect setup for Martin's win and a bold attempt that worked out for once. No kidding.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
sniper said:
anybody care to elaborate why Daniel Martin is likely clean?

If you think otherwise why don't you go into the appropriate thread and explain. This isn't the first time you said it without substantiating on it.

sniper said:
it's gonna be fun also seeing posters who in other threads demand hard evidence before calling out a performance post names in here without any shred of evidence of cleanliness.

kittel's lie detector test was a nice try though.

I will go with Dan Martin here and I gave reasons why to yourself before.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1357865&postcount=1522
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
You don't trust Froome, Quintana, Rodriguez, Nibali, Sagan etc?

No. I'm entirely agnostic on all those riders. I have hunches, but they aren't worth a pitcher of spit, warm or otherwise.

Quintana is closest to trust, based on type of rider he is, but domestic colombian cycling is riddled, so who can tell.

Indeed, my trust of Martin is itself impressionistic, and probably biased by national feeling - On basically the right team, right background, right attitude. None of it proof. But I just trust him, for some reason. Could be wrong.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
gooner said:
If you think otherwise why don't you go into the appropriate thread and explain. This isn't the first time you said it without substantiating on it.



I will go with Dan Martin here and I gave reasons why to yourself before.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1357865&postcount=1522

fair enough.
my main problem is with his gratuite public statements about how clean Garmin are. Not a word on transparency, not a word on the possibility that other teams might be cheating Garmin.
Just the usual crap from Martin.
'I'm so happy to be riding with Garmin, we're clean, hesjedal is clean'. blabla. Sounds hollow, and you don't expect such hollow statements from a rider who does everything to win clean, knowing how difficult it is to compete with dopers. You'd expect some serious reflection on the very issue of riding clean in a sport that is/has been drained with doping, but nothing of the sort from Martin.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
gooner said:
If you think otherwise why don't you go into the appropriate thread and explain. This isn't the first time you said it without substantiating on it.



I will go with Dan Martin here and I gave reasons why to yourself before.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1357865&postcount=1522

so to sum up:

early promise: clean
no big leap: clean
outspoken against doping: clean

on the other hand

no early promise: not sure, need more evidence
huge leap and late career transformation: doesnt prove anything
in love with dopers: meaningless

Duly noted and archived in my records.
 
the sceptic said:
so to sum up:

early promise: clean
no big leap: clean
outspoken against doping: clean

on the other hand

no early promise: not sure, need more evidence
huge leap and late career transformation: doesnt prove anything
in love with dopers: meaningless

Duly noted and archived in my records.

If you notice the conclusions of last year's study by Horvath et al, it's actually that dirty athletes are the ones that say there's no doping, while clean ones tend to say 'it's f***ed up, there's a lot of doping out there'
 
Jan 18, 2010
3,059
0
0
Visit site
Going with a sprinter here with either the Gorilla, Cav or Bouhanni. GC clean riders possibly a kid like Pinot other than that who knows
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
GuyIncognito said:
If you notice the conclusions of last year's study by Horvath et al

thanks for this. Mere common sense suggests that is correct.
Do you have a link or a reference to that study?

clean ones tend to say 'it's f***ed up, there's a lot of doping out there'
Indeed that's what you'd expect clean riders to say, and we never hear it.
(well, of course early-carreer wiggo said things in that direction.)
This is mainly why i don't believe in anybody at sky or garmin.
You never hear them complain about doping.
Only hear them praising how clean their team and the new generation is.
Not even in 2009 did we hear Garmin complain. Go figure.

it's actually that dirty athletes are the ones that say there's no doping
makes sense.
 

TRENDING THREADS