JimmyFingers said:
Which cuts to the chase of my point of what makes an obvious doper and what makes an obvious clean rider, as you claimed for EBH? Hence my further questions which you tried to shout down as trolling.
I'm looking for a consistent approach, something I rarely see in this forum. I'm happy to agree EBH is clean, but if you are using his performance as evidence then I have issue with it, since he has won at the very highest level in the past.
Hence the original question. Was he doping when he won 2 Tour stages in 2011?
Where to start. I guess with the simple stuff. I never said he was "obviously clean" or the equivalent. I said,
"I think he's a perfect example of a clean rider with talent."
"EBH looks for all the world to me like a rider who chose not to dope."
"Simply my opinion, which could be changed by a good argument that he's doping."
"For my part I see no evidence that he's doping whatsoever. Being on Sky or being a pro cyclist isn't enough for me."
All clearly qualified as a matter of personal opinion, and outright stated that I could be swayed to think otherwise.
Beyond that.
As stated before, my resistance to your questions is twofold. One, you're out to prove some kind of point that I'm coming at this inconsistently or with bias, which I view as wholly incorrect. Everyone has bias, the question is whether one lets that override observable reality. The question about EBH in 2011 is meant as some kind of litmus test for your agenda to show inconsistency on my part, and as such I regard it as trolling coming from you. Had someone else asked me I would respond. Which brings me to the other point, that I have several time in this thread explained my thoughts on EBH. Others have accepted these for what they are. Feel free to read or re-read them, as they answer your questions.
Further, discussions of my views on riders in general is totally off-topic.
I have no bias toward or against EBH which would color my view. I would be curious when the last time before today I have mentioned him–it's got to be some time ago.
So the idea that I give him a softer ride because I "like" him is without merit. If you can show otherwise I would be stunned. Back it up or drop it.
So you got me sucked in. To answer you directly, and this assumes a conversation in good faith, here is my view of EBH.
He is a talented rider that got some wins in a Tour when there was less doping than there is now.
It is possible that he was doping early and stopped, as postulated here, but I see no evidence of it. Simply winning a few flat/hilly tour stages is not convincing enough for me. As for the question "if doping why would he stop", I don't know. I don't need to know, I'm not trying to make that point. Cunego stopped. I don't know why. It doesn't matter.
Your notion that my views express inconsistency is (IMO) an extension of your own personal perspective and has nothing to do with my actual views. I suspect (but don't know) that you don't like my views as a poster because I've been railing on Froome here for a while, and this colors your view of me. I know you represent yourself as someone "one the fence" about Froome, but from where I sit, you seem to half-defend him in far too many threads to be "on the fence". I think you like him, you know he's a joke, but will never admit it, preferring to launch personal attacks on people who point out what Froome really is, and you use this "inconsistency" argument to attack people. You can't make an actual case for it however.
So it turns out you think I'm biased and I think you're biased. What a shocker.
What's my bias?
I tend to favor english-speaking riders who give insightful views on races in which I'm interested, riders whose personalities I like, riders who ride with power, and riders who show panache and style. In spite of my bias for these kinds of riders,
I try to look at the question of whether they're doping as completely separate.
For example, for some of the top riders:
Nibali: No strong feelings before the Vuelta last year. I would be surprised if he isn't doping given his performances. Let's just say it, I think he's doping. So are all the other contenders. However in this race he has shown guts, skill and panache already. Definitely warming to him. Could take a new view on him at some point, but expect this Tour to reveal all.
Contador: Loved that he showed Lance the door. Rides with panache and style consistently. Mentally tough. Can be less than straightforward in personality which I don't like. Overall I like him well enough. Rides to race and generally lets his riding do the talking. Clearly doping since early in his career. Obvious long before he was "caught". Could not be convinced otherwise.
Wiggins: Used to really be impressed with his anti-doping stance, he was brash and straightforward about it. Really called out the BS. Used to love him though he was useless as a rider. Transformation ridiculous, collusion with UCI and IOC likely IMO (2012 Olympics etc.). His total turnaround with regard to doping commentary just slimy. Strongly dislike. Showed some panache in PR this year, warmed me up to him a bit. Clearly doped for his Tour wins. Could not be convinced otherwise.
Froome: Most absurd transformation I've personally ever witnessed in the sport. Dislike him for that reason alone. Horrible riding style, painful to watch. Didn't have any view on him personally until he came out with the book, of which I've seen only excerpts. Comes of as a total liar in Kimmage interview. Obviously doping. Could not be convinced otherwise.
Sagan: Love his riding style. Aggressive, skilled, audacious and confident. Inspiring. Seems like a totally immature pr!ck personality-wise. Doping? Probably. Not sure, but would be surprised if clean. Clearly uber-talented since a very young age. A rider like him
could be a winner in a relatively clean peloton, so I would never just outright call him a doper. Some chance he's clean.
Boonen: Love him. Love his style, personality and rides like a beast. Doper. Could not be convinced otherwise.
Cancellara: Like his riding style. A great career with great wins. Rides with power and panache. A big personality but entirely too full of himself. Doper. Could not be convinced otherwise.
Martin: No strong feelings about his personality, today was the first time he's impressed me on the road. Drools. Rides with power and style otherwise. Hard to believe a guy can put out that kind of power for that long clean. Have to assume he's doping. Could take a new view on him at some point.
Horner: Great personality, great insights into the races. Look forward to him retiring and commenting on races. Doper. Could not be convinced otherwise.
Cunego: Clearly doped in the Giro vs. Simoni, clearly has stopped doping. Could not be convinced otherwise.
Talansky: Not enough on the record to say for sure one way or another, but highly, highly suspicious. I would expect to form an opinion of him based on performance in the mountains over the next two weeks. Could take a new view on him at some point, but this will be the test, won't it.
Teejay: Less suspicious than Talansky based on performance, but suspect. I could buy him as a clean rider. Could be talked into a new view on him at this point.
So let me know how any of that is "inconsistent" other than that I form different opinions of different riders. The main problem with my view for some people is that I accept that people I like to watch ride are doping. I love the sport and understand it has always been this way, so I have chosen to root for people on other criteria than "are they doping?"
As for who is doping, I base it mostly on what I believe to be possible clean, and of course BP evidence, positive tests, and other information, in descending order. I think less riders are doping now than in the early part of the 2000's, but it's just as bad at the top and getting worse fast.