the "clean" era

Nov 7, 2010
1
0
0
Leipheimer et al claiming to have raced clean since 2005, 2006, or 2007 makes for a nice story, and i'd like to believe it, but i think these claims need some scrutiny, once the dust has settled from the armstrong investigation.

the average speed at the tour has been fairly consistent for the last 15 years. leipheimer finished 3rd in the 2007 tour and 2nd in the 2008 vuelta, apparently clean.

How did he have his best GT results clean after being doped to the gills for the previous five or so years?

How did the tour average speed stay close to the same for clean riders?

It would be nice to see some scrutiny of data for the doping and not doping eras for the riders that confessed.
 
Jun 15, 2012
193
0
0
Along those same lines...how is it most of the top tier riders knew that Armstrong wouldn't win the Tour in his following comeback? When really pressed, guys like Contador and Schleck seemed to know Armstrong could not win when I would have thought Armstrong would have been the heavy favorite if they knew he was bringing in the same doping regime he employed to win 7 prior tours. Yes of course Armstrong had aged some but his level of winning was unheard of for 7 straight years and he had taken doping to new levels. Had the passport program limited freak styled doping methods by then and they knew Armstrong was merely another good rider vs the freak doping machine of years prior?
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
0
0
PosterBill said:
Along those same lines...how is it most of the top tier riders knew that Armstrong wouldn't win the Tour in his following comeback? When really pressed, guys like Contador and Schleck seemed to know Armstrong could not win when I would have thought Armstrong would have been the heavy favorite if they knew he was bringing in the same doping regime he employed to win 7 prior tours. Yes of course Armstrong had aged some but his level of winning was unheard of for 7 straight years and he had taken doping to new levels. Had the passport program limited freak styled doping methods by then and they knew Armstrong was merely another good rider vs the freak doping machine of years prior?
What makes you say they knew?
 
Jun 15, 2012
193
0
0
I would swear on my life that when Contador was asked on mulitple occasions who his biggest rivals were for the 2009 tour he would almost exclusively brush off Armstrong as a main rival, and it seemed Schleck was saying some similar things...however, I spent about 15 mintues looking back for the articles on this but I could not find much lol...

I did find some quotes from others that would have had inside knowledge of doping practices of the time:

Riis says
"But to be honest, to beat younger riders like (Alberto) Contador, Andy or Frank Schleck in the climbs, I don't think it is possible," he said.
 
Would be dismissing him as a rival (Armstrong) be just a bluff though,

He did beat Frank Schleck though

Perhaps his doping was a lot less, given the fact that they he came back thinking he'd brush aside everyone, I assume it was a lot harder to get away with things in 09 than between 99-05?
 
Armstrong was super old and, more importantly, had been retired for 3 full seasons. Of course no one considered him the top favourite.

As for the OT, I seriously hope those who lied in their testimonies will be proven wrong. I don't think they all lied, but I'm 100% sure a significant number of them did, and I hope they get caught and banned for life. You can't testify only when forced by the law, tell only what the guys investigating already knew, broadly speaking, lie about the rest to make yourself look better, and expect to come out of the whole thing as an antidoping hero. No sir.
 
Oct 12, 2012
10
0
0
Well i know everybody is very sceptic about the whole this is a new era story, but i can't totally agree.

1. The average speed dropped in the GT's although the total mileage dropped as well. But more important the speed uphill really dropped. Remember the reference of Lance Armstrong saying he watched a slow paced Sastre winning on Alpe d'Huez was the reason for his comeback?

2 Leipheimer could end high in ranking not because he became a better rider without dope but mainly because so many of his former rivals disappeared because for instance the Fuentes case. Rivals like Basso, Beloki, Ullrich, Klöden, Mancebo, Heras, Hamilton, Landis, Valjavec, Sevilla, Astarloza, Jaksche, Contador, Botero, Astarloza, Vinokourov, Valverde all missed out of a couple of Tour de France races because of allegations and so on.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,811
0
0
Pretty sure they had caught up with his secret substance, or had intel that his stash had run out, causing his to retire after 7.
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
0
0
hrotha said:
Armstrong was super old and, more importantly, had been retired for 3 full seasons. Of course no one considered him the top favourite.

As for the OT, I seriously hope those who lied in their testimonies will be proven wrong. I don't think they all lied, but I'm 100% sure a significant number of them did, and I hope they get caught and banned for life. You can't testify only when forced by the law, tell only what the guys investigating already knew, broadly speaking, lie about the rest to make yourself look better, and expect to come out of the whole thing as an antidoping hero. No sir.
Agree with the first paragraph.

To the second, some of the statements people are making (Cavendish, Millar) sound like they're putting up a firewall at 06 and intend to carry on as normal. This may have been orchestrated as a winner for everyone IMO, because people want to keep their jobs (which is legitimate in itself, because job security in cycling must be terrible). Last time the pre 99 era got cast out, this time the Armstrong era did, while the Cortador era is being put forward as clean. Next time we will discover that clean cycling began with Sky.

I'm just glad the current era of cycling is always clean.
 
2006-2009 was probably among the dirtiest eras ever.
Leipheimer claiming to be clean in those years is downright pathetic.

Based on what we know, in addition to power outputs, the last 20 years look something like this.
ca 1991-1996 unlimited EPO era
1997 - 1999 50% limit Epo Era
2000-2001 cleanest peleton in the last 20 years.
2000-2003 rise of blut doping, microdosis EP0
2006-2007 Blood doping era at it's peak
2008-2009 Cera era
2010- 2011: The peleton seems to get cleaner and cleaner.
2012: cleanest peleton since 2000-2001. Team Sky provides a huge questionmark, though
 
taiwan said:
Agree with the first paragraph.

To the second, some of the statements people are making (Cavendish, Millar) sound like they're putting up a firewall at 06 and intend to carry on as normal. This may have been orchestrated as a winner for everyone IMO, because people want to keep their jobs (which is legitimate in itself, because job security in cycling must be terrible). Last time the pre 99 era got cast out, this time the Armstrong era did, while the Cortador era is being put forward as clean. Next time we will discover that clean cycling began with Sky.

I'm just glad the current era of cycling is always clean.
That's a very good point about a 'firewall' starting at 06,

Reckon it will come down though when they go for Contador et al, seems like the Australian's may be starting their own investigations into Rogers and Davis,
 
May 25, 2009
403
0
0
Bavarianrider said:
2008-2009 Cera era
I don't think Cera was ever deployed all that widely before people started getting caught. If it was, then guys like those on Saulnier Duval and CSF-Navigare wouldn't have shown up in such a blatant way.

Most of the dopers were still on standard EPO and blood doping, restrained by the need to pass tests.
 
William H said:
I don't think Cera was ever deployed all that widely before people started getting caught. If it was, then guys like those on Saulnier Duval and CSF-Navigare wouldn't have shown up in such a blatant way.

Most of the dopers were still on standard EPO and blood doping, restrained by the need to pass tests.
By 2008 a good amount of riders acces to Cera, there is no doubt. And those who had did take a huge advantage. Just think of Kohl for example.
Of course the majority was rather on classic EPo and blood backs.
Nevertheless, as there were many cases of proven CEera. I think it is fair to call those two years
 
Bavarianrider said:
By 2008 a good amount of riders acces to Cera, there is no doubt. And those who had did have a huge advantage. Just think of Kohl for example.
By 2009 we must assume that it was widespread in the peleton. 2009 saw the most craziest performances since the mid 90es in terms of wattages.
CERA was talked about already around 2003. 2008 put an end to the CERA era.
 
Oct 12, 2012
10
0
0
Bavarianrider said:
2006-2009 was probably among the dirtiest eras ever.
Leipheimer claiming to be clean in those years is downright pathetic.
I'll give you 2006 and 2007. But then Ferrari became an outcast, Puerta case, Astana kicked out of the tour, Rasmussen kicked out of the tour...
So if 2008-2009 was one of the dirtiest periods, why could nobody's like Ricco, Kohl and Schumacher all of sudden make the jump to the topranks in cycling with doping? And why was the winning climbing time of Sastre on Alpe d'Huez in 2008 39' 31" versus 37' 36" of Lance Armstrong in 2004?
 
JJGisberts said:
I'll give you 2006 and 2007. But then Ferrari became an outcast, Puerta case, Astana kicked out of the tour, Rasmussen kicked out of the tour...
So if 2008-2009 was one of the dirtiest periods, why could nobody's like Ricco, Kohl and Schumacher all of sudden make the jump to the topranks in cycling with doping? And why was the winning climbing time of Sastre on Alpe d'Huez in 2008 39' 31" versus 37' 36" of Lance Armstrong in 2004?
Maybe i was abit slopy in my argumentation.
2008 was very dirty in my opinion, as it saw many riders taking huge leaps thanks to Cera. Maybe the overall level wasn't that high, you are right.


A bit off topic, but is there a test for hemopure?
Does anybody know?

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BI108/2006-108websites/group09artificialblood/Pages/hemopure.htm
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
There has been no clean era since at least 94!

Evans wasn't clean neither was Wiggins. You are only kidding yourselves.
 
Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
It is in the past???? No it isn't

PatM mumbles that all this revelation is in the past. AndyS bumbles that it is revelations of the past. We have moved on. NO WE HAVE NOT!!!!!!! We are still juicing up. Sky, Wiggins, Andy himself and many more. We have moved on to different styles, different quantities, different methods. How can Andy say we have moved on. Rasmussen was just 2008, AC was 2010, his brother was last year! I am now convinced that AC's clenB was from a bad BB, not from meat.

There is too much denial in our sport. From top to bottom. Peloton doesn't want to own up, cycling management prefers denial. We have no clean era....yet...I am hopeful
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
But I thought the Tour started in 1903. Surely there wasn't doping from 1894 as well. :D
Well I am giving it from '94 it was obvious that 99% of the peloton were doping. There were a few exceptions and they were the exceptions.

From 1894 i doubt everyone was cheating.

But anything to detract from TeamSky's recent lies;)
 
There probably hasn't ever been a clean tour free of some form of cheating, its a race involving humans who will always find a shortcut in life.

You could argue that even taking vitamin injections are illegal because its still putting something into the body that cannot be naturally produced in time for the next days stage.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
the riders either don't dope or the dope they use doesn't work anymore. since 2007 the colombians are appearing on the european cycling scene again and dominate from early age as well in elite as in u23 races. that prooves to me we are in a very "clean" era.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY