the "clean" era

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Ryo Hazuki said:
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.
Because Colombians are too poor to buy Dope?
Because the doping control in Colombia is the best in the world?

How much I would like to believe you I can't.

I do think cycling is becoming cleaner, but I'm pretty sure Sky found the new next big thing.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
Kwibus said:
Because Colombians are too poor to buy Dope?
Because the doping control in Colombia is the best in the world?

How much I would like to believe you I can't.

I do think cycling is becoming cleaner, but I'm pretty sure Sky found the new next big thing.
because colombians even when doping are barely effected by it because of their natural values. unlike europeans. the 90s and late 80s where the colombians started to get blown away proove that point very well.

even then never has a colombian been caught on doping in europe. if they do they know there is no way back. an honor thing representing a country often hated and misjudged worldwide, colombians are very aware of their image in the outside world.
 
Ryo Hazuki said:
because colombians even when doping are barely effected by it because of their natural values. unlike europeans. the 90s and late 80s where the colombians started to get blown away proove that point very well.

even then never has a colombian been caught on doping in europe. if they do they know there is no way back. an honor thing representing a country often hated and misjudged worldwide, colombians are very aware of their image in the outside world.
Botero was caught wasn't he? I'm not sure so this is a question.

Ryo I hope your right, but it's hard not to be cynical ;)
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Ryo Hazuki said:
because colombians even when doping are barely effected by it because of their natural values. unlike europeans. the 90s and late 80s where the colombians started to get blown away proove that point very well.

even then never has a colombian been caught on doping in europe. if they do they know there is no way back. an honor thing representing a country often hated and misjudged worldwide, colombians are very aware of their image in the outside world.
Colombians are the chosen people..................


pity there is no god.

Ah well. Colombians are human, i hope, like the rest of us.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Ryo cool to see you in the clinic for a while now. That´s the real place to be. ;)

Both of you are right, i think.
The colombians were there in the 80s, gone with the arrival of epo, and now back where they belong.
But i wouldn´t go as far to say that they don´t dope. I just think the things are limited now, not like in the dark wild west days of Indurain until Pharmstrong.
 
Oct 14, 2012
78
0
0
I would say that Lemond in 1990 may have been the last clean winner of the Tour. And totally clean cycling belongs in the realms of mythology. There will always be dopers in the Peloton. What the percentage will be, is anyone's guess. The prize money will increase in the Years to come, giving those riders an even greater incentive to cheat. Pharmacology is forever evolving. Cheating in sport is part of Human Evolutionary Psychology. I would be pretty sure that the cheaters level of sophisticated evading techniques will always be one step ahead of the testers. New drugs, plus gene doping will inevitably come along, which athletes will take full advantage of in order to get on the first step of the podium, and aid their financial situation.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
Kwibus said:
Botero was caught wasn't he? I'm not sure so this is a question.

Ryo I hope your right, but it's hard not to be cynical ;)
botero was never caught and he was acquitted of fuentes case by both federation and uci, similar as davis. I'm not saying he didn't dope btw. still in botero's first 4 years he was he was paid 600 euros per month by kelme. a ridiculous salary. there's even an interview with him about it. that changed after his incredible 2000 tour. still with 600 euros per month I doubt you have much to give on doping, let alone epo and transfusions
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Ryo cool to see you in the clinic for a while now. That´s the real place to be. ;)

Both of you are right, i think.
The colombians were there in the 80s, gone with the arrival of epo, and now back where they belong.
But i wouldn´t go as far to say that they don´t dope. I just think the things are limited now, not like in the dark wild west days of Indurain until Pharmstrong.
http://www.cyclinginquisition.com/2012/06/victories-disappointments-and-how-epo.html

here's a great interview about it with henry cardenas. he describes well the changes in early 90s
 
Ryo Hazuki said:
botero was never caught and he was acquitted of fuentes case by both federation and uci, similar as davis. I'm not saying he didn't dope btw. still in botero's first 4 years he was he was paid 600 euros per month by kelme. a ridiculous salary. there's even an interview with him about it. that changed after his incredible 2000 tour. still with 600 euros per month I doubt you have much to give on doping, let alone epo and transfusions
Those acquittals were a joke. All Spanish riders were acquitted too, and it was every bit as much of a joke. Now you have Peña doing transfusions.

Fact is, due to their physiology (small frames, naturally high hematocrits) the average (emphasis on average) Colombian rider doesn't benefit as much from blood doping as riders from other countries. But they still performed better doped than clean, and so, they doped just like everyone else. Nowadays you get less of a boost from doping, so most Colombian riders aren't at such a huge disadvantage as they were for most of the 90s.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
0
0
Clean Era?

I think most of you are confusing that with the "we no longer talk about it even amongst the key riders".

If its the sol called Clean Era, how do you explain all those dirty doctors still on teams and how the wins follow them from team to team as they move?
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
hrotha said:
Those acquittals were a joke. All Spanish riders were acquitted too, and it was every bit as much of a joke. Now you have Peña doing transfusions.

Fact is, due to their physiology (small frames, naturally high hematocrits) the average (emphasis on average) Colombian rider doesn't benefit as much from blood doping as riders from other countries. But they still performed better doped than clean, and so, they doped just like everyone else. Nowadays you get less of a boost from doping, so most Colombian riders aren't at such a huge disadvantage as they were for most of the 90s.
the spanish riders weren't acquitted by the uci though. only by national federations I think and even that I don't remember too well.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
ElChingon said:
Clean Era?

I think most of you are confusing that with the "we no longer talk about it even amongst the key riders".

If its the sol called Clean Era, how do you explain all those dirty doctors still on teams and how the wins follow them from team to team as they move?
pls give examples? did quickstep fly all of a sudden in the grand tours with their new doctor? nope :rolleyes: other than the cobbled races and races in february which they always rule because of ealry shape it was nothing exceptional compared to the level of riders they have.
 
Ryo Hazuki said:
pls give examples? did quickstep fly all of a sudden in the grand tours with their new doctor? nope :rolleyes: other than the cobbled races and races in february which they always rule because of ealry shape it was nothing exceptional compared to the level of riders they have.
Jose Ibarguren.
 
Oct 12, 2012
10
0
0
My view is that surely the total number of dopers in the peloton is lower then in 1997 or 2004. And the dope that is used is extremely expensive. What makes it easier for clean riders to win races.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
Zam_Olyas said:
Jose Ibarguren.
that's the example I gave. nothing fundamental changed with ibarguren. basiclaly post ealry april they've sucked hard as always even though this yera they actually got gc riders in their team that failed hard. martin, velits and leechheimer :rolleyes:
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
gooner said:
You say that, but what about his TT win in the 02 Tour when he beat Armstrong. Even though he was a good time trialist, you could'nt help be suspicious looking at him that day.
he has beaten armstrong more than once in flat itt. also in dauphinee. he was simply a better itt rider than armstrong. same as ullrich was better than lance. armstrong always won the final itt in a tour because of epo and transfusions while boteor always faded away during a tour and would be happy to finish 7th in a final itt.
 
Jul 1, 2009
12
0
0
The real reason they all testify that their doping ending in after 2006 is to serve that part of USADA's story which focuses on Armstrong as the facilitator and the man that forced everyone else to dope. As strong as the other testimonal evidence is, USADA wants to strengthen their case further by making out Zabriske, et al. as victims of Lance's doping program, instead of what they all actually are: voluntary participants that decided to dope to take a shot at the big time or at least to be part of the big time.

If evidence of doping after 2006 was permitted, then it would become clear that these riders doped of their own accord even after Lance left the scene, calling into question USADA's claim of Lance forcing drugs down everyone's throats. They need this claim to strenghten their conspiracy count.

At the end of the day, there is some chance that this 2006 cutoff strategy could really backfire on USADA. If someone came forward with evidence that the testifying riders doped after they claim they stopped, their credibility would be undermined substantially. On the other hand, these riders probably would not have testified unless USADA promised them that the period of investigation would be 1999-2006 and no further.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
0
0
zabriskie started to really go downhil after 2006 though in his results. I remember his ridiculous giro 2005 itt's the first one he did the final flat part with over 60 km/h average.
 
Don't get me wrong, but did Leipheimer really say he was clean since 2008? For me it sounds more like there was a sort of gentlemen agreement between Levi and the USADA to not involve anything past 2007 in the case. So that there's no doping confession of Levi within the last 5 years. Didn't Levi only swear that he was clean at this years Tour which was obviously and also is implicating that he wasn't from 2008-2011. (Hell 08 was his best year ever, he would've even beaten Contador at the Vuelta if allowed to do so).


Talking about Cera it's still my point of view that in 2008 small but talented fishes like Sella just had the oppurtunity to be on the same great juice as the big ones once in their careers due to lucky circumstances. But that's cleary just a personal interpretation from my own side!
 
Ryo Hazuki said:
the spanish riders weren't acquitted by the uci though. only by national federations I think and even that I don't remember too well.
The UCI didn't get involved. Their federations acquitted them, UCI didn't appeal. You can see the Puerto files in the USADA site, they're pretty unambiguous about the involvement of Botero and the others.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
lawhoo said:
The real reason they all testify that their doping ending in after 2006 is to serve that part of USADA's story which focuses on Armstrong as the facilitator and the man that forced everyone else to dope. As strong as the other testimonal evidence is, USADA wants to strengthen their case further by making out Zabriske, et al. as victims of Lance's doping program, instead of what they all actually are: voluntary participants that decided to dope to take a shot at the big time or at least to be part of the big time.

If evidence of doping after 2006 was permitted, then it would become clear that these riders doped of their own accord even after Lance left the scene, calling into question USADA's claim of Lance forcing drugs down everyone's throats. They need this claim to strenghten their conspiracy count.

At the end of the day, there is some chance that this 2006 cutoff strategy could really backfire on USADA. If someone came forward with evidence that the testifying riders doped after they claim they stopped, their credibility would be undermined substantially. On the other hand, these riders probably would not have testified unless USADA promised them that the period of investigation would be 1999-2006 and no further.
So the second reason is absolutely fundamental (otherwise there would be no case), yet you go for the "USADA is tampering with the evidence line".

Amazing reasoning skills on display :rolleyes:

And of course those neo's who got fired after a chat with Lance are of course coming forward now to strengthen the USADA case.

He's being framed!
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Talk of a clean era is nonsense..there is NO clean era, never has been, possibly never will be.
All there is is variation in effectiveness , arguably many "PED,s" pre oxygen boosting were not not so much performance enhancers as drugs that enabled riders to perform at the limit of there " in best health" condition.
This distinction is important.
Professional sportsmen are expected to perform week in week out in all kinds of weather conditions and the option to rest is not always possible.

My thoughts are that more research should be carried out to determine this distinction.
 
Jul 1, 2009
12
0
0
I ain't accusing them of tampering with evidence, guy. I wrote that they may be ignoring evidence post-2006 to make the conspiracy case, and if so, they ought to be careful because it puts the credibility of their witnesses at risk.

Franklin said:
So the second reason is absolutely fundamental (otherwise there would be no case), yet you go for the "USADA is tampering with the evidence line".

Amazing reasoning skills on display :rolleyes:

And of course those neo's who got fired after a chat with Lance are of course coming forward now to strengthen the USADA case.

He's being framed!
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
lawhoo said:
I ain't accusing them of tampering with evidence, guy. I wrote that they may be ignoring evidence post-2006 to make the conspiracy case, and if so, they ought to be careful because it puts the credibility of their witnesses at risk.
That's miles from what you wrote.

lawhoo said:
The real reason they all testify that their doping ending in after 2006 is to serve that part of USADA's story which focuses on Armstrong as the facilitator and the man that forced everyone else to dope.
That's not writing that they might be ignoring evidence. that's full on accusing that they are ignoring evidence on purpose to implicate Lance and that you know the truth.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts