There is no way Cancellera is Clean!

[The Hitch]

Yup, simply assume that they're all doping and you need never think again!

Its a bit more complicated than that.

There is a lot of evidence that all cyclists dope.

But the Science of Sport article did it for me. It concluded that the huge performance enhancement PEDs give you, render it impossible for someone not on PEDs to beat someone who is on PEDs. I think Escrabajo has the link though others may too. Many athletes in cycling and other sports have come out and said the same thing.

If you read that, and look at this theory and then look at people like Frei and Garcia de Pena and the chinese radioshack rider getting popped, simple logic says that the guys crushing them on the climbs must be doing it too.

 

[Chuffy]

Its a bit more complicated than that.

Funny, that's my line in response to your simplistic attitude....

There is a lot of evidence that all cyclists dope.

Bull. Sh!t.
You're assuming one hell of a lot and substituting critical thought for a nice easy line that saves you from having to to deal anything more complicated.

 

[The Hitch]

Funny, that's my line in response to your simplistic attitude....


Bull. Sh!t.
You're assuming one hell of a lot and substituting critical thought for a nice easy line that saves you from having to to deal anything more complicated.

I dont really need to fight this battle for myself.

there are plenty of other clinic residents that can do it for me(dont desert me now boys )

But your accusation is stupid. Anyone who takes the everyone dopes view, simply "doesnt want to to deal with anything more complicated".

I SAID that this is NOT my view. If we were discussing your opinions then you might be able to tell us why you think the things you do.
But we are discussing MY opinions and on this matter MY posts are gospel. i decide why i hold an opinion NOT you. And i am telling you that i do not hold this opinion because im a coward looking for an easy way out.

Once again lets try this and see if you can give a better account of yourself. I hold this opinion because after seeing the evidence it is the point of view which convinces me more.

I will present to you a few points. try to dismiss it with something stronger than the word "bull ****".

Several scientists have come out and said that doping gives a advantage that non dopers can NOT match.

EPO can give 15%. SOme say more. When you consider that riders on the bottom end of the food chain or domestiques like David Garcia de Pena get caught doping, simple logic suggests the guys crushing them on mountains must be doing it to.
If de Pena could only manage 12th with a 15% increase, my god, he must have been crap without the EPO. Unless everyone esle is doping to. Ockhams razor says it must be the latter.

You accuse me so angrily of seeking an easy opinion. Freudian logic says you might be projecting your own feelings on others. Is it not you who is looking for the easy way out when you ignore these facts, and force yourself to believe that their are supermen out there performing miracles?

In another sport, Dwain Chambers said that it is impossible for a non doper to beat a doper in 100m. The same would apply to cycling.

Kohl quit from the sport saying it was impossible to ride without the drugs. Same thing.

Frei detailed just how easy it is to beat an drug test the day after taking EPO. Said he passed 99 out of 100 tests while he was doped and only a stupid mistake on his part caused him to test positive. Flandis has said similar things about passing tests as have others.

 

[Polyarmour]

Totaly agree.

I think Cancellara dopes (because its just too difficult to be at the top of a sport without doping, too big a edge it gives)

One point id like to make regarding Canc is the way he gets dropped in a ttt in quatar then a few weeks later crushes RVV and PR. Kind of like teammate Andy Schleck. It just seems strange to me when there is such a huge difference in cyclists between a peak and non peak form. For the world tt champ to get dropped in a ttt. Now thats special. Like Schleck getting dropped by sprinters in the TOC.

I think he had difficulties keeping up with the TTT in the Vuelta and then went on to win the Worlds a few weeks later? Certainly Cancellara shows big swings in form throughout the year. But so do a lot of other riders, Friere for example. Is this evidence of doping or is this evidence of well constructed macro, meso and microcycles? Someone like Cancellara can probably only peak for a couple of times in a year and even then his peak might only last a week or two? So at the start of the year he decides he wants to peak for RVV, PR and Worlds and everything else is just training. Just my take on it.

EDIT: Or what about the rider who doesn't show a big difference between peak and off peak? Someone who consistently wins across the the full breadth of the season like Contador? Perhaps that is more of issue than someone who shows variability?

 

[TubularBills]

You're assuming one hell of a lot and substituting critical thought for a nice easy line that saves you from having to to deal anything more complicated.

I dont really need to fight this battle for myself.

there are plenty of other clinic residents that can do it for me(dont desert me now boys )

Ok - Reading list for Chuffy - Here are a couple of examples of well reasoned critical thinking... with fancy stuff like Game Theory and lots of examples and supporting evidence:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/search?q=all+cyclists+dope

and, Torri

http://www.roadcycling.com/articles/Presecutor-All-Pro-Cyclists-Are-Doping_003934.shtml

and an interview with the founder of Bike Pure

http://www.cyclingtribe.com/article/post/show/id/90-Andy-from-Bike-Pure-CT-Interviews

Lots more, but that's a start... anyone else with links?

I guess we should start a thread entitled, All Cyclists Dope?

 

[bobs nob]

Well for starters, stop making these clowns into your "heroes". They do nothing heroic, they ride bikes for your entertainment. At the end of a race if you can answer "yes" when asked if you were entertained for X hours while you watched they did their job.

Why people make athletes into heroes is beyond me.

dunno about you, but down here in the real world, idolization of sports stars is about as natural as breathing...who are we supposed to idolize (that aren't a direct relative)? People have emotions, they aren't going to watch their favorite teams QB lead his team down for a winning score in the last minutes over and over and say 'I was entertained for 3 hours.' and just move on like it's some sort of compartment. They are going to elevate him to a superhuman status. duhh. How many riots at (soccer) football games do you have to see before you realize sports are more than a game?

I really could not disagree anymore.

 

[bobs nob]

Funny, that's my line in response to your simplistic attitude....


Bull. Sh!t.
You're assuming one hell of a lot and substituting critical thought for a nice easy line that saves you from having to to deal anything more complicated.

Sorry to break it to you. Over the past 4 years I have had to accept the reality that the clean pro cyclist is a rarity. It sucks. And don't even get me started on that whole easter bunny thing. :-(

 

[buckwheat]

Sorry to break it to you. Over the past 4 years I have had to accept the reality that the clean pro cyclist is a rarity. It sucks. And don't even get me started on that whole easter bunny thing. :-(

Dude, let me tell you a story. I had a wisdom tooth extracted last week and put it under my pillow. I wake up the next morning and what do you know...

 

[hector5950]

dunno about you, but down here in the real world, idolization of sports stars is about as natural as breathing...who are we supposed to idolize (that aren't a direct relative)? People have emotions, they aren't going to watch their favorite teams QB lead his team down for a winning score in the last minutes over and over and say 'I was entertained for 3 hours.' and just move on like it's some sort of compartment. They are going to elevate him to a superhuman status. duhh. How many riots at (soccer) football games do you have to see before you realize sports are more than a game?

I really could not disagree anymore.

And when they do that, they become sadly disappointed when the person they put up on pedestal and declared superhuman because they can throw a football, ride a bike fast or hit a golf ball proves to to be human after all.

So a bunch of drunken schmucks rioting at soccer games rationalizes this irrational behavior?

It's JUST entertainment.

 

[laziali]

To the hero discussion.

A hero is a doctor who saves lives, a careworker who gives the elderly someone to talk to, a soldier who jumps on a grenade saving the lives of his friends.

An athlete, who does what he does for purely his own self, does not qualify. No athletes qualify.

Now I'm all confused. I though Pharmstrong eradicated cancer. Surely that's where all the donations went?

 

[laziali]

Sorry to break it to you. Over the past 4 years I have had to accept the reality that the clean pro cyclist is a rarity. It sucks. And don't even get me started on that whole easter bunny thing. :-(

What? Easter Bunny came for my six year old just last night

 

[L'arriviste]

“True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.”

Arthur Ashe (American social Activist and Tennis Player, the first black winner of a major men's singles championship. 1943-1993)

I think this tennis guy was misquoted:

"...but the urge to serve others at whatever cost"

should be...

"...but the urge to serve at others whatever cost"

 

[Archibald]

To the hero discussion.

A hero is a doctor who saves lives, a careworker who gives the elderly someone to talk to, a soldier who jumps on a grenade saving the lives of his friends.

An athlete, who does what he does for purely his own self, does not qualify. No athletes qualify.

Besides at the top level of all sports you need to be what they call "competitive". The world view that your own victory is the most important thing in the world.

Its not so much your own victory as the defeat of others. For any athlete, to truly be happy they need someone else to experience defeat. The more bitter their defeat the more sweet the feeling. Ever been around athletes? Even at a junior level every athlete needs this.

Without this you just wouldnt be able to practise sport day after day after day. Without this you wouldnt be able to get up in the morning and hours in the gim followed by hours of endurance training. You wouldnt risk the injuries, hurt the body. And of course, without this world view that victory is the most important thing, you wouldnt take the risks with the Performance drugs.

There is nothing heroic in this world view though, and all athletes have it.

explain a domestique then, who's role is to literally bury themselves for a team leader... they have no crushing defeat of anyone by their own hand, nor podium place to gloat from...

but i can see your point and believe it is well made and an accurate observation.


As for someone who mentioned the purpose of sport being to aspire, that couldn't be further from the truth. the purpose of sport is to win - that's simply from it's origins: who can ride their bike faster than the next guy, who can score more goals than the other team, who can run fastest over whatever distance...
the non-athletes inspire - see the likes of Jane Tomlinson or that guy who carted his disabled son through the hawaii ironman

 

[The Hitch]

explain a domestique then, who's role is to literally bury themselves for a team leader... they have no crushing defeat of anyone by their own hand, nor podium place to gloat from...

but i can see your point and believe it is well made and an accurate observation.


As for someone who mentioned the purpose of sport being to aspire, that couldn't be further from the truth. the purpose of sport is to win - that's simply from it's origins: who can ride their bike faster than the next guy, who can score more goals than the other team, who can run fastest over whatever distance...
the non-athletes inspire - see the likes of Jane Tomlinson or that guy who carted his disabled son through the hawaii ironman

I suppose there is something heroic in not getting praised for doing something. This is often used in movies and books. No one knows who Spiderman is. The special agent who stops a terrorist attack is always anonimous. The soldier gets a prosthetic leg while the actor who plays him gets the applause the money and the girls. etc etc.

In that case domestiques might in a minor way fit the bill since they hurt themselves a lot, and all for someone else, and dont get much praise for it. Probably more so than anyone in sport.

I always thought the team of the TDF winner should be allowed to join him on the podium. Maybe after the 3 top guys get their photo have places 2 and 3 depart and let the team join the MJ for a photo and some aknowledgment. Then again, it would make their actions less heroic.

 

[MTDave]

To the hero discussion.

A hero is a doctor who saves lives, a careworker who gives the elderly someone to talk to, a soldier who jumps on a grenade saving the lives of his friends.

An athlete, who does what he does for purely his own self, does not qualify. No athletes qualify.

Well said Hitch.
I have been 'friends' with national level athletes. Nice guys, but you wouldn't want to count on them.

 

[JPM London]

I think he had difficulties keeping up with the TTT in the Vuelta and then went on to win the Worlds a few weeks later? Certainly Cancellara shows big swings in form throughout the year. But so do a lot of other riders, Friere for example. Is this evidence of doping or is this evidence of well constructed macro, meso and microcycles? Someone like Cancellara can probably only peak for a couple of times in a year and even then his peak might only last a week or two? So at the start of the year he decides he wants to peak for RVV, PR and Worlds and everything else is just training. Just my take on it.

EDIT: Or what about the rider who doesn't show a big difference between peak and off peak? Someone who consistently wins across the the full breadth of the season like Contador? Perhaps that is more of issue than someone who shows variability?

As for FC I think he could be the type who gets a lot of strength in motivation and so his performance can vary a lot from this alone. Please don't see this as a lame attempt to argue that he's clean - just saying this could be one of the factors. As for FC and dope I hope, but would not like to put my head on a chopping block...

As for other points in this thread I think a lot of the discussion depends on the definition of the word "hero"...

 

[bobs nob]

And when they do that, they become sadly disappointed when the person they put up on pedestal and declared superhuman because they can throw a football, ride a bike fast or hit a golf ball proves to to be human after all.

So a bunch of drunken schmucks rioting at soccer games rationalizes this irrational behavior?

It's JUST entertainment.

I'll type a little slower this time. The riots are just the logical extension of the sober fan run amok. It's not a rationalization. It's an exemplification.

 

[bobs nob]

As for FC I think he could be the type who gets a lot of strength in motivation and so his performance can vary a lot from this alone. Please don't see this as a lame attempt to argue that he's clean - just saying this could be one of the factors. As for FC and dope I hope, but would not like to put my head on a chopping block...

As for other points in this thread I think a lot of the discussion depends on the definition of the word "hero"...

It's one thing to debate 'hero' with words in a thoughtful ersatz ivory tower forum-civilization, it's quite another to see how real people really ACT. The things they do, not the PC words they utter. I take a person's actions much more seriously than a person's word.

People (mostly males) elevate sports stars. Do you happen to see a forum as busy and as passionate as this discussing doctors, nurses et cetera? Not whether they are the subject of the topic, but whether their action itself is the subject of the topic? I can provide 1000 websites that are about athletes for each 1 you can provide that discusses the actions of athletes vs doctors nurses firemen and elevates the person to a super-human.

PC thinking falls apart when it gets b--ch slapped by reality.

 

[Oldman]

explain a domestique then, who's role is to literally bury themselves for a team leader... they have no crushing defeat of anyone by their own hand, nor podium place to gloat from...

but i can see your point and believe it is well made and an accurate observation.


As for someone who mentioned the purpose of sport being to aspire, that couldn't be further from the truth. the purpose of sport is to win - that's simply from it's origins: who can ride their bike faster than the next guy, who can score more goals than the other team, who can run fastest over whatever distance...
the non-athletes inspire - see the likes of Jane Tomlinson or that guy who carted his disabled son through the hawaii ironman

I doubt any rider aspired to be a domestique, particularly a pro-version. Having done that duty, though; you can appreciate the group effort necessary to win and your role within that situation. Working for an opportunity to be the protected rider is motivating but for pros you are working for a paycheck. A Tight end spends more time blocking for the Quarterback's protection in the pocket and may not get a pass thrown to him the entire game. Because he does that a rare play to him can result in a TD.

Isn't up to individual motivation? Aspiration is the key for someone trying to improve their health, stay vital and not necessarily about winnning.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I doubt any rider aspired to be a domestique, particularly a pro-version. Having done that duty, though; you can appreciate the group effort necessary to win and your role within that situation. Working for an opportunity to be the protected rider is motivating but for pros you are working for a paycheck. A Tight end spends more time blocking for the Quarterback's protection in the pocket and may not get a pass thrown to him the entire game. Because he does that a rare play to him can result in a TD.

Isn't up to individual motivation? Aspiration is the key for someone trying to improve their health, stay vital and not necessarily about winnning.

Another good one, Oldman.

I would argue, contrary to the American idea that "Lance Armstrong has done so much for cycling", that Lance has actually damaged the sport. I don't mean his doping, but rather what Americans (as a whole, not necessarily the fringe element here) view cycling as. Cycling is not solely about winning the TdF. There is an entire universe of racing out there that the fanboys miss out on, particulary the more dramatic elements and niceties of the sport. Back to the "heroics" of the sport.

Heroism isn't the sole property of those that save peoples' lives (as a few posters have tried to enforce). It's the idea of doing the utmost of what you're capable of without the primary goal of personal gain. Sound like a domestique? That's one of the finer points of racing that a lot of people miss, infact it may not even be that evident unless you've raced on a structured team or been privy to the inner workings thereof.

It takes a team to make a win, not a wicked fast finisher. I had the enviable position to create those structures - where the team destroyed themselves to deliver our sprinter to the line for a win. I don't know how many times I told riders that their mission was to throw themselves at the front to chase down a threat, close a gap, tow primary riders to a crux point of the race, etc etc. After that, they'd be done. Not even finish, but what they did was "heroic" in that they did something self-defeating to create a winning situation for the team. Thankfully, our finisher was always full of recognition as to what the team had done for them.

Before the contrarians spout off about how riders are paid to do that, I'd like to interject that firemen are paid to do their job as well... We're talking about the pointless dispute of semantics at this point. Of course cycling is full of heroism!

 

[MarkvW]

huh??

Totaly agree.



I think Cancellara dopes (because its just too difficult to be at the top of a sport without doping, too big a edge it gives)

One point id like to make regarding Canc is the way he gets dropped in a ttt in quatar then a few weeks later crushes RVV and PR. Kind of like teammate Andy Schleck. It just seems strange to me when there is such a huge difference in cyclists between a peak and non peak form. For the world tt champ to get dropped in a ttt. Now thats special. Like Schleck getting dropped by sprinters in the TOC.

I don't understand this at all. Buy into this reasoning, and everybody MUST be doping. If you're too consistent, then you must be doping. If you fluctuate, then you must be doping. The only wiggle room in your rationale is the "huge difference" between performances in any one year. That doesn't mean anything to me because a non doper's performances would be expected to fluctuate wildly.

Race-day performance boosters will get the racer caught (won't they?). Blood doping (including microdosing EPO) is an exception, but it is only useful for maintenance of hematocrit, because the doper will get caught if the spike is too big. All the other techniques focus on long term improvement. The doper is the ultra-consistent robotic machine. Am I missing something?

This dope-fueled consistency is what makes the Tour so boring lately. Everything is calculated and measured. Yawn.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I would say that inconsitency through a FULL season of racing is natural. If you're racing all year, there are going to be races that you key on and others that you go into a bit taxed - to hammer yourself a bit more to get the recovery 'training effect' of having over-done it.

The fact that LA focused solely on one race, and could show up for that one ready to rock, was always a bit suspect. As a racer you need to throw yourself to wolves regularly. Suffer a whole bunch, get a feel for the competition, recover, get stronger, and then prep for the ones you're keying on. Pick your fight.

I'm not saying explicitly that FC's clean. I don't know. I'm just saying that inconsitency throughout a whole season is really not a sign of anything.

 

[The Hitch]

I don't understand this at all. Buy into this reasoning, and everybody MUST be doping. If you're too consistent, then you must be doping. If you fluctuate, then you must be doping. The only wiggle room in your rationale is the "huge difference" between performances in any one year. That doesn't mean anything to me because a non doper's performances would be expected to fluctuate wildly.

Race-day performance boosters will get the racer caught (won't they?). Blood doping (including microdosing EPO) is an exception, but it is only useful for maintenance of hematocrit, because the doper will get caught if the spike is too big. All the other techniques focus on long term improvement. The doper is the ultra-consistent robotic machine. Am I missing something?

This dope-fueled consistency is what makes the Tour so boring lately. Everything is calculated and measured. Yawn.

There is a big gap between super consistency and fluctuating performance that is occupied by most of the peloton.

Its not that Cancellara is inconsistent. That would be if he didnt do anything in the Tour of Quatar. Its that he was extremely poor. He got dropped in the ttt. Its more so the case with Schleck. Hes a climber who crushed everyone but Contador on the Tourmalet. Put minutes at will into the best climbers out there. And he gets dropped by sprinters in the TOC. Loses 9 minutes on the first road bump in the Vuelta. These are huge differences between their peaks and off days. Perhaps not as much with Cancellara.

Im not the one who says that being consistent is sign of doping. But the people that do wont point to someone performing well at minor events like TOC, TOT before a gt. Thell point to someone like COntador winning Castille y Leon, Algarve, Paris Nice, top 10 ing ardennes classics, winning 2 stages in Dauphine including alpe, then winning tour. That is top level performance for a big period of time. I can see why people might see that as suspicious.

But this all is of minor importance anyway because those arent the reasons why i think either Cancellara or Schleck dopes. Like i said, they are just points to consider.

The reason why i think all the top guys dope, is because we have seen time and time again people that they beat, get caught for doping.

Di Luca was a doper. Schleck at the age of 21 matched him in the mountains in the Giro. FInished close behind a doped Piepoli on the ZOnc.

Ricco was a doper. Contador beat him in the Giro.

Mosquera is a doper Nibali beat him in the Vuelta.

Doping isnt something that gives you a 0.5 % edge, something that would help an otherwise decent Ricco, contend in the Giro. SOmething that you take to then lose to clean riders. Doping gives you HUGE advantages.

I can accept the peloton is clean if no one gets caught. THen theres nothing for me to speculate that they are all doping. But the moment, RIcco tests positive, Mosquera tests positive, Di Luca tests positive, the whole graph is shifted. I and others find it difficult to believe that clean Schlecks, Nibalis, Contadors are so superhuman that they can contend with and BEAT guys who are getting a 15% + advantage from PEDs.

I also take into account what people like Frei said, regarding how easy it is to cheat the tests, and what people like Kohl said, regarding it being impossible to contend without drugs.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

True enough, Hitch. I agree with Kohl et al, I just like how Cancellara throws it down. And since he has, somehow, stayed out of the doping sh*t show I thought it was pertinent to mention that he hasn't been popped yet.

 

[Black-Balled]

Do you follow other sports?
...I'm all aware that cycling has a doping problem...but in my opinion other sports are far worse as they are still deep, deep in denial...

That is a logical as telling to police you don't deserve a speeding ticket coz everyone else was going fast too!@