Tony Martin laments returning dopers

[sniper]

Progressive, constructive comments from Tony Martin. Obviously he finds the Vuelta podium laughable.

«Generell finde ich es immer sehr fragwürdig, wenn gedopte Fahrer irgendwann zurückkehren und dann große Ergebnisse einfahren. Das ist schade für den Sport (...) «Ich bevorzuge es, wenn junge saubere Fahrer vorne fahren anstatt Dopingsünder, die zurückkehren.»

Generally I find it questionnable when previously doped riders return and then race to huge victories. That's sad for the sport (...). I prefer when young clean riders race up front instead of returning dopers.

http://newsticker.sueddeutsche.de/list/id/1361918
He furthermore says that no exception should be made for LA and that he should be stripped if doping is proven.

I recall Galic Ho somewhere posting that next season we could be witnessing a split in the peloton between riders of the old "omerta" school and another bunch of riders willing to distance themselves from Lance and co.
So we can slowly start lining up teams. We already have Wiggins, Contador, in the old "omerta" school, and Martin apparently among the more progressive bunch.

 

[hrotha]

Meh, I wouldn't be so sure. Martin has to deal directly with the German media, so he has to play the game differently compared to, say, Contador. His suspicion index still stands out, as does, to a lesser extent, his riding for OPQS.

 

[Benotti69]

Meh, I wouldn't be so sure. Martin has to deal directly with the German media, so he has to play the game differently compared to, say, Contador. His suspicion index still stands out, as does, to a lesser extent, his riding for OPQS.

I agree.

At this stage, to call out riders is not enough. When are riders gonna call out teams using doping doctors?

Tony Martin has stayed inside the omerta, on the edge of it yes but still in it. With what we know about the sport to call out a rider is not enough and he has not done this.

OPQS have Ibarguren so Martin has to be careful but he hardly point a finger, he nodded in a direction, which is nothing.

 

[sniper]

Admitted, it's nothing to be overly cheerful about. And certainly not saying he is clean.
But let's at least appreciate him raising his middle finger at Contador/Valvi.
I assume he could have chosen not to comment on it at all.

 

[nowhereman]

I assume he could have chosen not to comment on it at all.

There you go! I think you might be onto something!

 

[babastooey]

Tony is experiencing many of the same feelings we all feel. I know a lot of cycling fans who weren't happy about Vino winning the gold medal.

The thought process, at least in my case, is this.

They were only successful before they got caught because they were cheating.

They got caught, and served out their suspension. I feel they are welcome to return, however, my feeling is that they shouldn't be as successful after getting caught versus before. They should become what they would have been if they had never doped in the first place. Leaders become waterboys. Think of David Millar. He won big time trials and Circuit de la Sarthe and some other stuff, but post-doping has become not very noteworthy unless he gives an interview.

However, when they return, some of the cyclists who were caught are still successful. This must mean that they are still cheating. Their being caught caused them not to clean up their act, but rather, to find a way to not get caught again.

Ultimately meaning: The catch and punishment of dopers is not working. Therefore there either need to be harsher punishments for first timers or, if there are undetectable doping products out there, better tests followed by lifetime bans for repeat offenders.

I actually had these same feelings in my first forum post. If enjoyment comes from clean sport, then enjoyment will not come as long as the testing cannot measure up to the doping. Perhaps bigger fines with the money going towards improving the science behind testing? Right now the technology battle appears to be too one sided.

 

[spetsa]

However, when they return, some of the cyclists who were caught are still successful. This must mean that they are still cheating. Their being caught caused them not to clean up their act, but rather, to find a way to not get caught again.

So much cynicism from you guys. Are you forgetting that the racing is clean now.

 

[Cycle Fiesta]

However, when they return, some of the cyclists who were caught are still successful. This must mean that they are still cheating. Their being caught caused them not to clean up their act, but rather, to find a way to not get caught again.

What about riders like Basso or Contador (Vuelta 2012), who have come back at a level clearly below where they were before the ban, but are still winning?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Oh Tony... I guess it's a German thing...

 

[sniper]

Oh Tony... I guess it's a German thing...

i agree, just like going after lance was french thing.

 

[Nilsson]

Admitted, it's nothing to be overly cheerful about. And certainly not saying he is clean.
But let's at least appreciate him raising his middle finger at Contador/Valvi.
I assume he could have chosen not to comment on it at all.

No we should not appreciate these kind of raised middle fingers. They are cheap, unjust and blatantly annoying (not to say possibly hypocritical).

 

[babastooey]

What about riders like Basso or Contador (Vuelta 2012), who have come back at a level clearly below where they were before the ban, but are still winning?

I'm not sure how you quantify "clearly below," but winning is still winning, so in my book, I don't see it as "clearly below." Perhaps now the doping is more low key and tactical, so instead of doping all the time, they have instead good events and bad events so as to not arouse suspicion.

Less important is the notion that if they could win without doping, why would they be stupid and do it. And yes, I know, of course the answer is because Lance Armstrong was doing it. I am still confused as to why Lance would be unable to win anything without drugs, while Basso (who Lance always beat) would be able to win without drugs. Was Lance on super drugs? Did drugs raise the level of Lance's performance more than drugs raised the level of Basso's performance?

No, at his best, without drugs, Basso is merely Rein Tarrame. In other words, a good climber, but not capable of winning anything. And at his best, without drugs, Lance Armstrong is apparently 55% of Sean Kelly on a really bad day. Or David Millar without drugs.

 

[hrotha]

I'm not sure how you quantify "clearly below," but winning is still winning, so in my book, I don't see it as "clearly below." Perhaps now the doping is more low key and tactical, so instead of doping all the time, they have instead good events and bad events so as to not arouse suspicion.

That doesn't fit the data at all. Contador in particular is very consistent, and if his hematocrit permit is legit, he might actually be a relatively bad responder, so he could get off the dope and not have his performance as diminished as others.

 

[The Hitch]

i do not fully trust anyone who merely goes after whoever has been caught. Theres a whole mentality many dopers clearly hold that getting caught is the sin. Mcquaid for example says he wants life bans for dopers, while doing his best to defend those he knows doped, but havent been caught yet.

Secondly where does this idea come from that young is clean? Are there any rational arguments to actually back up this idea that riders under 25 are morally superior to riders over 25 and wont dope?

 

[BroDeal]

He is afraid he will be beaten by Contador at the World's ITT.

 

[veganrob]

I'm not sure how you quantify "clearly below," but winning is still winning, so in my book, I don't see it as "clearly below." Perhaps now the doping is more low key and tactical, so instead of doping all the time, they have instead good events and bad events so as to not arouse suspicion.

Less important is the notion that if they could win without doping, why would they be stupid and do it. And yes, I know, of course the answer is because Lance Armstrong was doing it. I am still confused as to why Lance would be unable to win anything without drugs, while Basso (who Lance always beat) would be able to win without drugs. Was Lance on super drugs? Did drugs raise the level of Lance's performance more than drugs raised the level of Basso's performance?

No, at his best, without drugs, Basso is merely Rein Tarrame. In other words, a good climber, but not capable of winning anything. And at his best, without drugs, Lance Armstrong is apparently 55% of Sean Kelly on a really bad day. Or David Millar without drugs.

Based on your criteria, tell us the clean rider that should have won the Vuelta. Please do not say Chris Froome because he is more suspect than anything AC has done. And no, not getting caught is not a sign of not being doped.

 

[LaFlorecita]

He is afraid he will be beaten by Contador at the World's ITT.

Haha

 

[iZnoGouD]

What about riders like Basso or Contador (Vuelta 2012), who have come back at a level clearly below where they were before the ban, but are still winning?

Basso won and then he disappeared

 

[iZnoGouD]

That doesn't fit the data at all. Contador in particular is very consistent, and if his hematocrit permit is legit, he might actually be a relatively bad responder, so he could get off the dope and not have his performance as diminished as others.

i know from an interview that he responds very fast to training but it's probably not related to that

 

[BrentonOfTheNorth]

Did drugs raise the level of Lance's performance more than drugs raised the level of Basso's performance?

Well yes, when considering that Basso had to limit his doping to pass drug tests, unlike Armstrong.

 

[The Hitch]

Based on your criteria, tell us the clean rider that should have won the Vuelta. Please do not say Chris Froome because he is more suspect than anything AC has done. And no, not getting caught is not a sign of not being doped.

I would like to see someone say Froome. Cos then they would be in a corner trying to explain why overlooking Joaquim Rodriguez is not, what ali g called - racialism.

 

[RiccoDinko]

Tony Martin, no questions about his dominating performance?

 

[42x16ss]

Tony Martin, no questions about his dominating performance?

Who was supposed to beat him?

Tom Dumoulin was about where you'd expect him to be, as were Peraud, Tuft, Chavanel and TJVG. Durbridge was recovering from his first TdF and the collision with the Movistar soigneur. There was no Keldermerckx, Wigans, Cancellara, Larsson, Phinney, Millar, Malori, Dowsett or Froome so OFC Martin was going to obliterate it. Did you see him at the end? Looked like he was barely conscious. Guy knows how to hurt.

 

[sniper]

Tony Martin, no questions about his dominating performance?

Omega is a nobrainer.
Not much to discuss there.
Well, yeah, Martin's hypocricy for calling out others whilst doping himself is interesting, but not as irritating as Sky.

 

[blackcat]

as irritating as millar calling saunier duval. absolute numpy, glad he never got his send off at the tour