Top 10 Vuelta; who's clean?

[the big ring]

You have people like myself and numerous others who try to look at the most relevant evidence which are things like eyewitness testimony, involvement in a doping investigation, positive test results and impossible physical performances. Then

Relevant evidence like hill climbing ability ortimetrial ability right?

Or did you mean evidence like [http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1015059&postcount=5371]public relations pieces[/url].

 

[131313]

I didn't say it was.

A good percentage of the posts treated the English speaking or 'white' riders from the position that they were less likely to be doping, and the southern European brown riders as being more likely to be doping, with no justification provided.

I see the same sort of bigotry played out throughout the Anglophone cycling press.

If you don't think there's a racial reason for it, you are, to your use your own words, beyond help. It's bullsh!t, and does us in the Clinic no credit.

The problem is, you're blaming it skin color vs. the people testing and managing the results. Right now, if you're a Spanish athlete you pretty much have no credibility. That's not based on skin color and/or xenophobia, it's based on a Federation which has zero interest in enforcing anti-doping rules. I wouldn't expect to hear much about JRod, since according to the Spanish Valverde and Contador are both clean.

Most all national federations are in the same boat. The only countries at this point that have any real credibility are those with strong independent anti-doping organizations, such as AFLD, USADA and to an extend CONI. I've never heard people going to the mat for the riders from LUX given their own federation's disregard for their rider's doping, and you don't get much whiter than Frank Schleck...

The attitude of the Spanish federation is irrelevant, unless it is responsible for all of the athletes' testing. In order for it to go to the Federation, the rider first must test positive or be subject to an investigation.

I am not aware of any positive tests or open investigation - or even rumours - regarding Rodriguez, Anton, Inxtausti, etc. Want to fill in the gaps here, as I'd love to hear about how the Spanish Fed has covered it up?

None of that denies that the Spanish Fed does have a shocking reputation for going after their own. (Their police are quite active, though, and have gone further than the FDA did with US riders).

The national federation is responsible for all OOC testing and results management (excluding the passport), as well as investigating non-analytical cases, so yes, it's totally relevant. They have no credibility, so by extension neither do their riders, including the clean ones. That's sad for them. I'm hardly saying that USADA is perfect by any means, but at least they're trying.

If it makes you feel any better, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the next Great White Hope is juiced, simply because I've seen guys much better at the same age not make anywhere near the progression he's made. Plus, he's really annoying, and I'm sick of hearing his persecution complex..."oh, poor me, they're asking me about doping", "why can't the press leave it alone", blah blah... Me think he doth protest to much.

 

[Runitout]

The problem is, you're blaming it skin color vs. the people testing and managing the results.

Yes; yes I am. Because that's what appears to underlie most of the assumptions I have seen from Anglophones (in particular, the Anglophone media) in the last fifteen years concerning doping. Blue eyes good; brown eyes bad. You may see it as deriving from a perception of the Spanish Fed, but that's not where it's really coming from.

Surely you can see that?

Ever seen how the Aussie Fed dealt with dopers like Stephens? Yet we don't assume all Aussies are dopers. But a Kazakh or Spaniard? Oh boy.

Right now, if you're a Spanish athlete you pretty much have no credibility. That's not based on skin color and/or xenophobia, it's based on a Federation which has zero interest in enforcing anti-doping rules. I wouldn't expect to hear much about JRod, since according to the Spanish Valverde and Contador are both clean.

Most all national federations are in the same boat. The only countries at this point that have any real credibility are those with strong independent anti-doping organizations, such as AFLD, USADA and to an extend CONI. I've never heard people going to the mat for the riders from LUX given their own federation's disregard for their rider's doping, and you don't get much whiter than Frank Schleck...

Fair point.

The national federation is responsible for all OOC testing and results management (excluding the passport), as well as investigating non-analytical cases, so yes, it's totally relevant. They have no credibility, so by extension neither do their riders, including the clean ones. That's sad for them. I'm hardly saying that USADA is perfect by any means, but at least they're trying.

This is true. Fair enough.

If it makes you feel any better, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the next Great White Hope is juiced, simply because I've seen guys much better at the same age not make anywhere near the progression he's made. Plus, he's really annoying, and I'm sick of hearing his persecution complex..."oh, poor me, they're asking me about doping", "why can't the press leave it alone", blah blah... Me think he doth protest to much.

The vocal persecution complex is a big flashing light, as far as I am concerned. I pretty much write off anyone who tries it on.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

not since 06 there has been 1 top 3 in the Vuelta that has been clean

 

[will10]

1. Contador - 8
2. Valverde - 8
3. Rodriguez - 6
4. Froome - 8
5. Moreno - 7
6. Gesink - 5
7. Talansky - 2
8. Ten Dam - 7
9. Anton - 5
10. Intxausti - 6

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Highly funny thread.

Spanish doped, Talansky clean, Froome probably, okaaay.

The correct answer though is:

1-10, all clean. No positive so far, so they have to be regarded as clean.

Are they really clean or just doped so well that it can't be detected? In the end who cares. Ah yes, some moralists who demand that cyclists are perfect humans. Health concerns? Good doping is very likely much healthier than riding completely clean, but the whole doping-mania, cheater here, cheater there, in the end is not about health and not about fairness, it's about moralizing, dissing riders you don't like etc.

10 years ago not clean, now maybe yes? Doping is not Doping, EPO, CERA in huge quantities are out, microdosing maybe, maybe less effect, or more traditional methods, the next wonderdrug not there yet. So yes, it's not as fast as in the EPO high era anymore. Doesn't mean there is no doping anymore. Look at athletics, women in the 80es, Koch etc, all the records still there. Is athletics now clean, and has been since the early 90es? (Exception the turtle-blood army). Or have controls just improved, so that the most effective products, male hormons, are detecatable, so aren't in use anymore? I'd say the second. Same for cycling. The drugs that REALLY made a difference (but where never a substitute for training, on the contrary) are very likely mostly gone, the other ones not.

Very likely all top athletes are usually at a similar level when it comes to sports medicine. Which is what doping is. If then it's on the legal side or not doesn't matter unless somebody is caught. The line between legal and illegal sports medicine is pretty random anyway, performance enhancing, unhealthy. Isn't sugar perfomance enhancing? Is EPO unhealthy?

But ok, now I know that Talansky is clean, Froome probably, the rest very likely not. Thanks.

 

[Ferminal]

Highly funny thread.

Spanish doped, Talansky clean, Froome probably, okaaay.

The correct answer though is:

1-10, all clean. No positive so far, so they have to be regarded as clean.

Are they really clean or just doped so well that it can't be detected? In the end who cares. Ah yes, some moralists who demand that cyclists are perfect humans. Health concerns? Good doping is very likely much healthier than riding completely clean, but the whole doping-mania, cheater here, cheater there, in the end is not about health and not about fairness, it's about moralizing, dissing riders you don't like etc.

10 years ago not clean, now maybe yes? Doping is not Doping, EPO, CERA in huge quantities are out, microdosing maybe, maybe less effect, or more traditional methods, the next wonderdrug not there yet. So yes, it's not as fast as in the EPO high era anymore. Doesn't mean there is no doping anymore. Look at athletics, women in the 80es, Koch etc, all the records still there. Is athletics now clean, and has been since the early 90es? (Exception the turtle-blood army). Or have controls just improved, so that the most effective products, male hormons, are detecatable, so aren't in use anymore? I'd say the second. Same for cycling. The drugs that REALLY made a difference (but where never a substitute for training, on the contrary) are very likely mostly gone, the other ones not.

Very likely all top athletes are usually at a similar level when it comes to sports medicine. Which is what doping is. If then it's on the legal side or not doesn't matter unless somebody is caught. The line between legal and illegal sports medicine is pretty random anyway, performance enhancing, unhealthy. Isn't sugar perfomance enhancing? Is EPO unhealthy?

But ok, now I know that Talansky is clean, Froome probably, the rest very likely not. Thanks.

Why would that be? If you dope, you don't ride at your limit?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Alberto Contador is clean, talansky,ten dam, gesink and froome are dirty.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Alberto Contador is clean, talansky,ten dam, gesink and froome are dirty.

Yes

by the way you forgot to mention he looks like that a from that film e

 

[Benotti69]

Highly funny thread.

Spanish doped, Talansky clean, Froome probably, okaaay.

The correct answer though is:

1-10, all clean. No positive so far, so they have to be regarded as clean.

Are they really clean or just doped so well that it can't be detected? In the end who cares. Ah yes, some moralists who demand that cyclists are perfect humans. Health concerns? Good doping is very likely much healthier than riding completely clean, but the whole doping-mania, cheater here, cheater there, in the end is not about health and not about fairness, it's about moralizing, dissing riders you don't like etc.

10 years ago not clean, now maybe yes? Doping is not Doping, EPO, CERA in huge quantities are out, microdosing maybe, maybe less effect, or more traditional methods, the next wonderdrug not there yet. So yes, it's not as fast as in the EPO high era anymore. Doesn't mean there is no doping anymore. Look at athletics, women in the 80es, Koch etc, all the records still there. Is athletics now clean, and has been since the early 90es? (Exception the turtle-blood army). Or have controls just improved, so that the most effective products, male hormons, are detecatable, so aren't in use anymore? I'd say the second. Same for cycling. The drugs that REALLY made a difference (but where never a substitute for training, on the contrary) are very likely mostly gone, the other ones not.

Very likely all top athletes are usually at a similar level when it comes to sports medicine. Which is what doping is. If then it's on the legal side or not doesn't matter unless somebody is caught. The line between legal and illegal sports medicine is pretty random anyway, performance enhancing, unhealthy. Isn't sugar perfomance enhancing? Is EPO unhealthy?

But ok, now I know that Talansky is clean, Froome probably, the rest very likely not. Thanks.

How do you know Talansky and Froome are clean?

Your reasoning is they are all clean because the oh so easy tests to beat prove they are clean, then you end with those that speak eeeennggliiish are clean and the rest probably not!

My reasoning is that none are clean. They all microdope. Is it healthy to microdope? I dont know, has anyone clean cyclist died from riding a GT? But whether it is healthier or not (and i doubt it) it is still cheating.

Talansky says there is no tolerance for returning dopers but says Contador is respected and there is no evidence against Armstrong?

Yeah, how about that, a JV rider defending the biggest doper and Contador wonder why?

 

[Mellow Velo]

See other thread.
Talansky went from clean to dirty, overnight.

 

[Frosty]

How do you know Talansky and Froome are clean?

Your reasoning is they are all clean because the oh so easy tests to beat prove they are clean, then you end with those that speak eeeennggliiish are clean and the rest probably not!

Im pretty sure that is what he was taking the micky out of that opinion.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

How do you know Talansky and Froome are clean?

I learned that while reading this thread.

But whether it is healthier or not (and i doubt it) it is still cheating.

Yes. Like jaywalking is illegal. Like "improving" your CV is cheating.

 

[Benotti69]

I learned that while reading this thread.

Might read the Froome dedicated thread then for other views

Yes. Like jaywalking is illegal. Like "improving" your CV is cheating.

Lying on your CV is still lying. If your lies get you the job over someone else who didn't lie, well that is cheating.

Jaywalking is a personal thing that most likely wont affect anyone else unlike cheating in a race or on your CV.

 

[zigmeister]

This is the clinic, nobody is clean.

 

[workingclasshero]

contador is probably clean, he is a rider with such a big heart (not physically, I know nowt about that), we can probably account for 0,5w/kg extra just coz he's such a passionate cyclist