Total Disillusionment

Page 24 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Lanark said:
Except for Cancellara. When he improved in 2008, at age 27, that was clear proof he upped his doping program.
You're aware that I think Phil upped his program as well in 2009 right? I'm just stating why Purito's career can't be compared to Phil's. I'm just saying that 27 is a rather normal age to win your first Monument and that I don't consider that old. Winning your first Monument at age 33 is old.

Though as I said before, yes, I think an 82kg rider that climbed like Cancellara in 2008/2009 is very fishy. He was already a good classic rider before that. His climbing is what changed then. And he didn't lose any power on the cobbles or flat time trials while his climbing improved drastically for someone of his type.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Pistolero, did you read Lefevre on Gilbert in de Standaard? On ABX and corticosteroids?
The Lefevere that is **** hurt that Phil didn't sign with him? Hardly an opinion worth considering, considering his obvious bias(like his comment about Phil getting beaten by Chavanel at the WC last year lol).
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
El Pistolero said:
The Lefevere that is **** hurt that Phil didn't sign with him? Hardly an opinion worth considering, considering his obvious bias(like his comment about Phil getting beaten by Chavanel at the WC last year lol).
And you dont think it is strange he did not get a ride on Lotto back then, given the fact ABX was supposed to be the youth squad of Lotto?
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
And you dont think it is strange he did not get a ride on Lotto back then, given the fact ABX was supposed to be the youth squad of Lotto?
No, quite common in cycling. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if Rick Zabel ends up at OPQS instead of Blanco(if they still exist then).

And I haven't read the article for the record, I only read het Nieuwsblad. Though I very much doubt any team would care about a cyclist using cortisones or asthma medication, especially back in 2001. The peloton would be very small if we exclude everyone that abused those things.
 
Red Rick said:
While the bunch might be a tiny little bit cleaner, it used to be more fun when you didn't know which cheater was gonna win before the race started.
How is this more fun than not knowing what clean rider is going to win before the race started. Your logic is perverted! This is a classic example of a "fan" who does not take doping seriously, and until fans demand accountability the culture of doping remains!
 
RobbieCanuck said:
How is this more fun than not knowing what clean rider is going to win before the race started. Your logic is perverted! This is a classic example of a "fan" who does not take doping seriously, and until fans demand accountability the culture of doping remains!
The problem is not that they don't take doping seriously, in my reading of it at least.

The problem is that the poster feels that:
1) the bunch is a bit cleaner than it was a few years ago
2) the bunch is not sufficiently clean for them to have faith that the winners are clean.

Therefore, they are still suffering the same misery of feeling that the winners are usually dopers, but without the spirit of competition on the way, because the conclusions are becoming mind-numbingly predictable.

The other problem of course is that as the bunch becomes cleaner, the advantages of doping become more patently obvious. In 1996 there were ten Emanuele Sellas wearing out their brakepads on the switchbacks of the Alps. In 2008, Sella looked ridiculous. The bunch was cleaner, relatively speaking, so he stood out like a sore thumb. But we know that that bunch wasn't clean either. Just look at the GC of that race - Contador, Riccò, di Luca, Menchov... all up there. A lot of the getting cleaner was not that doping was stopping, but more that it was becoming far more regulated. This process continues to this day, where many riders are doping, however they are doing so on a progressively tighter leash that decreases the size of the gap between them and the paniagua until one day that gap can be breached. We mustn't be naïve enough to think that one day we'll be able to guarantee our winner is clean, because also as that gap gets smaller, the amount of dope required to turn you into a standout becomes less as well. You won't see Pantani-speed any time soon. Even the most sophisticated dopers aren't able to go at Pantani-speed now. This is because not only is it too risky under the tighter restrictions, but you simply don't NEED to chug the amount of EPO they did in the mid-90s in order to lord it over the péloton anymore. Regardless of whether it's clean or dirty, Sky are bossing the péloton with 5,99w/kg on the major climbs. That would barely have won you a race, let alone dominate the calendar, in 1996.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
The problem is not that they don't take doping seriously, in my reading of it at least.

The problem is that the poster feels that:
1) the bunch is a bit cleaner than it was a few years ago
2) the bunch is not sufficiently clean for them to have faith that the winners are clean.

Therefore, they are still suffering the same misery of feeling that the winners are usually dopers, but without the spirit of competition on the way, because the conclusions are becoming mind-numbingly predictable.

The other problem of course is that as the bunch becomes cleaner, the advantages of doping become more patently obvious. In 1996 there were ten Emanuele Sellas wearing out their brakepads on the switchbacks of the Alps. In 2008, Sella looked ridiculous. The bunch was cleaner, relatively speaking, so he stood out like a sore thumb. But we know that that bunch wasn't clean either. Just look at the GC of that race - Contador, Riccò, di Luca, Menchov... all up there. A lot of the getting cleaner was not that doping was stopping, but more that it was becoming far more regulated. This process continues to this day, where many riders are doping, however they are doing so on a progressively tighter leash that decreases the size of the gap between them and the paniagua until one day that gap can be breached. We mustn't be naïve enough to think that one day we'll be able to guarantee our winner is clean, because also as that gap gets smaller, the amount of dope required to turn you into a standout becomes less as well. You won't see Pantani-speed any time soon. Even the most sophisticated dopers aren't able to go at Pantani-speed now. This is because not only is it too risky under the tighter restrictions, but you simply don't NEED to chug the amount of EPO they did in the mid-90s in order to lord it over the péloton anymore. Regardless of whether it's clean or dirty, Sky are bossing the péloton with 5,99w/kg on the major climbs. That would barely have won you a race, let alone dominate the calendar, in 1996.
Fantastic word Pantani-speed worthy of entry into the dictionary of cycling as no one will achieve those speeds again.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY