• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Vandevelde interview - hope for a clean peloton

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
TechnicalDescent said:
Plus Paris Nice, previous Dauphine, Silver medal at world championships. I think he is fairly consistent.

Also I think it IS important that someone who is known (by most) to run a clean team and champion anti doping gives him the big thumbs up. JV obviously worked with him when he got 4th at the tour, knows how he did it and his capabilities, and understand's psychologically was his big problem in the past. If riders like Evans, Hesjedal and Wiggins are now dominating the tours, it's very positive for a clean peloton IMO.

I have a lightly used bridge for sale. Are you interested?
 
May 9, 2012
46
0
0
Visit site
Wiggins has come a long way since 2006 when he finished 124 th overall in the Tour.

Here is an excerpt from Paul Kimmage's book ROUGH RIDE.
Page 297 entitled : The Remarkable Bradley Wiggins.

Bradley Wiggins is not easy to love. He rarely responds to your text messages. He rarely stops for a chat. Offer him a deal in February to write for your newspaper and you can be sure that in March he will sign for someone else. I don't understand him. I can't figure him out. But there's something about him I really admire. I think he has figured this sport out.
In many ways he reminds me of Chris Eubank, the former middleweight boxing champion. Eubank has a higher profile than Brad and a greater sense of theatre but they are kindred spirits in their attitude to the jobs. This game can break you up. Don't put your health in danger. Do the best you can with your ability. Get out while you're ahead. Of course, you're always going to ship some damage...
I waited for Brad at the finish in Pau this afternoon and couldn't help wondering if he will hold out to Paris. The first mountain stage of the Tour can hurt like a kick in the crotch and he sounded pretty battered after the 190 Kilometres from Cambo-les-Bains. 'The first climb was just mind-blowing,' he said. 'There was one stage when I thought "What am I doing here?"'
But he hasn't seen anything yet. Tomorrow's ride - over the Tourmalet, the Aspin, the Peyresourde, the Portillon and finishing with the Val d'Aran - is even tougher. Oh, and next week they enter the Alps. On Monday, as I was climbing the Izoard, I spotted Wiggins' name painted beside a Union Jack close to the summit. Hope he survives to see it.
 
May 13, 2012
262
0
0
Visit site
Stravoski said:
Wiggins has come a long way since 2006 when he finished 124 th overall in the Tour.

Here is an excerpt from Paul Kimmage's book ROUGH RIDE.
Page 297 entitled : The Remarkable Bradley Wiggins.

I wonder if he thinks it was a waste of time focusing his season on track gold medals all of those years. I suppose if he can win a few GTs before he retires he will be pleased with having both.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Stravoski said:
Wiggins has come a long way since 2006 when he finished 124 th overall in the Tour.

Here is an excerpt from Paul Kimmage's book ROUGH RIDE.
Page 297 entitled : The Remarkable Bradley Wiggins.

Has Kimmage relaeased a newer updated version of his old book? I am familiar with the original but was unaware of any revision. If so, are the revisions worth a new look?
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
And then there is the opinion of someone not talking to the press.

http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f2/pro-peloton-now-clean-er-27338.html

Grajales, a Columbian, races in the U.S., but you would think that he hears things.

Interesting snippet, Bro. It could be what Grajales regards as doping, too. For instance - part of the published programs I have seen is thyroid supplementation. Well, that's doping - but it's not illegal doping.

Is using a natural food product - an herb - doping? Ephedra is an herb, and now it has been sufficiently widely recognized to be truly powerful so as to be illegal in the US. Yet, back when I raced, it wasn't illegal. I know of one other herb from traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) that is about as powerful as ephedra - but it isn't widely known, so I ain't gonna shout it about out there. Don't want it to become illegal, too. And there are other TCM herbs that will, imo, eventually get recognition because they have real power. BTW - if you are really curious about the TCM herb, do your homework. Start with NIH. There is published work on this herb.

Are some of the racers pushing the envelope of legal doping? I would bet on it. What we can be reasonably certain of is that the years of outright EPO and steroid dominance are at least under some sort of control. If we can keep things at a level where a rider who wants to participate clean can do so, and still win, then I think we will have done a proper job.

Anquetil is famous, and has famously spoken out about his use of speed to compete. He has also been a proponent of letting the riders dope as they wish to. I do not agree - speed by itself will not win races in the long run. Or, maybe it would be better to say that speed doesn't immediately change the quality of the engine. EPO, steriods, and blood doping do.

So, when Grajales says a program is still essential in the pro peloton - we don't know exactly what he means, do we? But we do know that EPO, steriods, and blood doping are far less openly used now than they were 10 years ago.
 
May 9, 2012
46
0
0
Visit site
spetsa said:
Has Kimmage relaeased a newer updated version of his old book? I am familiar with the original but was unaware of any revision. If so, are the revisions worth a new look?

The latest edition of Rough Ride was published in 2007. It is revised and updated. It contains new interesting material. So it is worth purchasing.
 
hiero2 said:
Interesting snippet, Bro. It could be what Grajales regards as doping, too. For instance - part of the published programs I have seen is thyroid supplementation. Well, that's doping - but it's not illegal doping.
No. Doping is not the use of performance-enhancing stuff, it's the use of banned substances and methods. "Legal doping" is an oxymoron.
 
hiero2 said:
Interesting snippet, Bro. It could be what Grajales regards as doping, too. For instance - part of the published programs I have seen is thyroid supplementation. Well, that's doping - but it's not illegal doping.
....
So, when Grajales says a program is still essential in the pro peloton - we don't know exactly what he means, do we? But we do know that EPO, steriods, and blood doping are far less openly used now than they were 10 years ago.

Grajales has to know the difference. There are some fantastic interviews with him on a website, the name of which slips my mind at the moment. I learned some interesting stuff from those, like Santiago Botero is a deadbeat who has stolen money from numerous people in the sport.

He has to have a good feel for what consitutes a "credible" and not credible performance. So during stage races in the U.S., when the Pro Tour guys come to California, Utah, and Colorado, he should gain quite a bit of insight as to what is going on, even without Leipheimer sidling up to him and announcing, "Yeah, I'm on the sauce."
 
gooner said:
Just above in another post we see the adding of arms and legs and linking Allen Lim onto Vandevelde and Wiggins and possible doping. This is the exact same thing Jonathan Vaughters apologised to Tondo for when he used the same exact same basis as that one for deciding not to sign him. He apologised for this after Tondo whistleblew the doping ring in Catalonia. I think Vaughters sums it up best in this piece:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/connecting-the-dots

This is what the clinic is always guilty of and I take issue with.

Okay... the last line in that blog just made me sad! :(


About the original topic, the cycling is cleaner claim. Personally I feel that I need to have hope that it is, otherwise; what's the point? I simply wouldn't be able to enjoy the sport as much as I do if I was constantly thinking that people are doped.
Yes. I am painfully aware that the chances that everybody is clean are very slim! However, I refuse to pick up the notion of everybody is dirty. I believe in the truth of the phrase innocent until proven guilty, which I then will always follow up with a always returning with a clean slate. Sure, some may say this makes me hopefully naïve but I'd much rather be naïve than a complete cynic.

As for feeling that I need to believe in a clean sport. Well, I feel that we, the fans, also have a responsibility in the matter. Especially in these days when it's (almost) just as easy for our words an opinions to reach the pros as it is for the pros' words and opinions to reach us. If a young upcoming rider constantly hears talk about how everybody is doped there is a real risk that he is going to believe that. If you honestly believe that everyone cheats it's a sad logic that you won't regard what you're doing as 'cheating' but simply making yourself 'equal'.
 
RedheadDane said:
Okay... the last line in that blog just made me sad! :(

About the original topic, the cycling is cleaner claim. Personally I feel that I need to have hope that it is, otherwise; what's the point? I simply wouldn't be able to enjoy the sport as much as I do if I was constantly thinking that people are doped.

Yes. I am painfully aware that the chances that everybody is clean are very slim! However, I refuse to pick up the notion of everybody is dirty. I believe in the truth of the phrase innocent until proven guilty, which I then will always follow up with a always returning with a clean slate. Sure, some may say this makes me hopefully naïve but I'd much rather be naïve than a complete cynic.

The thing about cynics is that they are usually proven right. That is why they are cynics.

Personally, I think cycling is worse than it used to be.

Riders used to be able to dope with a fairly free reign. A few would get caught, slapped lightly, and allowed back in. It was not a level playing field because of differences between how riders respond to dope, what risks different riders were willing to take, and how much money different riders had to spend on dope. But there was some semblance of order. In its weird way the race results made sense.

Nowadays I look at ludicrous performances by the likes of Cancellara and Wiggins and cannot pretend to that the results make sense. I see little difference between those performances and the performances of Schumacher, Ricco, and DiLuca. It looks like a few riders using new products, a way to avoid passport issues, or some other means of doping that gives them a huge advantage over the rest. The "cleaner" peloton has produced an environment where more than ever before it is advantageous to dope.

.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
Visit site
The results are still not stabilized enough to warrant a white flag from the dopers.

Stabilized as in, known high ranking/winning riders still doing the same even after a team transfer (cough cough, doctor transfer), no mysterious unknown symptom excuses, and known domistiques still domestiques and not all of a sudden GT podium riders, same for classics, etc... the stability is still not there. Not saying the same guys should win all the races but a contender should at least be a factor in a race not pack-fill.
 
reply to several of you...

BroDeal said:
And then there is the opinion of someone not talking to the press.

http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f2/pro-peloton-now-clean-er-27338.html

Grajales, a Columbian, races in the U.S., but you would think that he hears things.

Cesar was my roommate in Chile in 2003, so he knows exactly how things are!

source: http://twitpic.com/9tv55r

9tv55r.jpg


thehog said:
Allen Lim is rock solid. They’ll never break him. I saw him deny the Landis allegations. He’ll be last man standing. He had a poker face on when asked about his involvement in arrange blood transfusions. This man will not break. He is too strong. Even the Federal Investigators couldn’t phase him. Wouldn’t be surprise me if he’s the mastermind behind RadioShack’s current run of success.

See Lim here beating up on some journalists:

http://video.bicycling.com/video/ATOC-Allen-Lim-addresses-allega

hahahahahahaha lol
my cat could do a better job than Lim in hiding the guilt on his face after getting called-out for being a little too free with the catnip!

9tv81e.jpg


Libertine Seguros said:
...Garmin are obviously very keen on the sports science side of things, but to be honest, finding people with no doping taint whatsoever is always going to be difficult...

The notion that there is more than a marginal gain to be had by discovering and employing the "most advanced/smartest/best-educated/most forward-thinking/etc" sports scientists is perhaps one of the most successful and effective obfuscations in pro cycling. As if the advantage is to be found in the theory of sports science, and not its application to the banned methodologies that deliver the actual non-marginal gains. If there was such an advantage to be had from employing the most scientifically-minded trainers/physiologists of an era, but still not doping, then LeMond wouldn't have continued his progressive decline once he started working w/ Adrie van Diemen.

Oh wait. Didn't Adrie van Diemen train some of the best Garmin riders, including Dan Martin? oops...perhaps one of the first instances of reverse-guilt (or innocence) by association, suggesting once again that LEMOND NEVER DOPED (at least not w/ oxygen vector drugs or blood-doping). Because if he had, when he started working w/ van Diemen, he wouldn't have continued losing to otherwise-doped riders.

Markyboyzx6r said:
I actually prefer it when riders don't say anything about 'cleaner cycling'. To pretend that the sport has made any kind of moral shift with regards doping does nothing but insult the people who are in some way knowledgeable about the professional milleu...

I can actually empathize with and understand that preference. Who wants to see cycling become this moral proving-ground where it's expected that riders will make themselves sound like hypocritical idiots by blathering on about how anti-doping they are, and how committed cycling is to fighting doping. It reminds me of the religion-test in US presidential politics, where it's basically become expected requirement for a candidate to rave about how much they love God and how religious they are and blah blah. Nauseating...

gooner said:
But did Brajkovic ever finish 4th in the Tour and 3rd in the Vuelta?

Wiggins's form entering the Tour now is a lot better than it was in 2009 and plus there is no Contador to contend with like back then. Also when he did the Vuelta he was coming off his collarbone injury so he is definetely going into this Tour in better shape than ever on to a course that also suits him more. You have to sit up and take notice of him now.

Wait a second - is this Bradley Wiggins posting under a pseudonym? Why are you bending over backwards to defend Wiggins with such absolute certainty, when you ultimately have as little actual knowledge of his purity as those who suggest he dopes have of his dirtiness?

hiero2 said:
Interesting snippet, Bro. It could be what Grajales regards as doping, too. For instance - part of the published programs I have seen is thyroid supplementation. Well, that's doping - but it's not illegal doping...

Actually, it is considered illegal doping to take thyroid medicine that you've not been prescribed by a physician just to enhance performance (usually by reducing body mass).

Finally, guilt by association? :p

9czhe3.jpg


http://twitpic.com/9czhe3
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
No. Doping is not the use of performance-enhancing stuff, it's the use of banned substances and methods. "Legal doping" is an oxymoron.

Now, see - I wouldn't define it that way, myself. I don't think that Webster's is gonna tie it down as tight as you do, either. But my one of my points was, how does GRAJALES define it? What was HE talking about when he said something to the effect that a program was still required?

Now Joe Papp has chimed in for the knowledge level of Grajales, also useful to know. But still, Grajales could have meant something like what I said - some sort of performance enhancement through chemicals or mechanical techniques, not necessarily illegal techniques. Or, he could have been saying that the illegal methods are still required curriculum, but we don't know.

I kind of agree with the redhead, tho - if we assume that Grajales was saying the worst possible thing - then I too am gonna be bummed about it. For me, the whole point is not to catch all the cheats, but to make cheating expensive enough so that it becomes rare. Rare enough so that a person can compete, and win, without performance enhancements.

I read the results of a survey some years ago - some large majority of Olympic bound athletes would be willing to give up 5 years of their life because of dope, if it meant they would win the Olympics. Kinda sad. I know a lot of top level athletes in any sport get that serious about it.
 
hiero2 said:
Now, see - I wouldn't define it that way, myself. I don't think that Webster's is gonna tie it down as tight as you do, either. ...

But what matters is how WADA defines doping, and they make it very clear that the status of a substance as illegal/legal/prescribed/OTC/effective/performance-enhancing/placebo is immaterial to whether or not the act in question is doping or not. Doping is dependent upon what's proscribed by the WADA Code.

hiero2 said:
...I kind of agree with the redhead, tho - if we assume that Grajales was saying the worst possible thing - then I too am gonna be bummed about it. For me, the whole point is not to catch all the cheats, but to make cheating expensive enough so that it becomes rare. Rare enough so that a person can compete, and win, without performance enhancements...

This is the crux of the issue - the most effective deterrent to doping would be to elevate the costs, and likelihood, of getting caught to such a level that the risk no longer becomes acceptable or manageable. But paradoxically, from a business perspective - at least in the short-term - the cost of doing so from the perspective of the governing body, the promoters, and perhaps the teams themselves is waaaaay too great! And so we end-up back at the point of token busts, sacrificial lambs and inanities mouthed repeatedly to complicit journalists for the benefit of naive (or intentionally self-deluded?) fans.

hiero2 said:
I read the results of a survey some years ago - some large majority of Olympic bound athletes would be willing to give up 5 years of their life because of dope, if it meant they would win the Olympics. Kinda sad. I know a lot of top level athletes in any sport get that serious about it.

I believe the actual survey question (at least for the survey I recall being familiar w/) read, "Would you want to win a gold medal, and enjoy all the "benefits" stemming from such an achievement, even if it meant you'd be dead after 12mos?" (paraphrasing)

I would accept the Giro - Tour - Worlds triple even if it meant death after 2 years, I think... :rolleyes:
 
May 13, 2012
262
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
The thing about cynics is that they are usually proven right. That is why they are cynics.

They are proven right by being cynical about everybody, thus at some point they will be right about someone. It's a cynical process of elimination.

Nowadays I look at ludicrous performances by the likes of Cancellara and Wiggins and cannot pretend to that the results make sense.

The doping of riders in the past was an open secret in the peloton. If there was twitter around then, it would be have been broadcast what doctors they are seeing, what they are up to. There is plenty of opportunity for leaks in the camp. But you just don't see that with Evans, Wiggins and Hesjedal and many other leading riders nowadays. There is not a whiff of anything.

I think cycnism for cycnism's sake can be negative for the sport if it sends the message that riders have to dope to succeed. Strangely, there is a kindof an alliance between the likes of Armstrong and the ultra cynics in this regard - you're both pushing essentially the same 'everybody is doing it' message, and you seem to hate some of the clean riders more than the dopers.
 
May 13, 2012
262
0
0
Visit site
Joe, I think it's, quite naturally, difficult for some of the old school riders to accept some of the changes that have occurred. If they were rapped up in that doping scene themselves, there is a tendency to want to justify what they did by smearing some of today's leading riders with the same practises. It's understandable but we have to keep this in mind when assessing gossip and opinion of old school former pros who aren't necessarily in the loop anymore.
 
TechnicalDescent said:
The doping of riders in the past was an open secret in the peloton. If there was twitter around then, it would be have been broadcast what doctors they are seeing, what they are up to. There is plenty of opportunity for leaks in the camp. But you just don't see that with Evans, Wiggins and Hesjedal and many other leading riders nowadays. There is not a whiff of anything.

I think cycnism for cycnism's sake can be negative for the sport if it sends the message that riders have to dope to succeed. Strangely, there is a kindof an alliance between the likes of Armstrong and the ultra cynics in this regard - you're both pushing essentially the same 'everybody is doing it' message, and you seem to hate some of the clean riders more than the dopers.

This is a pretty funny turnaround. From using scores of sockpuppets to defend and excuse Armstrong's doping to dropping Armstrong in the toilet to troll for Wiggins. That is quite a journey.
 
TechnicalDescent said:
Huh? What about the post?

I do not attempt to engage in meaningful discussion with known trolls, even when they are in stealth mode, attempting to pretend that they are interested in such discussion, before they go back to their usual disruption.

BPC has proven my suspicion. Wiggins is the new Armstrong.

"By his trolls you shall know him." -- Revelation 23:1
 
May 13, 2012
262
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
I do not attempt to engage in meaningful discussion with known trolls, even when they are in stealth mode, attempting to pretend that they are interested in such discussion, before they go back to their usual disruption.

BPC has proven my suspicion. Wiggins is the new Armstrong.

"By his trolls you shall know him." -- Revelation 23:1

I find it difficult to follow what you're talking about, but your posts on this thread have been very negative and trolling in my view. It's like you're purposesly taking a very extreme position to get a reaction. If you don't want to engage me that's fine, but perhaps you can stop baiting people then. We have a DS of a team posting in this thread and you called him a liar without anything to back it up. I don't know if that's against the rules or not, but it should be in my view.
 
TechnicalDescent said:
I find it difficult to follow what you're talking about, but your posts on this thread have been very negative and trolling in my view. It's like you're purposesly taking a very extreme position to get a reaction. If you don't want to engage me that's fine, but perhaps you can stop baiting people then. We have a DS of a team posting in this thread and you called him a liar without anything to back it up. I don't know if that's against the rules or not, but it should be in my view.

I am a negative kind of guy, especially in places that been degraded by trolls like you.

JV is what he is. If he does not want people to question his veracity then he should start talking straight and stop dancing around the truth like he is playing a school debating game.
 
BroDeal said:
I am a negative kind of guy, especially in places that been degraded by trolls like you.

JV is what he is. If he does not want people to question his veracity then he should start talking straight and stop dancing around the truth like he is playing a school debating game.

Do you think it would fly if teams/riders just refused to discuss doping at all? Who's to say it would be any worse than forcing them to regurgitate such inanities?