Who do you think is clean?

[El Pistolero]

The fact that riders who are in the spotlight get scrutinised more is totally fair. Because they are winning big races that means that if they are caught then they deserve extra scrutiny.

PLease don't compare Evans and Valverde at this point in time as riders who deserve scrutiny over doping. valverde has been proven to be a doper and has been banned. Evans has not. Because a rider rides for a suspcious team does not mean that warrants that they are to be knwon as dopers as well.. Actual evidence is required. to convict someone of being a doper just on a team association basis is very unfair.

So please stop trying to compare Evans with Valverde or any of your other favourite spanish or portuguese riders.

According to this logic Contador didn't dope to win the Tour this year. Seeing as you can't proof he blood doped and the amount of clen didn't boost anything.

Valverde is a doper yet never tested positive. So you can't really use the "he never tested positive" excuse for Cadel as we all know that's a rubbish argument.

Shady teams and very good results mean a cyclist is most likely a doper no matter how you spin it. Does it matter? Not really because if most people dope then they're fighting with equal weapons. In the end, people like Contador and Andy Schleck are just more natural gifted climbers than Cadel Evans is. Doped or not.

I don't mind if they ruin their health, it's their life.

 

[Benotti69]

According to this logic Contador didn't dope to win the Tour this year. Seeing as you can't proof he blood doped and the amount of clen didn't boost anything.

Valverde is a doper yet never tested positive. So you can't really use the "he never tested positive" excuse for Cadel as we all know that's a rubbish argument.

Shady teams and very good results mean a cyclist is most likely a doper no matter how you spin it. Does it matter? Not really because if most people dope then they're fighting with equal weapons. In the end, people like Contador and Andy Schleck are just more natural gifted climbers than Cadel Evans is. Doped or not.

I don't mind if they ruin their health, it's their life.

Contador may or may not have blood doped in this years tour but he was caught with Clen in his blood and that is against the rules hence his suspension for a banned substance. the pedantics of whether it was enough to give an advantage are neither here nor there. it was found and there is no threshold so a ban. Tested positive. end of.

Moncoutie rode for a team where only 2 riders didn't dope. Moncoutie and Tombak.

 

[El Pistolero]

Contador may or may not have blood doped in this years tour but he was caught with Clen in his blood and that is against the rules hence his suspension for a banned substance. the pedantics of whether it was enough to give an advantage are neither here nor there. it was found and there is no threshold so a ban. Tested positive. end of.

Moncoutie rode for a team where only 2 riders didn't dope. Moncoutie and Tombak.

Because the UCI takes their rules so seriously

 

[Benotti69]

Because the UCI takes their rules so seriously

and Contador didn't

 

[Wallace]

Extebarria.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The fact that riders who are in the spotlight get scrutinised more is totally fair. Because they are winning big races that means that if they are caught then they deserve extra scrutiny.

But it doesn't mean that they are any more guilty - Valverde is no more guilty than Cabreira. But Valverde's been dragged through the mill, nobody cares about Cabreira outside of Portugal. Valverde doesn't deserve to be treated worse for the same crime - but he will be, because Cabreira's obscure, Valverde's always in your face, therefore more people will be up in arms about his being able to continue to ride.

PLease don't compare Evans and Valverde at this point in time as riders who deserve scrutiny over doping. valverde has been proven to be a doper and has been banned. Evans has not. Because a rider rides for a suspcious team does not mean that warrants that they are to be knwon as dopers as well.. Actual evidence is required. to convict someone of being a doper just on a team association basis is very unfair.

I didn't compare Evans and Valverde. I have done in the past, but this wasn't one of those times. I was comparing Valverde with Cabreira, Schleck and Basso, as bicing pointed out.

I compared Evans to Vicioso. There is no "official" dirt on Ángel Vicioso (although a suspicious file in Puerto is likely to be him). Both Evans and Vicioso have ridden for a succession of dodgy teams, but Evans is considered by most to be clean, and Vicioso is considered by most to be dirty. I'm not saying that Evans is dirty or that Vicioso is clean. I'm saying that it's interesting how our interests and likes, the media and a rider's personality (Evans being an outsider at T-Mobile makes us think he was less likely to have been involved in the doping) shape our perception. I offered up examples of my own biasedness with regards Xavier Tondó and Mikel Astarloza to illustrate this point.

So please stop trying to compare Evans with Valverde or any of your other favourite spanish or portuguese riders.

If you think Ángel Vicioso is one of my favourite riders, you have another think coming.

 

[tobsie]

Chris Anker Sørensen

 

[NhocCuteGirlUK]

David Millar. Maybe.

__________________
| Canon Digital Camera Data Recovery 3.0.1.5 | MS Word Merge Combine or Join Multiple MS Word Documents into One Software 9.0 | Kate's Video Toolkit 4.022 | .rpt Inspector Enterprise Suite for Crystal Enterprise 9 / Crystal Reports 9 3.12 | Ipodelite DVD Cloner 2.2

 

[auscyclefan94]

But it doesn't mean that they are any more guilty - Valverde is no more guilty than Cabreira. But Valverde's been dragged through the mill, nobody cares about Cabreira outside of Portugal. Valverde doesn't deserve to be treated worse for the same crime - but he will be, because Cabreira's obscure, Valverde's always in your face, therefore more people will be up in arms about his being able to continue to ride.


I didn't compare Evans and Valverde. I have done in the past, but this wasn't one of those times. I was comparing Valverde with Cabreira, Schleck and Basso, as bicing pointed out.

I compared Evans to Vicioso. There is no "official" dirt on Ángel Vicioso (although a suspicious file in Puerto is likely to be him). Both Evans and Vicioso have ridden for a succession of dodgy teams, but Evans is considered by most to be clean, and Vicioso is considered by most to be dirty. I'm not saying that Evans is dirty or that Vicioso is clean. I'm saying that it's interesting how our interests and likes, the media and a rider's personality (Evans being an outsider at T-Mobile makes us think he was less likely to have been involved in the doping) shape our perception. I offered up examples of my own biasedness with regards Xavier Tondó and Mikel Astarloza to illustrate this point.



If you think Ángel Vicioso is one of my favourite riders, you have another think coming.

Having a file linked to Puerto is different. Evans has never had anything of the sought. Therefore they are different.

 

[Benotti69]

Having a file linked to Puerto is different. Evans has never had anything of the sought. Therefore they are different.

sought or sort?

 

[craig1985]

Either Tommy D. is clean or he is on the worst doping program ever.

What I was wondering about the whole Trent Lowe saga. I mean if he was getting dope from del Moral, well del Moral dudded him big time.

 

[Benotti69]

What I was wondering about the whole Trent Lowe saga. I mean if he was getting dope from del Moral, well del Moral dudded him big time.

or Lowe thought he didn't have to do as much on the bike because he was on a program?

Or he was getting rubbish, becuae Del Moral knew he wasn't glowing to rat on the good doctor and risk his ride.

 

[Juicy McDrip]

Here's a question. If you had to bet your life savings, or a similarly large amount of money on a current cyclist being clean (and I mean totally clean - for their whole career - nothing illegal whatsoever) who would it be?

Two rules: 1. The rider must have completed a Grand Tour, 2. You can't say 'impossible they're all at it' - that's just a cop out.

My pick is David Moncoutie

I thought it would make a change from constantly accusing and highlight the good guys for once.

All Adminstrators on cyclingnews are clean. Other than that...all bets are off.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Having a file linked to Puerto is different. Evans has never had anything of the sought. Therefore they are different.

Nobody has ever confirmed that it's Vicioso. Therefore, in the eyes of the regulators, they are the same. Vicioso didn't have trouble being allowed to race like people like Plaza or Zaballa, so one can only conclude that evidence against him was weaker.

I wouldn't bet a Turkish lira that Vicioso is clean, but the only difference is a "maybe?" - maybe another example would be Juanjó Cobo.

There's no evidence against Juanjó Cobo beyond hearsay and the teams he's been on. Yet pretty much everybody is happy to say that he's probably doped. There's hearsay against Evans (if only from his MTB days) and he's been on shady teams, yet he's not considered as likely to have doped as Cobo. You could argue that "that's probably because he isn't as likely to have doped as Cobo". And I would actually probably agree with you. But what is the basis for this opinion? It's just a gut reaction, and we are all biased when we have these reactions and when we see the riders' performances.

In fact, given his pathetic 2010, I am tempted to say that Cobo was as clean as Evans if not more last year.

 

[Maxiton]

Danny Pate is a good bet.

 

[roundabout]

Nobody has ever confirmed that it's Vicioso. Therefore, in the eyes of the regulators, they are the same. Vicioso didn't have trouble being allowed to race like people like Plaza or Zaballa, so one can only conclude that evidence against him was weaker.

I wouldn't bet a Turkish lira that Vicioso is clean, but the only difference is a "maybe?" - maybe another example would be Juanjó Cobo.

There's no evidence against Juanjó Cobo beyond hearsay and the teams he's been on. Yet pretty much everybody is happy to say that he's probably doped. There's hearsay against Evans (if only from his MTB days) and he's been on shady teams, yet he's not considered as likely to have doped as Cobo. You could argue that "that's probably because he isn't as likely to have doped as Cobo". And I would actually probably agree with you. But what is the basis for this opinion? It's just a gut reaction, and we are all biased when we have these reactions and when we see the riders' performances.

In fact, given his pathetic 2010, I am tempted to say that Cobo was as clean as Evans if not more last year.

Funny, the first time Vicioso really caught my attention was here

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/photos/2000/may00/giro/vicioso15.shtml

And when he had to take a summer vacation in 2006 he was 30 seconds behind Ullrich in a 30k TT and nearly podiumed the TdS.

 

[delbified]

Shady teams and very good results mean a cyclist is most likely a doper no matter how you spin it. Does it matter? Not really because if most people dope then they're fighting with equal weapons. In the end, people like Contador and Andy Schleck are just more natural gifted climbers than Cadel Evans is. Doped or not.

this is hard to accept. cadel signed for T-Mobile and Mapei in his early days of pro road racing, where he didn't fit in. despite his obvious talent and MTB palmares, he said that T-Mobile showed no interest in him. i think it's fair to wonder whether this is evidence of his being clean, rather than dirty.

I don't mind if they ruin their health, it's their life.

is this what the defence of people like contador has been reduced to? if there are clean contenders and i believe it's feasible, if not certain, then contador and the like have been cheating them and us for a long time. for that, i have nothing but contempt.

 

[Mambo95]

this is hard to accept. cadel signed for T-Mobile and Mapei in his early days of pro road racing, where he didn't fit in. despite his obvious talent and MTB palmares, he said that T-Mobile showed no interest in him. i think it's fair to wonder whether this is evidence of his being clean, rather than dirty.

One of the most interesting races of Evans's time at T-Mobile was stage 5 of the 2004 Vuelta - you can see the results here:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=748

Six of the team have an absolute disaster (look at the last dozen names listed), while Evans comes 6th. T-Mobile claimed it was food poisoning due to dodgy meat and Evans wasn't effected as he was a vegetarian (which he isn't).

And Evans's Mapei wasn't the same as the dodgy Mapei team Lefevre had run, he left by then. Sinkewitz said it was the only team he didn't dope at.

 

[Roninho]

One of the most interesting races of Evans's time at T-Mobile was stage 5 of the 2004 Vuelta - you can see the results here:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=748

Wow. Just look at the list of convicted/confessed dopers who finished up front in that race... Aitor Gonzalez, Valverde, Piepolie, Nozal, Beltran, Heras, Beloki, Landis, Santi Perez, Hamilton in the top 17....
10 out of the first 17 finishers convicted. Add Mancebo as non-convicted but heavily implicated in OP.

If you ever want prove that doping was very present and possibly even needed to get some top finishes then this stage is a perfect example.

 

[taiwan]

Surely Milram were clean.

 

[Mambo95]

Wow. Just look at the list of convicted/confessed dopers who finished up front in that race... Aitor Gonzalez, Valverde, Piepolie, Nozal, Beltran, Heras, Beloki, Landis, Santi Perez, Hamilton in the top 17....
10 out of the first 17 finishers convicted. Add Mancebo as non-convicted but heavily implicated in OP.

If you ever want prove that doping was very present and possibly even needed to get some top finishes then this stage is a perfect example.

You could point to any non-flat GT stage around then and say the same. As it was, this was a light stage with just a cat 2 and a cat 3 climb near the end, not a stage were doping it going to at it's most effective:

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2004/vuelta04/?id=stages/vuelta045


But that wasn't my point. My point was the stark contrast between Evans and most of the rest of his team.

 

[delbified]

OSix of the team have an absolute disaster (look at the last dozen names listed), while Evans comes 6th. T-Mobile claimed it was food poisoning due to dodgy meat and Evans wasn't effected as he was a vegetarian (which he isn't).

lol the ol dodgy meat... the ironing is delicious

 

[Frosty]

One of the most interesting races of Evans's time at T-Mobile was stage 5 of the 2004 Vuelta - you can see the results here:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=748

Six of the team have an absolute disaster (look at the last dozen names listed), while Evans comes 6th. T-Mobile claimed it was food poisoning due to dodgy meat and Evans wasn't effected as he was a vegetarian (which he isn't).

And Evans's Mapei wasn't the same as the dodgy Mapei team Lefevre had run, he left by then. Sinkewitz said it was the only team he didn't dope at.

Interesting that Zabel did ok on that stage and won the points jersey that year.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

One of the most interesting races of Evans's time at T-Mobile was stage 5 of the 2004 Vuelta - you can see the results here:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=748

Six of the team have an absolute disaster (look at the last dozen names listed), while Evans comes 6th. T-Mobile claimed it was food poisoning due to dodgy meat and Evans wasn't effected as he was a vegetarian (which he isn't).

And Evans's Mapei wasn't the same as the dodgy Mapei team Lefevre had run, he left by then. Sinkewitz said it was the only team he didn't dope at.

On the other hand, Zabel still managed to finish well. He claims that he stopped using EPO in 1999 but does anyone think he was clean thereafter? It looks as though there were different programmes at Telekom and although the stage results would suggest Evans wasn't on the same one as Vinokourov, maybe he was still on a non-EPO one?

 

[Roninho]

You could point to any non-flat GT stage around then and say the same. As it was, this was a light stage with just a cat 2 and a cat 3 climb near the end, not a stage were doping it going to at it's most effective:

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2004/vuelta04/?id=stages/vuelta045

But that wasn't my point. My point was the stark contrast between Evans and most of the rest of his team.

I know it was not your point.
I actually agree that this situation makes it more likely that Evans was not on a team doping programm, but first of all this for me isn't enough 'evidence' that the team actually got sick due to doping, and even if that is the case it certainly isn't prove that Evans did not dope by himself or another programm.

And personally I just find it ironic that a top 5 result in a stage where 60% of the top 15 ended up as proven dopers (whereas the % of proven dopers in the rest of the peleton is substantially lower) is some kind of supporting evidence that Evans did not dope.