Who do you think is the first clean rider in the top 50?

[mike75]

Sadly, this could be a top 50 list in almost any sport, and we'd struggle with the same problem. High level, worldwide athletic competition almost certainly requires some form of cheating, or at least skirting the rules, in order to be at the top of the heap. It's just the law of averages.

 

[vedrafjord]

Re: Re:

I don't know about clean, but if number 23 had gone full genius like most of the others he would easily have been number one.

Number 23 would probably have been a 5 time Tour winner by this point if he was British

Pretty sure 2011 Tour *was* EBH going full genius: check out his top 10s in that race:

1st Stage 6: Dinan - Lisieux
5th Stage 11: Blaye-les-Mines - Lavaur
6th Stage 13: Pau - Lourdes
2nd Stage 16: Saint-Paul-Trois-Châteaux - Gap
1st Stage 17: Gap - Pinerolo (Ita)
2nd Stage 21: Créteil - Paris

That's a lumpy classics-ish stage, a sprint stage, a breakaway/sprint stage with a HC climb in the middle, a medium mountain stage, a breakaway biggish mountain stage topping out at 2,000 metres, a pan flat pure sprint stage. Not only that but a really strong last week when you'd expect a sprinter to be hanging on. If Sagan hadn't made that kind of versatility commonplace people would still be talking about it.

Then there was his 2012 reinvention as an occasional mountain goat - I remember a monster pull in stage 6 of the 2012 Dauphiné for example.

Also there've been dark mutterings from Oleg about his passport being all over the place - I'd give it a lot more credence if it was anyone but Oleg, but in the upside down land that is pro cycling, the stopped clock might just be right.

 

[hrotha]

Why would you ever have considered EBH a "sprinter"?

Granted, he had a very strong 2011 Tour, but the versatility he showcased there was exactly the same he had showcased earlier in his career. Yes, he could sprint, but also go over hills and/or cobbles, do well on medium mountains and time-trial like a champ over short-to-mid distances.

Then again, he showed he could do all those things at HTC, kings of WTF-worthy performances with a good press.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

I don't know about clean, but if number 23 had gone full genius like most of the others he would easily have been number one.

Number 23 would probably have been a 5 time Tour winner by this point if he was British

Pretty sure 2011 Tour *was* EBH going full genius: check out his top 10s in that race:

1st Stage 6: Dinan - Lisieux
5th Stage 11: Blaye-les-Mines - Lavaur
6th Stage 13: Pau - Lourdes
2nd Stage 16: Saint-Paul-Trois-Châteaux - Gap
1st Stage 17: Gap - Pinerolo (Ita)
2nd Stage 21: Créteil - Paris

That's a lumpy classics-ish stage, a sprint stage, a breakaway/sprint stage with a HC climb in the middle, a medium mountain stage, a breakaway biggish mountain stage topping out at 2,000 metres, a pan flat pure sprint stage. Not only that but a really strong last week when you'd expect a sprinter to be hanging on. If Sagan hadn't made that kind of versatility commonplace people would still be talking about it.

Then there was his 2012 reinvention as an occasional mountain goat - I remember a monster pull in stage 6 of the 2012 Dauphiné for example.

Also there've been dark mutterings from Oleg about his passport being all over the place - I'd give it a lot more credence if it was anyone but Oleg, but in the upside down land that is pro cycling, the stopped clock might just be right.

You also forgot that EBH came 12th in the final TT, 2 minutes behind Evans.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

I don't know about clean, but if number 23 had gone full genius like most of the others he would easily have been number one.

That's who I would choose as well if I had to select one. Like you said, probably not clean, but it's a possibility at least - which is more than for nearly all the others.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

I don't know about clean, but if number 23 had gone full genius like most of the others he would easily have been number one.

That's who I would choose as well if I had to select one. Like you said, probably not clean, but it's a possibility at least - which is more than for nearly all the others.

Yep +1

EBH had the talent to be almost as good as Sagan, yet is nowhere near that level. And as you said, he's still more likely to be doped than clean himself, but certainly one of the least suspicious on that list

 

[MountTiede]

Re:

Sadly, this could be a top 50 list in almost any sport, and we'd struggle with the same problem. High level, worldwide athletic competition almost certainly requires some form of cheating, or at least skirting the rules, in order to be at the top of the heap. It's just the law of averages.

Spot on.

John Romano is a longtime sports industry insider and performance-enhancement specialist. He has authored several books and appeared on HBO, ESPN, ABC's 20/20, and numerous radio talk shows. He is also featured as a consultant in the acclaimed documentary Bigger Stronger Faster.

For 30 years he has focused on performance enhancement in sport, both with and without banned substances, with elite level sports men and women. In every case, his association with these people focused on one of two paths: extract maximum performance without the use of drugs, or help them cheat. He said: "The bulk of that activity focused not on the former, but on the latter."

Mentored by the original PED/Steroid Guru Dan Duchaine - John has prepped hundreds of elite level sports people with PED's to improve performance and to beat Olympic Standard drug tests. His experience is that elite sportsmen and women will seek any means to increase performance, ESPECIALLY where money and fame are on the line.

"The idea that drug testing promotes clean sport is just window dressing for the PR machine it has no bearing on reality"

"The idea that drug testing, even Olympic drug testing, is an effective deterrent ranks right up there with just saying "no" as an effective means to keep kids off drugs. The notion that passing a drug test means that the athlete is clean is a fallacy. A drug test is an IQ test. Only *** idiots fail them."

"In every sport the individual is swallowed by the collective when it comes to performance. If one gets caught it does not mean the cheaters were caught; it means one of the cheaters was caught. It's completely naive to think otherwise."

"Spectators do not want to see mediocrity, spectators want to see super human performance"

"Bodybuilders are A-okay with the giant pink elephant(steroids) in the room. But, just mention the word among the sports with big money contracts and fifteen lawyers get on an airplane. Why such an uproar over the most obvious of observations?"

"Contrary to what elite level endurance sportsmen say they are the most likely to reap the greatest overall benefit from steroid use because of the drugs' affect on recovery. That alone is reason enough to believe that a large number of practitioners use them."

"When you ask an elite level endurance sportsman what they did for their rest day, it's not unusual to get the response "I didn't take one" or "I ran a half-marathon," or, "I did a recovery row." Such commentary leaves one to ponder, are these people super human or super stupid? Taxing your body to such a degree is one of the best reasons to get on gear."

"If you think you can find a sport where money, prestige and fame are at stake that does not have significant PED use, let me know because I have a bridge I can sell you."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbh0qhGmJ9U

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

Bardet? Mollema? Kelderman? EBH? Sagan and Quintana haven't done anything that made you raise your eyebrow or had accusations, beyond "their results are so good they must be" line of logic. Unfortunately that usually is not a faulty default position.

Quintana could be debunked by the company he keeps....

One of the things I gathered from this list is Ullrich's 2001 Alpe d'Huez ride. I've seen the list of top times of the mountain, but each time I see it, I wonder if Ullrich was, as some folks in and out of the Clinic have suggested, riding somewhat 'clean.' I remember him saying after that tour, and analysts have also said, that this was his best shape since destroying everyone at the 1997 Tour. He still didn't really trouble Armstrong, and lost 1.39 to the Texan in the final time trial. Generally speaking, Ullrich doesn't get beaten that much in a TT when he is in good shape, so what happened? Did Ullrich just mismanage his blood doping? I know Armstrong was arguably in his best shape out of any TDF he rode to win, but still. That much time back? To me it's highly unlikely he was clean during that tour, but it's interesting. As I already wrote, I've seen quite a few posts in the past suggesting that perhaps Ullrich was clean at that tour, or at least using lower doses than the other favorites. From those posts, I also remember reading about Vaughters and Livingston saying that Ullrich was riding clean at that Tour. It would be hard to locate those posts, but if anybody can somehow dig them out, it would be cool!

 

[42x16ss]

Livingston didn't tell Vaughters that Ullrich was riding clean, just that his haematocrit was only 42 at race fitness following the whole 1998 Festina fiasco

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

Bardet? Mollema? Kelderman? EBH? Sagan and Quintana haven't done anything that made you raise your eyebrow or had accusations, beyond "their results are so good they must be" line of logic. Unfortunately that usually is not a faulty default position.

Quintana could be debunked by the company he keeps....

snipped the pic

This list is very different compared to jens_attacks' and vetoo's list and I would trust these two guys compared to this crap website. Quintana's time still rivals a lot of full-genius dopers though.

For EBH, I would be really surprised that if he was clean in HTC. Sky just killed his career which is totally unrelated to how hardcore he doped.

 

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

Bardet? Mollema? Kelderman? EBH? Sagan and Quintana haven't done anything that made you raise your eyebrow or had accusations, beyond "their results are so good they must be" line of logic. Unfortunately that usually is not a faulty default position.

Quintana could be debunked by the company he keeps....

One of the things I gathered from this list is Ullrich's 2001 Alpe d'Huez ride. I've seen the list of top times of the mountain, but each time I see it, I wonder if Ullrich was, as some folks in and out of the Clinic have suggested, riding somewhat 'clean.' I remember him saying after that tour, and analysts have also said, that this was his best shape since destroying everyone at the 1997 Tour. He still didn't really trouble Armstrong, and lost 1.39 to the Texan in the final time trial. Generally speaking, Ullrich doesn't get beaten that much in a TT when he is in good shape, so what happened? Did Ullrich just mismanage his blood doping? I know Armstrong was arguably in his best shape out of any TDF he rode to win, but still. That much time back? To me it's highly unlikely he was clean during that tour, but it's interesting. As I already wrote, I've seen quite a few posts in the past suggesting that perhaps Ullrich was clean at that tour, or at least using lower doses than the other favorites. From those posts, I also remember reading about Vaughters and Livingston saying that Ullrich was riding clean at that Tour. It would be hard to locate those posts, but if anybody can somehow dig them out, it would be cool!

The following list shows his 2001 time @ 40:02; still 51st on the top 100 all-time ascent list. But considerably slower then his top 10 PB set in 97. In 01, he's a few seconds ahead of Beloki & Moreau, but all three 2+ minutes behind LA. I wonder why none of these guys weren't able to stay closer with LA? We're they having trouble transitioning & adjusting from EPO to blood doping. Like you alluded to; maybe they toned down their programs that Tour for whatever reasons and LA went full speed ahead?

http://www.climbing-records.com/2015/07/three-riders-make-it-into-alpe-dhuez.html?m=1

 

[Escarabajo]

Hey, although I think Froome is doped to the gills plus more, his TUE does not classify as a positive. Just saying.

 

[Escarabajo]

I would have given Ulrich the benefit of the doubt if he wasn't that big!

 

[NUFCrichard]

To answer the question: number 20 Tom DUMOULIN, if not then no 21 Wilco KELDERMAN, if not then 36 Thibaut PINOT.

The answer could be as high as number 1, 7 or 10 (Sagan, Bardet or Mollema) but they all look like they may have succumb to temptation at some point.

Pinot is the clean poster boy for me, underperforms on the big stage, publishes all his training data, French. But who knows!

 

[70kmph]

No

 

[sniper]

There are literally thousands of clean French riders, but also dozens of French dopers, who are always likely to get the better of those thousands of clean guys. The chances that Pinot is clean are very small.
Let's keep it real.
I realize that equals saying this thread is a hopeless exercise. And, indeed, it kind of is.
It's like asking: out of these fifty guys with a long white beard and a pointy hat, which one do you think is the real santa claus.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

Bardet? Mollema? Kelderman? EBH? Sagan and Quintana haven't done anything that made you raise your eyebrow or had accusations, beyond "their results are so good they must be" line of logic. Unfortunately that usually is not a faulty default position.

Quintana could be debunked by the company he keeps....

One of the things I gathered from this list is Ullrich's 2001 Alpe d'Huez ride. I've seen the list of top times of the mountain, but each time I see it, I wonder if Ullrich was, as some folks in and out of the Clinic have suggested, riding somewhat 'clean.' I remember him saying after that tour, and analysts have also said, that this was his best shape since destroying everyone at the 1997 Tour. He still didn't really trouble Armstrong, and lost 1.39 to the Texan in the final time trial. Generally speaking, Ullrich doesn't get beaten that much in a TT when he is in good shape, so what happened? Did Ullrich just mismanage his blood doping? I know Armstrong was arguably in his best shape out of any TDF he rode to win, but still. That much time back? To me it's highly unlikely he was clean during that tour, but it's interesting. As I already wrote, I've seen quite a few posts in the past suggesting that perhaps Ullrich was clean at that tour, or at least using lower doses than the other favorites. From those posts, I also remember reading about Vaughters and Livingston saying that Ullrich was riding clean at that Tour. It would be hard to locate those posts, but if anybody can somehow dig them out, it would be cool!

The following list shows his 2001 time @ 40:02; still 51st on the top 100 all-time ascent list. But considerably slower then his top 10 PB set in 97. In 01, he's a few seconds ahead of Beloki & Moreau, but all three 2+ minutes behind LA. I wonder why none of these guys weren't able to stay closer with LA? We're they having trouble transitioning & adjusting from EPO to blood doping. Like you alluded to; maybe they toned down their programs that Tour for whatever reasons and LA went full speed ahead?

http://www.climbing-records.com/2015/07/three-riders-make-it-into-alpe-dhuez.html?m=1

I think this stage was right after the first rest day, if I am not mistaken, so there is always a chance for some of the favorites to cope with it better than others, but Ullrich lost time in pretty much all the meaningful stages that year. The only stage he really didn't was on Luz Ardiden, when he and Armstrong destroyed the other riders. That was when the two crossed the line together.

To the Alpe D'Huez stage again, the pace, as is usual for an Alpe D'Huez stage, was tough at the start of the climb. Telekom had been doing the brunt of the work the whole stage, and Armstrong and his team were playing 'poker.' Armstrong was faking it, looking as if he was riding at his limit, grimacing and people thought he might be dropped, but that was not the case and once the first turn or so happened on L'Alpe...Rubiera drove Armstrong to the front and off he went not long after that. I remember when Rubiera pushed the pace, the only guys able to stay with that initial dummy surge were Ullrich and Kivilev (RIP). Everyone else was dropped, though I think some of the guys were just taken off their feet rather than struggling. Beloki had a mechanical, but made a great recovery to finish third so high. He and Moreau rode with Ullrich for most of the climb. It was like two different levels. Armstrong was moving rather than grinding, as the other three were doing. Moreau was definitely on something that year, as he was the year before. He was a good climber, top 15-20, but to hang with Ullrich and Beloki was, i think, beyond his abilities. Perhaps I am wrong about him, but he outdistanced the mountain goats by a margin during that stage. Beloki was in better overall shape that year than 2000, but Ullrich was that much better than him and Armstrong was obviously full genius. I don't know enough about doping specifics, the management, when to, how to, how much and the effects, but perhaps Ullrich did take it down a notch or two. Not sure why he would, if he did at all.

 

[Nomad]

Re: Re:

Bardet? Mollema? Kelderman? EBH? Sagan and Quintana haven't done anything that made you raise your eyebrow or had accusations, beyond "their results are so good they must be" line of logic. Unfortunately that usually is not a faulty default position.

Quintana could be debunked by the company he keeps....

One of the things I gathered from this list is Ullrich's 2001 Alpe d'Huez ride. I've seen the list of top times of the mountain, but each time I see it, I wonder if Ullrich was, as some folks in and out of the Clinic have suggested, riding somewhat 'clean.' I remember him saying after that tour, and analysts have also said, that this was his best shape since destroying everyone at the 1997 Tour. He still didn't really trouble Armstrong, and lost 1.39 to the Texan in the final time trial. Generally speaking, Ullrich doesn't get beaten that much in a TT when he is in good shape, so what happened? Did Ullrich just mismanage his blood doping? I know Armstrong was arguably in his best shape out of any TDF he rode to win, but still. That much time back? To me it's highly unlikely he was clean during that tour, but it's interesting. As I already wrote, I've seen quite a few posts in the past suggesting that perhaps Ullrich was clean at that tour, or at least using lower doses than the other favorites. From those posts, I also remember reading about Vaughters and Livingston saying that Ullrich was riding clean at that Tour. It would be hard to locate those posts, but if anybody can somehow dig them out, it would be cool!

The following list shows his 2001 time @ 40:02; still 51st on the top 100 all-time ascent list. But considerably slower then his top 10 PB set in 97. In 01, he's a few seconds ahead of Beloki & Moreau, but all three 2+ minutes behind LA. I wonder why none of these guys weren't able to stay closer with LA? We're they having trouble transitioning & adjusting from EPO to blood doping. Like you alluded to; maybe they toned down their programs that Tour for whatever reasons and LA went full speed ahead?

http://www.climbing-records.com/2015/07/three-riders-make-it-into-alpe-dhuez.html?m=1

I think this stage was right after the first rest day, if I am not mistaken, so there is always a chance for some of the favorites to cope with it better than others, but Ullrich lost time in pretty much all the meaningful stages that year. The only stage he really didn't was on Luz Ardiden, when he and Armstrong destroyed the other riders. That was when the two crossed the line together.

To the Alpe D'Huez stage again, the pace, as is usual for an Alpe D'Huez stage, was tough at the start of the climb. Telekom had been doing the brunt of the work the whole stage, and Armstrong and his team were playing 'poker.' Armstrong was faking it, looking as if he was riding at his limit, grimacing and people thought he might be dropped, but that was not the case and once the first turn or so happened on L'Alpe...Rubiera drove Armstrong to the front and off he went not long after that. I remember when Rubiera pushed the pace, the only guys able to stay with that initial dummy surge were Ullrich and Kivilev (RIP). Everyone else was dropped, though I think some of the guys were just taken off their feet rather than struggling. Beloki had a mechanical, but made a great recovery to finish third so high. He and Moreau rode with Ullrich for most of the climb. It was like two different levels. Armstrong was moving rather than grinding, as the other three were doing. Moreau was definitely on something that year, as he was the year before. He was a good climber, top 15-20, but to hang with Ullrich and Beloki was, i think, beyond his abilities. Perhaps I am wrong about him, but he outdistanced the mountain goats by a margin during that stage. Beloki was in better overall shape that year than 2000, but Ullrich was that much better than him and Armstrong was obviously full genius. I don't know enough about doping specifics, the management, when to, how to, how much and the effects, but perhaps Ullrich did take it down a notch or two. Not sure why he would, if he did at all.

Good analysis...thanks

 

[Escarabajo]

There are probably some clean riders. Of course. I don't expect everybody to be dirty. Don't know how many and not even sure if there is one on that list.

 

[The Hegelian]

I had a good look at the OP. I don't run with the axiom 'everyone is a doper'. But......couldn't find one name I had confidence in.

The first that I briefly considered was TVG. But then I realised that is only because he's had a *** year.

Would like to believe in Chaves, Bardet, maybe even Dumoulin. But benefit of the doubt in this sport ought to always assume doping rather than clean. Dumoulin's 2015 Vuelta was hard to believe. Whilst Chaves and Bardet are climbing well but losing pretty big time in TT's - we can hope. But hope is usually pretty stupid.

 

[MikeS369]

Some may not be doping up during races but I believe it is highly probable all of them have doped OOC.

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

I had a good look at the OP. I don't run with the axiom 'everyone is a doper'. But......couldn't find one name I had confidence in.

The first that I briefly considered was TVG. But then I realised that is only because he's had a **** year.

Would like to believe in Chaves, Bardet, maybe even Dumoulin. But benefit of the doubt in this sport ought to always assume doping rather than clean. Dumoulin's 2015 Vuelta was hard to believe. Whilst Chaves and Bardet are climbing well but losing pretty big time in TT's - we can hope. But hope is usually pretty stupid.

Chaves rides for Neil Stephens of Festina fame and some of us still remember Matt White sending Trent Lowe to Dr Del Moral. As much as I love the little guy I have strong doubts.

As for Bardet, look at his teammates the last few years - Steve Houanard, Sylvain Georges, Lloyd Mondory... its not a smoking gun but it's got to make you wonder about the culture there at AG2R.

 

[sniper]

Re:

There are probably some clean riders. Of course. I don't expect everybody to be dirty. Don't know how many and not even sure if there is one on that list.

Why not?
There are thousands of clean cyclists. But you expect the cheaters to surface in competition. Cheaters are a minority. The propeloton is a minority within that minority.
Pure logic and statistics don't leave many arguments for assuming there's a single clean rider in the proranks. Unless you don't believe in the power of doping of course.
Yes there might be one, but it's not to be *expected*, imo. Rather, it would be unexpected.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

There are probably some clean riders. Of course. I don't expect everybody to be dirty. Don't know how many and not even sure if there is one on that list.

Why not?
There are thousands of clean cyclists. But you expect the cheaters to surface in competition. Cheaters are a minority. The propeloton is a minority within that minority.
Pure logic and statistics don't leave many arguments for assuming there's a single clean rider in the proranks. Unless you don't believe in the power of doping of course.
Yes there might be one, but it's not to be *expected*, imo. Rather, it would be unexpected.

Given that there were clean pros back when they went faster, surely it's quite likely that there's also someone clean now?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Given that there were clean pros back when they went faster, surely it's quite likely that there's also someone clean now?

nitpicking: It's not a given that there were clean pros.
But fair enough.
I'm inclined to think Bassons largely played by the rules.
Same for Kimmage.
There are some French guys about whom Antoine Vayer seems adamant they're clean.
(He mentioned Peraud and Le Breton is this tweet:
https://twitter.com/festinaboy/status/640828066395222016
He's not explicitly saying they're clean, but he's suggesting it)

Still, omerta is stronger than ever. Who's the voice of clean cycling? There is none.
In my view it would be possible, yet unexpected, to find a clean guy in the top 100 or so.
Same for most other endurance sports, and even more so for big-money sports like tennis and soccer.