Who is a clean rider

[the sceptic]

Hmm. Speaking to a member of the BC set up who is clean and who is vehemently anti-doping. He said that he saw no evidence of a doping programme and no recent evidence of anyone doping off their own back.

Either he is a fibber (I doubt it very much), he's blind (definitely not) or there isn't much going on.

That's not to say that SKY are clean of course or anyone else, it just presents a different picture from the one Hamilton's 85% paints.
Also Ashenden made an estimate (IIRC) of 33% of teams still at it.

Of course all the british riders are clean, we already know this. They stopped doping when JV called the truce in 2009. If JV just can get in translated into spanish and russian, then the remaining 33% can stop doping as well.

Thomas Voeckler

lol. good one

 

[JimmyFingers]

Taylor Phinney and Steve Cummings

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...etting-the-pill-culture-out-of-the-sport.aspx

yank vouching fora Brit: must be a pack of lies

 

[melkemugg]

Im bumping this old hag.

So, after a couple of years lurking the clinic im starting to get a bit desperate here and need to find a fine specimen, a young strapping lad to root for in races. Who is clean? What is the clean(est) team?

Im kinda steering towards FDJ and Pinot?
Or maybe Phinney, but i dont like BMC.

What about some of the Belkin guys? Can i trust my fellow countryman Nordhaug?

 

[Netserk]

Im bumping this old hag.

So, after a couple of years lurking the clinic im starting to get a bit desperate here and need to find a fine specimen, a young strapping lad to root for in races. Who is clean? What is the clean(est) team?

Im kinda steering towards FDJ and Pinot?
Or maybe Phinney, but i dont like BMC.

What about some of the Belkin guys? Can i trust my fellow countryman Nordhaug?

Why not root for some dopers?

Anyway there's a bigger chance for a young rider (especially neo-pros) to be clean than older riders, not that there isn't clean old riders, or dirty youngsters.

I don't think there are (m)any where you can be >99% sure they are clean, but there will of course be some who are more likely than others.

I think there's a greater probability that Pinot is clean, than most other riders who can climb at the same level. How much greater, I don't really know, but that is what my gut tells me.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Im bumping this old hag.

So, after a couple of years lurking the clinic im starting to get a bit desperate here and need to find a fine specimen, a young strapping lad to root for in races. Who is clean? What is the clean(est) team?

Im kinda steering towards FDJ and Pinot?
Or maybe Phinney, but i dont like BMC.

What about some of the Belkin guys? Can i trust my fellow countryman Nordhaug?

Can't really recommend anybody in particular at the moment when it comes to contenders in big races.

Instead I tend to root for whoever tries to make races interesting. It changes from race to race.

Good luck.

 

[Night Rider]

Taylor Phinney, Simon Gerrans. Maybe Adam Hansen.

 

[Netserk]

Taylor Phinney, Simon Gerrans. Maybe Adam Hansen.

Why Gerro?

I get the other two.

 

[Night Rider]

Why Gerro?

I get the other two.

Let me preface my next comments with I will never hand on heart claim any rider is clean, the closest rider I would get to saying that is Phinney.

On Gerrans, a whole career of clean or mostly clean teams, Sky is the anomaly but they went bad after he left, or was leaving.

Suspicion index 1 (from memory)

Victories have largely come not from being the strongest rider, but the most cunning. Cadel had a reputation as a wheel sucker, Gerro is way worse than him. Probably hit the wind for 30 seconds total in all of those wins over the last two or three years.

 

[deValtos]

Why not root for some dopers?

Serious question or ?

With regards to clean riders to cheer for you could try the 'current' Andy Schleck. There's no way he's on drugs unless their performance degrading substances ...

 

[Netserk]

Serious question or ?

With regards to clean riders to cheer for you could try the 'current' Andy Schleck. There's no way he's on drugs unless their performance degrading substances ...

Serious yes.

When I'm in the PRR section or just watching on my telly, I watch cycling through the lens of aesthetic not ethic. It's the reverse in the clinic (mostly).

 

[Bexon30]

Serious question or ?

With regards to clean riders to cheer for you could try the 'current' Andy Schleck. There's no way he's on drugs unless their performance degrading substances ...

Yeah very true. I was thinking the same earlier about who may be clean. Pinot is one, and those at the same level. I find the likes of Froome, Contador and Valverde hard to believe right now. Becoming a little dissolutioned with their powers. It's just 2 different levels of performance.

 

[Pentacycle]

On Gerrans, a whole career of clean or mostly clean teams, Sky is the anomaly but they went bad after he left, or was leaving.

Suspicion index 1 (from memory)

Cervélo and Crédit Agricole clean? That's news to me.

Suspicion index also doesn't tell the whole story. Horner had a 0.

 

[hrotha]

Cervélo is one of those teams that had a good reputation for reasons that completely escape me. Everybody there flew. Just like with HTC.

 

[Pentacycle]

Cervélo is one of those teams that had a good reputation for reasons that completely escape me. Everybody there flew. Just like with HTC.

They wore black.

 

[Night Rider]

Cervélo and Crédit Agricole clean? That's news to me.

Of the early teams he rode for I would say AG2R cleanest, Cervelo - probably individual rider programs, never saw any evidence of team wide programs, Credit Agricole - ok, I forgot he rode for them, I will concede that one.

Suspicion index also doesn't tell the whole story. Horner had a 0.

Jeez, did he.

 

[hrotha]

What makes you think AG2R are particularly clean? They always struck me as the dirtiest French team. Even dirtier than Festina back when they were the geezer steamroller known as Casino.

 

[mortand]

Ah yes, good ol' Casino. The Spring of 1998 was one of the most ridiculous things I've seen. They were totally dominant with riders like Rodolfo Massi, Bo Hamburger, Rolf Jaermann, Alberto Elli and...eehm Pascal Chanteur?! All renowned world beaters. Well, not quite. Because of that, Ag2R have always seemed pretty dodgy to me. Of course, people can change, but...well. This is pro cycling after all.

(Yeah, I get the irony, seeing who's in my avatar).

 

[roundabout]

What makes you think AG2R are particularly clean? They always struck me as the dirtiest French team. Even dirtier than Festina back when they were the geezer steamroller known as Casino.

I dunno. 3 or so years back they hilariously struggled to win anything. Apart from Gadret and Dupont nobody really jumped out.

CA get a bad rep because of Caucchioli who probably was doping without consent of his team and Fofonov who barely got a ban and, uh, that's it?

Okay, Kashechkin and old doper Moreau where there. But a hugely doped team? Probably not.

 

[deValtos]

Serious yes.

When I'm in the PRR section or just watching on my telly, I watch cycling through the lens of aesthetic not ethic. It's the reverse in the clinic (mostly).

From what I understood a large part of cycling's doping problem was driven mostly by the culture encompassing the sport that made it just as acceptable for a cyclist to take drugs as to have a simple drink. How was that atmosphere created ? UCI wanting $$$, journalists riding the gravy train, media downplaying and not investigating doping issues and importantly fans that don't give a crap if their rider was on the juice.

The atmosphere of any environment implicitly impacts the social conduct of anyone in it. Place the exact same person into a situation with a negative atmosphere (over a positive one) and they perform worse/care less - there's been many psychology studies confirming this. I remember reading in Tyler Hamilton's book he said (most of) his fellow dopers were not morally bad people, they were "victims" of the times.

Like I said in my first paragraph fans have a part to play in this too, you can see in sports like american football, soccer, hockey (etc) where fans could not care one damn bit whether their team is using and that encourages the athletes in the wrong direction by cheering them on.

You could say what difference does one person watching a cycle race on TV sitting in their living room make though by backing dopers (or clean riders) ? It's a fair point and similar to say voting in a big government election where one vote never ever makes the difference, so why would you actually vote if your vote essentially doesn't count, why does anyone? I guess because it does make a difference, you don't how many people you can influence just by talking with friends, posting on forums etc

If you care about cycling I don't think it's right to encourage dopers in any way. It's part of the problem, albeit a very very very small part, but a part nonetheless.

Anyways that's why I think you shouldn't root for some dopers

 

[Night Rider]

What makes you think AG2R are particularly clean? They always struck me as the dirtiest French team. Even dirtier than Festina back when they were the geezer steamroller known as Casino.

Post 1999 I would have thought Credit Agricole and Cofidis were dirtier. If AG2R had a program then surely it would be the worst in history based on results? I can recall two of their riders (post 99) getting popped. Mancebo with Puerto and another for some stimulant.

 

[Netserk]

From what I understood a large part of cycling's doping problem was driven mostly by the culture encompassing the sport that made it just as acceptable for a cyclist to take drugs as to have a simple drink. How was that atmosphere created ? UCI wanting $$$, journalists riding the gravy train, media downplaying and not investigating doping issues and importantly fans that don't give a crap if their rider was on the juice.

The atmosphere of any environment implicitly impacts the social conduct of anyone in it. Place the exact same person into a situation with a negative atmosphere (over a positive one) and they perform worse/care less - there's been many psychology studies confirming this. I remember reading in Tyler Hamilton's book he said (most of) his fellow dopers were not morally bad people, they were "victims" of the times.

Like I said in my first paragraph fans have a part to play in this too, you can see in sports like american football, soccer, hockey (etc) where fans could not care one damn bit whether their team is using and that encourages the athletes in the wrong direction by cheering them on.

You could say what difference does one person watching a cycle race on TV sitting in their living room make though by backing dopers (or clean riders) ? It's a fair point and similar to say voting in a big government election where one vote never ever makes the difference, so why would you actually vote if your vote essentially doesn't count, why does anyone? I guess because it does make a difference, you don't how many people you can influence just by talking with friends, posting on forums etc

If you care about cycling I don't think it's right to encourage dopers in any way. It's part of the problem, albeit a very very very small part, but a part nonetheless.

Anyways that's why I think you shouldn't root for some dopers

Oh, but I do care. Just because I can separate the two things, doesn't mean I don't care. Or do you really think that a person who cares, but thinks that all riders dope, shouldn't sheer for any rider? What's the point of watching then?

Why can't I both cheer for a rider and condemn his doping? Why can't I enjoy a race between two dopers, and at the same time want it exposed and stopped? Why?

 

[deValtos]

Why can't I both cheer for a rider and condemn his doping? Why can't I enjoy a race between two dopers, and at the same time want it exposed and stopped? Why?

Well you can, and lots of people do. It's just my personal opinion that cheering for doped riders is contributing to the problem (see reasons in my previous post about how a different environment affects peoples actions).

I'll try to give an example of why I don't think its helpful. For instance some of the next generation of riders (say persons under 15) getting interested in the sport now are going to be reading the ridiculous amounts of support doped riders get over social media and forums (e.g look how exciting this doped rider is attacking) and that's going to have an impact on how they think moving forward.

So to ask you some questions, do you not think the attitude of fans has any influence over the riders (or is it negligible or non-existent) ? If so do you think your attitude (i.e condemning doping of riders but enjoying the racing of such riders) is a positive for the sport ?

 

[Benotti69]

Taylor Phinney trains regularly in Denver with Allan Lim.

Simon Gerrans defended Armstrong in 2012, IIRC.

Hansen rides for Lotto a team Charly Wegelius doped with and Wegelius was pure domestique, never mind that they hired Ibauguren for Gilberts stunning 2011 year.

Why do you want to know who is clean, you will only be disappointed when they turn out to have doped, even if it was only once and had no effect but they did some amazing performances and always signed autographs and were nice........?

Enjoy the bike racing but dont get emotional about riders, you will only be shat on.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Why can't I both cheer for a rider and condemn his doping? Why can't I enjoy a race between two dopers, and at the same time want it exposed and stopped? Why?

Hate the sin, not the sinner. Agreed.

 

[Netserk]

Well you can, and lots of people do. It's just my personal opinion that cheering for doped riders is contributing to the problem (see reasons in my previous post about how a different environment affects peoples actions).

I'll try to give an example of why I don't think its helpful. For instance some of the next generation of riders (say persons under 15) getting interested in the sport now are going to be reading the ridiculous amounts of support doped riders get over social media and forums (e.g look how exciting this doped rider is attacking) and that's going to have an impact on how they think moving forward.

So to ask you some questions, do you not think the attitude of fans has any influence over the riders (or is it negligible or non-existent) ? If so do you think your attitude (i.e condemning doping of riders but enjoying the racing of such riders) is a positive for the sport ?

So IF all riders dope, no one should cheer for anyone? That would be the best for cycling? If no one followed the sport?

Yes, I do think my attitude is a positive for the sport. I do think attitudes of fans matter.

What I find negative, is fans needing to believe their favourite rider is clean to be able to cheer him on. They will end up closing their eyes (See Armstrong fans). For doping to be battled, riders and fans need to open their eyes and admit that there is a problem. A huge one.