• 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!

Who is clean?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Which rider(s) were/ are clean?

  • Lemond

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
1
0
Visit site
Ninety5rpm said:
Didn't vote since there was no none of the above option.

If you heard of a pro rider, he is not clean.

I don't buy this wasn't clean but is clean now story. That's exactly the b.s. story that the UCI is trying to sell to renew interest in their sport. Fluctuations in performance are at least as well explained by inabilities to use some PEDs that were particularly effective in the past, rather than by no doping at all now.

Maybe we need definitions of "clean"? How about:

Dirty - would put gasoline in their veins if they thought it would make them faster. Regular user of EPO microdosing & blood storage in the off season and blood transfusions before/during big races. Recovery drugs en masse.

Semi-dirty - EPO microdosing and recovery drugs

Clean - recovery drugs only.
 
There arent any riders I would stake my life on being 100% clean but I like to believe there are certain riders who are clean-er. On the list I picked Moncoutie, Duggan & LeMond.

What I have never liked is BigBoat and his, "its impossible to finish in the Top 50 in a GT without blood doping, blah, blah, blah" thats all he spouted endlessly the first few months on this forum until they split the forum into categories and frankly I think its BS. Why did he put Moncoutie on the list, probably because he is considered clean but then this contradicts his own assertations that the Top 50 dope as Moncoutie finished as high as 13th in the Tour and top 10 in the Vuelta.

Yes, a lot of the very top GT riders are likely to be doping but I reserve judgement until a rider is somewhat connected to doping, whether it be a positive test, involvement in doping affairs i.e.Puerto etc or even at a stretch, circumstantial evidence. For example Cadel Evans, Carlos Sastre, Thor Hushovd and many others have never been remotley connected to anything so they get the benefit of doubt in my opinion. Unless there is some connection or even insignificant evidence with doping we are just speculating which is unfair to the riders.

What about the guys who have signed up to Bikepure, now I am not not innocent enough to believe that pro cyclist wouldnt do anything to paint themselves as angelic but I believe a lot of the guys on Bikepure are cleaner and some of them have even finished Top 10-20 in GTs.

Since this forum was split into the different categories, BigBoat has cut back on his ranting which would suggest he was only trolling originally and is not getting the same attantion anymore. I know he is knowledgable and I agree with some of what he says but he is way too cynical and obnoxius. On this thread, where are Contdor, Schlecks, Evans on the list. Why Pereiro, Duggan??? WTF.

BigBoat is one of that select group on here who believe that any rider who does anything remotley good, then the accusations are never far away. What do we expect, the pro peloton to ride around in a big group with no attacks whatsoever and always finish in a bunch sprint. Go to any local amateur event and there will be good performances or dominant riders, does this automatically mean they are doping, its called competition.

I never mind getting involved in doping discussions, just dont like the way some people tar everyone as dopers without the slightest shred of evidence.
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
There arent any riders I would stake my life on being 100% clean but I like to believe there are certain riders who are clean-er. On the list I picked Moncoutie, Duggan & LeMond.

What I have never liked is BigBoat and his, "its impossible to finish in the Top 50 in a GT without blood doping, blah, blah, blah" thats all he spouted endlessly the first few months on this forum until they split the forum into categories and frankly I think its BS. Why did he put Moncoutie on the list, probably because he is considered clean but then this contradicts his own assertations that the Top 50 dope as Moncoutie finished as high as 13th in the Tour and top 10 in the Vuelta.

Yes, a lot of the very top GT riders are likely to be doping but I reserve judgement until a rider is somewhat connected to doping, whether it be a positive test, involvement in doping affairs i.e.Puerto etc or even at a stretch, circumstantial evidence. For example Cadel Evans, Carlos Sastre, Thor Hushovd and many others have never been remotley connected to anything so they get the benefit of doubt in my opinion. Unless there is some connection or even insignificant evidence with doping we are just speculating which is unfair to the riders.

What about the guys who have signed up to Bikepure, now I am not not innocent enough to believe that pro cyclist wouldnt do anything to paint themselves as angelic but I believe a lot of the guys on Bikepure are cleaner and some of them have even finished Top 10-20 in GTs.

Since this forum was split into the different categories, BigBoat has cut back on his ranting which would suggest he was only trolling originally and is not getting the same attantion anymore. I know he is knowledgable and I agree with some of what he says but he is way too cynical and obnoxius. On this thread, where are Contdor, Schlecks, Evans on the list. Why Pereiro, Duggan??? WTF.

BigBoat is one of that select group on here who believe that any rider who does anything remotley good, then the accusations are never far away. What do we expect, the pro peloton to ride around in a big group with no attacks whatsoever and always finish in a bunch sprint. Go to any local amateur event and there will be good performances or dominant riders, does this automatically mean they are doping, its called competition.

I never mind getting involved in doping discussions, just dont like the way some people tar everyone as dopers without the slightest shred of evidence.

That is the same for me. I respect what Armstrong has done on the bike only, even though it is obvious he doped at the peak of his career, off it, I think he is bit of a **** and a control freak.
 
I voted for all but Armstrong, based on my new def. of "clean". That is has not failed a drug test, been fingered by the passport system, been caught coming into or out of a blood clinic, or with blood DNA indentified as his left over in a clinic, failed a drug test later overturned on a technicality, or had signed checks turn up in the possession of known doping "Doctors".
Other than that although I will grant you that most pros "prepare" in special ways I am going to assume they are clean until I see actual evidence to the contrary and then I am going to try to act suprised.
I will try this at least for a little while. I'll let you know how I think it is going, and if it makes watching pro cycling any more fun.
 
Mar 15, 2009
8
0
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
I voted for all but Armstrong, based on my new def. of "clean". That is has not failed a drug test, been fingered by the passport system, been caught coming into or out of a blood clinic, or with blood DNA indentified as his left over in a clinic, failed a drug test later overturned on a technicality, or had signed checks turn up in the possession of known doping "Doctors".
Other than that although I will grant you that most pros "prepare" in special ways I am going to assume they are clean until I see actual evidence to the contrary and then I am going to try to act suprised.
I will try this at least for a little while. I'll let you know how I think it is going, and if it makes watching pro cycling any more fun.

Doesn't Armstrong's high cadence/ weight loss make cycling enough fun to watch?
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
I think it gets "stupid" for some people. Can somebody be a fan of an "X" rider but at the same time be realistic about the doping issue?

I voted for David Moncoutié and Greg Lemond. The question included past tense, so that's why I did not pick Cunego.
Well I have a theory...Those who voted for Lance did not click Lemond. Some still think Lance has been clean but I dont believe its 15% even. Most think all doped including Lemond and doping is a simple issue, everybody dopes; if your not positive your "clean" and Lance is by far the most talented rider.

Which is NOT true of course, lol.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
There arent any riders I would stake my life on being 100% clean but I like to believe there are certain riders who are clean-er. On the list I picked Moncoutie, Duggan & LeMond.

What I have never liked is BigBoat and his, "its impossible to finish in the Top 50 in a GT without blood doping, blah, blah, blah" thats all he spouted endlessly the first few months on this forum until they split the forum into categories and frankly I think its BS. Why did he put Moncoutie on the list, probably because he is considered clean but then this contradicts his own assertations that the Top 50 dope as Moncoutie finished as high as 13th in the Tour and top 10 in the Vuelta.

Yes, a lot of the very top GT riders are likely to be doping but I reserve judgement until a rider is somewhat connected to doping, whether it be a positive test, involvement in doping affairs i.e.Puerto etc or even at a stretch, circumstantial evidence. For example Cadel Evans, Carlos Sastre, Thor Hushovd and many others have never been remotley connected to anything so they get the benefit of doubt in my opinion. Unless there is some connection or even insignificant evidence with doping we are just speculating which is unfair to the riders.

What about the guys who have signed up to Bikepure, now I am not not innocent enough to believe that pro cyclist wouldnt do anything to paint themselves as angelic but I believe a lot of the guys on Bikepure are cleaner and some of them have even finished Top 10-20 in GTs.

Since this forum was split into the different categories, BigBoat has cut back on his ranting which would suggest he was only trolling originally and is not getting the same attantion anymore. I know he is knowledgable and I agree with some of what he says but he is way too cynical and obnoxius. On this thread, where are Contdor, Schlecks, Evans on the list. Why Pereiro, Duggan??? WTF.

BigBoat is one of that select group on here who believe that any rider who does anything remotley good, then the accusations are never far away. What do we expect, the pro peloton to ride around in a big group with no attacks whatsoever and always finish in a bunch sprint. Go to any local amateur event and there will be good performances or dominant riders, does this automatically mean they are doping, its called competition.

I never mind getting involved in doping discussions, just dont like the way some people tar everyone as dopers without the slightest shred of evidence.
I put diff riders on the poll, it shouldnt reflect my opinion since I'm looking for ya'll's opinions. If you want to know I think none totally clean.
 
Ninety5rpm said:
Didn't vote since there was no none of the above option.

If you heard of a pro rider, he is not clean.

I don't buy this wasn't clean but is clean now story. That's exactly the b.s. story that the UCI is trying to sell to renew interest in their sport.
Fluctuations in performance are at least as well explained by inabilities to use some PEDs that were particularly effective in the past, rather than by no doping at all now.
You are implying that he is riding relatively clean. Otherwise explain?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
Can you explain why Contador? You are contradicting yourself when you said that a rider should not be suspicious unless he has been related to any doping affair.

AC is listed in the OP Puerto.

He is as low as Valv-Piti and Epo-Lance
 
Escarabajo said:
Can you explain why Contador? You are contradicting yourself when you said that a rider should not be suspicious unless he has been related to any doping affair.

Was Contador not linked to Operation Puerto? When I mention riders who have never been connected with anything, I mean riders who have not even been associated with doping, even rumours. Not saying riders are not suspicious but they get benefit of the doubt until connected with something.

BigBoat is now contradicting himself by saying none of the riders are clean, is this referring to blood doping or just not purely clean. He always said it was impossible to finish in Top 50 in GT without blood doping, refills. So all the guys who finished Top 50 in the recent Vuelta were all blood doping, how many people out there believe that statement is true.

How many stage winners at the Vuelta were clean, e.g. Anthony Roux from lfdjeux, a team that has not had a positive test since 99 or even been connected with anything doping related during the same period. Even when their riders leave for other teams, we rarely hear anything suspicious. Why is that???

Answers please, do they have the best cover operation over the last 10 years.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
Was Contador not linked to Operation Puerto? When I mention riders who have never been connected with anything, I mean riders who have not even been associated with doping, even rumours. Not saying riders are not suspicious but they get benefit of the doubt until connected with something.

BigBoat is now contradicting himself by saying none of the riders are clean, is this referring to blood doping or just not purely clean. He always said it was impossible to finish in Top 50 in GT without blood doping, refills. So all the guys who finished Top 50 in the recent Vuelta were all blood doping, how many people out there believe that statement is true.

How many stage winners at the Vuelta were clean, e.g. Anthony Roux from lfdjeux, a team that has not had a positive test since 99 or even been connected with anything doping related during the same period. Even when their riders leave for other teams, we rarely hear anything suspicious. Why is that???

Answers please, do they have the best cover operation over the last 10 years.
I said totally clean on NOTHING somebody wouldnt get a top 50. No HGH, or IGF-1, or ACTH hormone, no testosterone, insulin, etc, etc. Basic "stuff" thats used by the riders. Not all the teams can blood dope, that takes some know how and money. It certainly is rampent though, based on the incredible pace of the pack this year.
 
Mar 18, 2009
4,186
0
0
Visit site
Blood transfusions are still widely used. Under such circumstances, our leader Sandy Casar will never win a Grand Tour, when he certainly has the quality to do it.

Gérard Guillaume, coach with the french national squad
 
pmcg76 said:
Was Contador not linked to Operation Puerto? When I mention riders who have never been connected with anything, I mean riders who have not even been associated with doping, even rumours. Not saying riders are not suspicious but they get benefit of the doubt until connected with something.

...
I think we are saying the same thing. No problem.:)
 
Cobber said:
Maybe we need definitions of "clean"? How about:

Dirty - would put gasoline in their veins if they thought it would make them faster. Regular user of EPO microdosing & blood storage in the off season and blood transfusions before/during big races. Recovery drugs en masse.

Semi-dirty - EPO microdosing and recovery drugs

Clean - recovery drugs only.

This is what I think when I'm pessimistic, but I like to think there are guys (Bbox etc.) on plain bread and water.


Anyway, I'd say Moncoutie and Lemond are clean. Cunego maybe by the definition of 'clean' above. Duggan & Zirbel I don't know much about. The other guys are doped, and although I'd kinda like Cav to be clean... :rolleyes:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
well my opinion hasnt changed.. was and is are two very different things for me...

i think even this year there are riders that rode the giro with assistance, and where clean, or certainly cleaner by the tour.. i think there are riders who in last years tour and veulta wwhere assisted, but by the giro where cleaner, if not clean.. only a handful, but i think they are there..

then again, i think there are also riders who have gone the other way...

as for armstrong.. whatever peoples feelings towards him, pro, anti, couldnt give a crap, i go with the side of logic, he would have to be a complete idiot to risk his entire reputation in the current climate by doping, he has nothing to gain and everything to lose.. maybe he really is that stupid... i guess we will never know..

and i doubt lemond was clean, but there ya go..
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Visit site
All I know is that Pat McQuaid tells me that doping is nowhere nearly as widespread as in years past. Yet the peloton is traveling as fast as ever. This tells me one thing... I have got to get me some of those ceramic bearings! :rolleyes:
 
dimspace said:
as for armstrong.. whatever peoples feelings towards him, pro, anti, couldnt give a crap, i go with the side of logic, he would have to be a complete idiot to risk his entire reputation in the current climate by doping, he has nothing to gain and everything to lose.. maybe he really is that stupid... i guess we will never know..

I don't know how much logic there is involved here. It's either win or lose really. That's my opinion anyway.
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Visit site
pedaling squares said:
All I know is that Pat McQuaid tells me that doping is nowhere nearly as widespread as in years past. Yet the peloton is traveling as fast as ever. This tells me one thing... I have got to get me some of those ceramic bearings! :rolleyes:

And change to a gluten free diet and eat your oat meal every morning. Breakfast of champions!
 

TRENDING THREADS