# Cadel Evans, a winner we can trust.



## festival (14 Mar 2011)

Of all the pro riders capable of winning Grand Tours and one day monuments, how many can we, the knowledgeable public trust to be racing clean.
Let me clarify this by saying I am taking about the elite group who are always in with a chance of winning the races above. eg Wiggins may one day win a classic but he would not be in the list to win at the moment. Or Vockler is often a wild card but will never be a favourite for these races.
So I offer you Cadel Evans. Anyone else we can trust to win without bring the sport into disrepute


----------



## lukesdad (14 Mar 2011)

Carlos Sastre, although maybe past his best......not sure ? Watch " Over comming " and you ll see what I mean.


----------



## yello (14 Mar 2011)

Trust no one!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Mar 2011)

They are all dopers


----------



## iAmiAdam (14 Mar 2011)

I find it funny how cyclists complain about being tarred with the same brush as the irresponsible cyclists, but when it comes to racing, they're all doping.

I like to think the Schlecks are clean, as is Cav, Wiggo, Evans, Cancellara etc. and I trust the hundreds of domestiques.


----------



## raindog (14 Mar 2011)

I've really gone off the Schlecks recently.


----------



## iAmiAdam (14 Mar 2011)

How can you not love the younger Schleck?


----------



## raindog (14 Mar 2011)

I think it was the video that Dave1 posted a couple of weeks ago that did it. I found it very creepy, even deeply disturbing.

http://www.youtube.c...eature=youtu.be


----------



## rich p (14 Mar 2011)

iAmiAdam said:


> How can you not love the younger Schleck?




Is he performing an act of unspeakable bestiality there Adam?

It's easy for people to assume all riders are dopers and let's face it, it was the safest option to avoid future disappointment. I think the peloton is cleaner now although that is far from saying that it's clean. 

There are 4 types of riders as far as I can see  

1. The ones I trust

2. The ones I distrust

3. The ones I'm not sure about but harbour suspicions

4. The ones who have doped in the past who may be clean but I will mistrust and dislike regardless


----------



## raindog (14 Mar 2011)

rich p said:


> I think the peloton is cleaner now although that is far from saying that it's clean.


Well, it's certainly cleaner since Ricco departed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Mar 2011)

iAmiAdam said:


> I find it funny how cyclists complain about being tarred with the same brush as the irresponsible cyclists, but when it comes to racing, they're all doping.
> 
> I like to think the Schlecks are clean, as is Cav, Wiggo, Evans, Cancellara etc. and I trust the hundreds of domestiques.



I'm not 'cyclists', I'm me, and fwiw I don't give a stuff if someone tars me with the 'irresponsible cyclist' brush. Your position describes my own a few years ago in that I liked to think several fave competitors were clean and was subsequently proved wrong. Perhaps I should have expressed myself in full

_They are all dopers and it makes no difference to my enjoyment of the spectacle._


----------



## BJH (14 Mar 2011)

So why didn't young Andy scream blue murder when the person who beat him fails a drug test??????


----------



## iAmiAdam (14 Mar 2011)

GregCollins said:


> I'm not 'cyclists', I'm me, and fwiw I don't give a stuff if someone tars me with the 'irresponsible cyclist' brush. Your position describes my own a few years ago in that I liked to think several fave competitors were clean and was subsequently proved wrong. Perhaps I should have expressed myself in full
> 
> _They are all dopers and it makes no difference to my enjoyment of the spectacle._



Okkkk, I never said your username and the comment wasn't aimed at you in particular, it was just an observation I've made over many forums, hence 'cyclists'.

I named a few riders, never said they were my favourite riders, the hundreds of domestiques are far from that, I'm not a massive fan of Wiggo or Evans either.

Perhaps I should of expressed myself more clearly, some of the riders I believe to be clean are listed above. I find it funny when people accuse all athletes of doping because a few choose to do that. Irony.


----------



## mangaman (14 Mar 2011)

festival said:


> So I offer you Cadel Evans. Anyone else we can trust to win without bring the sport into disrepute




Why Cadel Evans festival?

I can't see he's any different from anyone else.

As people have said - no-one knows, although I would suspect they're all at it.

I find it interesting that iAMiADAM mentioned the domestiques.

It's long been a bugbear of mine, whenever people say "they all dope, so the best rider still wins".

Cycling in a Grand Tour to win, really relies on Domestiques. The winners are protected the whole way and often the decisive moments are a few minutes on a high mountain or a TT.

One thing Puerto taught me was the cost of doping - I think, from memory, Tyler Hamilton was spending 40,000 euros a year.

To dope an entire team would be beyond the budget of most teams.

Imagine a hypothetical team - let's make them randomly err American. They have a super-rich team leader.
They ride 3 week tours with *every* rider in superb form. Able to ride at the front on all terrains all race, with huge Classics specialists winning mountain stages etc.

This hypothetical team just uses these supercharged domestiques to ride off all the other teams on every stage - and the leader is led home at the top of the mountains by a superdomestique.

These superdomestiques often leave and become team leaders - and get busted for drugs.

Now I know this seems implausible, and none of us can think of such a team



, but in a 3 week race I think we underestimate the domestiques.

If I were an unscrupulous DS I would dope all my domestiques to the max. as my main priority and concentrate on 1 race (the TDF for maximum publicity) as you can't do it all year.

A lot's talked about how drugs "don't turn bad riders into tour winners" but "preparing" an entire team, would be a clever ploy.


----------



## iAmiAdam (14 Mar 2011)

mangaman said:


> Why Cadel Evans festival?
> 
> I can't see he's any different from anyone else.
> 
> ...



And then you lose your entire team and not just one rider.


----------



## Smokin Joe (14 Mar 2011)

iAmiAdam said:


> And then you lose your entire team and not just one rider.


But the point is that domestiques don't get tested as much as top finishers. And I believe mangaman's entirely ficticious




team would have such a sophisticated doping programme that they would be able to avoid detection.


----------



## Telemark (14 Mar 2011)

To spin this tale further ... the leader of that hypothetical super-charged team would be able to cycle entirely clean himself, and if any or all of the domestiques were busted for doping, the leader could get away with "woe me, I never knew anything, I won it fair & square" .... 


T 

P.S. It would be a shame if he couldn't keep up with the domestiques, though


----------



## beastie (14 Mar 2011)

I used to think that great natural talents like Usain Bolt had no need for doping. He has always won, he has always been great, so he doesn't need find that extra percent.The athletes whom thought most likely to dope were the ones who having tried and trained to the best of their ability still came just short of their ambitions.
.In cycling terms I thought that Contador and Andy Schleck were both so good so young that there was little chance of them using peds. Not so sure now, in fact I am sure about Bertie - ever since his TT performance in winning tour in 2009. Hhmmm


----------



## tigger (14 Mar 2011)

iAmiAdam said:


> I like to think the Schlecks are clean,



Would that be the same Schlecks who paid money into Dr Ferrari's bank account?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Mar 2011)

Anyone might be clean once they got to the top, but were they clean on the way up, all the way, every day?


----------



## mangaman (14 Mar 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> But the point is that domestiques don't get tested as much as top finishers. And I believe mangaman's entirely ficticious
> 
> 
> 
> team would have such a sophisticated doping programme that they would be able to avoid detection.



My hypothetical team



concentrate on masking doping / doping all domestiques for one race for 3 weeks of the year and more or less ignore the rest of the year.

Money can buy anything - my hypothetical team leader (let's call him Vince) even gave a large sum of money to the UCI "to tackle doping".

The team, by not competing seriously in the classics/other grand tours - can pay for the best dopage-evasion at the TDF.

And - as Joe says, domestiques relatively rarely get tested.


----------



## festival (15 Mar 2011)

GregCollins said:


> They are all dopers




Would you like to expand on your comment.
Frankly, I don't have any heroes but my view is, at this time, many have doped if only occasionally and a minority who can afford it systematically do it through out their careers. 
I think I understand your point but its sad, you may as well just watch a video game.


----------



## festival (15 Mar 2011)

mangaman said:


> Why Cadel Evans festival?
> 
> I can't see he's any different from anyone else




I have no heroes, but Evans works hard at what talent he has and seems genuine, I could be wrong.


----------



## fungus (15 Mar 2011)

tigger said:


> Would that be the same Schlecks who paid money into Dr Ferrari's bank account?



I thank you!!! Tigger





I'm clean unless Banks's bitter or Marston's pedigree has crept on to the band list


----------



## Dave_1 (15 Mar 2011)

he's been a pro since what..2000? or 2001 and not one bad story re drugs...so my hunch is he is clean. Perfect TDF progress trajectory, never mentioned in the T mobile drug regimen Sinkewitz blew lid off. basso, Contador, Ullrich, they all get caught at some point by the law of averages...so the fact he hasn't must mean something.


----------



## iAmiAdam (15 Mar 2011)

tigger said:


> Would that be the same Schlecks who paid money into Dr Ferrari's bank account?



They're not silly, they'd of known it'd be suspicious so obviously not for doping imo.


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Mar 2011)

raindog said:


> I think it was the video that Dave1 posted a couple of weeks ago that did it. I found it very creepy, even deeply disturbing.
> 
> http://www.youtube.c...eature=youtu.be


I've just watched the video (for which many thanks) and came to the opposite conclusion. It confirms my thought that the Schlecks are some kind of throwback to the 50s, or even the 30s in a Swallows and Amazons kind of way


----------



## Dave5N (3 Apr 2011)

iAmiAdam said:


> *I like to think the Schlecks are clean*, as is Cav, Wiggo, Evans, Cancellara etc. and I trust the hundreds of domestiques.




Hahahahahahahahaha



ha


----------



## PaulB (3 Apr 2011)

Until fairly recently, I was naive on the doping in cycling issue. Different now, though. I've just finished my fifth consecutive book specifically on doping, or touching on doping in cycling and have to say that I trust very few of the current pros on the circuit, having availed myself of the available information on the subject in the sport. Examining the rationale for the existence of the books I've read shows differing reasons for their publication and most certainly no concerted effort to expose the pharmaceutical abuse issue in the sport.

From what I've read, I'd say the last TdF winner we KNOW to be clean was....Greg LeMond. Yes, it was pretty much that far back and we absolutely know that even prior to him there were many doped winners.

One known clean rider who comes out as being vociferously anti-drugs from the 'golden age' was Charlie Mottet and I'd like to see an award named after him. I'd like to see more riders strive to attain outstanding results on natural ability allied only to training regimes and nutritional intake like Charlie did. 

I care nothing any more for those 'golden boys' who leave you full of admiration and wonderment at their performances only to be later revealed as being more successful at beating the testers than the terrain. In future, I'll watch the big three tours as travelogs showing magnificent scenery and revealing the history of the places en-route.


----------



## raindog (3 Apr 2011)

How do "we KNOW" LeMond was clean? Alot of people would disagree with you there.


----------



## yello (3 Apr 2011)

PaulB said:


> I've just finished my fifth consecutive book specifically on doping, or touching on doping in cycling



I'd be interested in reading those books if you could name them.

There's a gulf between the reality of doping within a sport (any sport) and the perception of what constitutes 'clean' outside of it. I'm interested in reading more of the reality (in the cases where it has been documented).

It's a interesting (though flawed, imho) argument that pros use sometimes. That is, fans don't understand the realities of sport and the 'level playing field' argument. There are pressures to succeed, I'm sure, and that leads to doping but pros are sufficiently aware of what constitutes illegal... they're living a dual reality. 

I'd really like David Millar to write his story. He's someone I think could tackle the subject intelligently and convey that duality. I may not be sympathetic to his arguments but I'd like to hear them none-the-less.


----------



## PaulB (3 Apr 2011)

yello said:


> I'd be interested in reading those books if you could name them.
> 
> There's a gulf between the reality of doping within a sport (any sport) and the perception of what constitutes 'clean' outside of it. I'm interested in reading more of the reality (in the cases where it has been documented).
> 
> ...



I began with the Paul Kimmage book 'Rough Ride' which was the one, from an 'average' riders' perspective, that got me interested. From Amazon, I then got 'Bad Blood', 'Breaking the Chain', 'The death of Marco Pantani' and Jeff Connors' 'Wide eyed and legless'. They leave little doubt as to what's required to even FINISH one of the tours. 

I found the attitude of the UCI in many instances to be absolutely incredible. They virtually sanctioned the use of r-EPO by telling the riders what they could get away with (under 52% haematocrit) and so green-lighted the practice of dosing up to that level. All the teams travelled with a centrifuge to test their riders' blood to see if they were under the limit and safe to pee in a bottle. You get to understand just how far up (and down) the 'Omerta' mantra goes and the UCI are certainly a party to this. 

Some of the revelations are staggering, and sickening and put me off being enthralled by what the riders do nowadays. My attitude is a big 'so what?'


----------



## mangaman (3 Apr 2011)

Legally - I guess Christophe Bassons (although only a domestique)

He was outed as clean under oath in the Festina trial by everyone.

Which is why Lance decided to destroy his career - and was the 1st of many reasons my dislike of him grew.

http://en.wikipedia...._Bassons#Doping

We can't prove anyone was clean - but an entire team (including backroom staff) being tried in court - saying Bassons was always clean is good enough for me.

Why would they even mention it (and perjure themselves) if it weren't true? They had nothing to gain.


----------



## oldroadman (4 Apr 2011)

I was deciding not to comment, but then rarely have read so much conjecture and, frankly, rubbish.
Berfore the bio-passport we had random testing of urine, plus the scheduled stage race tests, for example, race leader at end of the day, stage winner, two randoms(picked during the race) , two reserves in case of DNF. Now we have the "vampires" knocking on doors at 6 am and checking H/C levels - by the way it's 50% and EPO is detectable. In the era of Merckx and the like - still the greatest rider - there was far less control and possibly a lot more use of "lighter" stuff - amphets for instance - which went undetected. The the old argument that if everyone was using the stuff, the differences would be the same was used.
I don't condone any form of doping, but when we look critically at our sport, we should compare it with others as well. Recently a rugby league player was suspended for 4 months for "stimulants" - excuse they were in a supplement...OK. What cycling does is wash some dirty linen in public. What others do is bury the bad stuff, as cycling USED TO DO. The fans don't want to know - ask any football follower if they even remember a player running away from testers - and later was a captain of his country.
Sorry if this is a ramble, but opinion is one thing, fact and experience entirely another. And whoever said Greg Lemond was clean really means he never had a positive - just like Bernard Hinault and the late Laurent Fignon, they were all at the same level, and one can equally assume were "prepared" in the same way.


----------



## e-rider (4 Apr 2011)

raindog said:


> I think it was the video that Dave1 posted a couple of weeks ago that did it. I found it very creepy, even deeply disturbing.
> 
> http://www.youtube.c...eature=youtu.be



I like this


----------



## PaulB (4 Apr 2011)

oldroadman said:


> I was deciding not to comment, but then rarely have read so much conjecture and, frankly, rubbish.
> Berfore the bio-passport we had random testing of urine, plus the scheduled stage race tests, for example, race leader at end of the day, stage winner, two randoms(picked during the race) , two reserves in case of DNF. Now we have the "vampires" knocking on doors at 6 am and checking H/C levels - by the way it's 50% and EPO is detectable. In the era of Merckx and the like - still the greatest rider - there was far less control and possibly a lot more use of "lighter" stuff - amphets for instance - which went undetected. The the old argument that if everyone was using the stuff, the differences would be the same was used.
> I don't condone any form of doping, but when we look critically at our sport, we should compare it with others as well. Recently a rugby league player was suspended for 4 months for "stimulants" - excuse they were in a supplement...OK. What cycling does is wash some dirty linen in public. What others do is bury the bad stuff, as cycling USED TO DO. The fans don't want to know - ask any football follower if they even remember a player running away from testers - and later was a captain of his country.
> Sorry if this is a ramble, but opinion is one thing, fact and experience entirely another. And whoever said Greg Lemond was clean really means he never had a positive - just like Bernard Hinault and the late Laurent Fignon, they were all at the same level, and one can equally assume were "prepared" in the same way.




There's no comparison between cycling and any other mainstream sport where doping is concerned. None whatsoever. You specifically remember one rugby player and one football player. There are many, many times the number of pros in each of those sports compared to the number of pro cyclists and which of those three sports is far and away the worst affected? It's laughable you trying to gain some parity with football and rugby where doping's concerned. And you really need to learn more about Greg LeMond and his reasons for pulling out of the 91 TdF (when he was defending his title) and seeing what he's saying now about the sport and the credibility his stance carries. And, of course, the criticisms of his stance by those criticised.


----------



## Bicycle (4 Apr 2011)

I know little, but it has long been my assumption that stage racing is not a clean sport.

Cadel Evans is a shoo-in for the 'I bet he doesn't dope' vote, because he's a gritty fighter who's been very close many times.

We often warm to that sort of rider and it's easy to take smpathy and admiration a step further and annoint him 'Mr Clean'.

I adore watching stage racing and love to read about it too.

Without doping I think it would be a muuch duller spectacle. Still admirable, but lacking a little as a spectacle.

The riders, from Johhny Fast to Red Lantern are all as tough as a person can be. 

Without Vino, Landis, Armstrong, Contador, Virenque, Pantani, Cav and all the other 'surprisingly fast' riders, the past few seasons would have been a good deal duller.

If it takes 'proper preparation' to get these guys racing, then let them have as much as their doctors think it safe to give them.

I just hope they don't take it to Flo-Jo levels and end up dying in their thirties (although Flo-JO was clean, so that's an unfair example).

I also hope they don't do a Carl Lewis and get all weepy about God and Jesus giving them a talent... Oh no.. he was clean too...

Michelle de Bruin? The only human ever to pee pure single malt.... Also clean.

Let them dope, don't be too clever about testing and keep the spectacle vivid.


----------



## philipbh (4 Apr 2011)

yello said:


> I'd really like David Millar to write his story. He's someone I think could tackle the subject intelligently and convey that duality. I may not be sympathetic to his arguments but I'd like to hear them none-the-less.



16th June according to Amazon 


Racing Through the Dark: The Fall and Rise of David Millar


----------



## rich p (4 Apr 2011)

oldroadman said:


> I was deciding not to comment, but then rarely have read so much conjecture and, frankly, rubbish.
> Berfore the bio-passport we had random testing of urine, plus the scheduled stage race tests, for example, race leader at end of the day, stage winner, two randoms(picked during the race) , two reserves in case of DNF. Now we have the "vampires" knocking on doors at 6 am and checking H/C levels - by the way it's 50% and EPO is detectable. In the era of Merckx and the like - still the greatest rider - there was far less control and possibly a lot more use of "lighter" stuff - amphets for instance - which went undetected. The the old argument that if everyone was using the stuff, the differences would be the same was used.
> I don't condone any form of doping, but when we look critically at our sport, we should compare it with others as well. Recently a rugby league player was suspended for 4 months for "stimulants" - excuse they were in a supplement...OK. What cycling does is wash some dirty linen in public. What others do is bury the bad stuff, as cycling USED TO DO. The fans don't want to know - ask any football follower if they even remember a player running away from testers - and later was a captain of his country.
> Sorry if this is a ramble, but opinion is one thing, fact and experience entirely another. And whoever said Greg Lemond was clean really means he never had a positive - just like Bernard Hinault and the late Laurent Fignon, they were all at the same level, and one can equally assume were "prepared" in the same way.




What a lot of drivel! 

You say you couldn't resist replying because of rubbish and conjecture in one breath and then say that Lemond must have been doped because you assume Fignon and Hinault were too. I fthat aint conjecture I'll eat my other helmet.

Cycling does have a bigger drug problem than other sports historically and probably currently. It's clear that it hasn't been tackled vigorously enough in the past but maybe it's getting cleaner now. Football and rugby and other sports will have their own dopers, for sure, but I care more about cycling cleaning its act up, and to compare it with other sports is an irrelevance. The fact that a skier or a footballer took some EPO doesn't make Contador's indiscretions any more palatable.


----------



## Noodley (4 Apr 2011)

rich p said:


> What a lot of drivel!



Exactly...just more opinion, and definitely not "fact or experience".


----------



## oldroadman (4 Apr 2011)

rich p said:


> What a lot of drivel!
> 
> You say you couldn't resist replying because of rubbish and conjecture in one breath and then *say that Lemond must have been doped because you assume Fignon and Hinault* were too. I fthat aint conjecture I'll eat my other helmet.
> 
> Cycling does have a bigger drug problem than other sports historically and probably currently. It's clear that it hasn't been tackled vigorously enough in the past but maybe it's getting cleaner now. Football and rugby and other sports will have their own dopers, for sure, but I care more about cycling cleaning its act up, and to compare it with other sports is an irrelevance. The fact that a skier or a footballer took some EPO doesn't make Contador's indiscretions any more palatable.



No assumption of anything illegal. Preparation has many forms. As Mr Armstrong can assure us.
Mind, you all bit very well!


----------



## PaulB (4 Apr 2011)

oldroadman said:


> No assumption of anything illegal. Preparation has many forms. As Mr Armstrong can assure us.
> Mind, you all bit very well!



Lose the fight and then claim we fell for your duplicity! Very smrt.


----------



## ColinJ (4 Apr 2011)

It was Lemond's 8 second victory over Fignon that got me back into cycling in 1989.

I recently watched a video of that tour and it was interesting to compare the facial expressions of a lot of the mountain stage winners from that year with what followed once EPO abuse was widespread.

Riders who had battled it out to the top of a big mountain looked like hospital cases. Compare that to the p*ss-taking Ricco of a few years back who made it looks so easy that it was obvious to anybody with half a brain that he was cheating. Great champions are perhaps a couple of percent better than other top competitors - not 20%!

I watched Lemond's 3rd TdF victory in 1990 and was hoping that he would do well in 1991 but his career went rapidly downhill. At the time it was blamed on illness and/or the effects of lead pellets left in his body from his shooting accident. I reckon it was the fact that his main opponents had started using EPO.

I know it isn't scientific proof that Evans is clean, but you can see how much his efforts hurt him! He really knows how to suffer.


----------



## PaulB (4 Apr 2011)

ColinJ said:


> It was Lemond's 8 second victory over Fignon that got me back into cycling in 1989.
> 
> I recently watched a video of that tour and it was interesting to compare the facial expressions of a lot of the mountain stage winners from that year with what followed once EPO abuse was widespread.



I think it was 'Bad Blood' (but it may have been one of the other books on doping I've just read) that shows the trust we can have in Greg LeMond. He won the Tour in 90 and was doing very well in 91 but in the 92 tour (apologies for getting the year mixed up in my response above), he just knew what must have been happening and quit the tour rather than descend to that level. The peloton, which had been no competition for him in the previous years, left him for dead by sailing past him at an average of 54 KPH. His speed, despite being probably the greatest road cyclist in the world at that time, averaged 51 KPH! He watched people who he knew weren't able to lace up his boots, leave him for dust. Now the chances of the ENTIRE peloton coming good at one and the same time is too far-fetched to be regarded as feasible in any way shape or form. Being a part of the circuit, he'd have certainly known the reason for this and was surrounded by people who could have assured him of their best methods to indulge and escape but he was having NONE of it and quit in disgust rather than succumb to that particular party. 

Chapeau to LeMond is what I say in this case.


----------



## Hont (5 Apr 2011)

Inevitably any discussion on this topic diverges and goes off at slight tangents, but I'll just give my four-penneth on the original point behind the post. Who, amongst Grand Tour and monument contenders, can we trust?

Cadel Evans - because other pros have backed him in this regard, he worked with Aldo Sassi and he was only ever a follower, until doping became less effective and widespread. None of his performances have ever been "extraordinary" or surprising.
Ivan Basso - might be a bit controversial this one, but since coming back from the ban:- he took two seasons to get back to the top, again worked with Sassi, was completely unable to recover from the Giro for the Tour last year which anyone "preparing" surely would have done.
Bradley Wiggins - Worked within the no drugs culture of British Cycling, Garmin and Sky, posted his full blood results after 4th in the Tour.
Christian VandeVelde/Ryder Hesjedal - More podium chances than contenders, but the whole ethos of Garmin is no-needles and VdV posted his results after his Tour top ten.
Mark Cavendish - Comes from British Cycling, goes far too badly on hills to suggest any sort of blood manipulation. Known to get his speed more from aerodynamic advantage than raw power (which is documentated as lower than Greipel, Petacchi etc).
Damiano Cunego - Has taken a stand against doping in the past. Is way too rubbish at Grand Tours for someone with his talent to be doping.
Carlos Sastre - Mostly for the same reasons as Cadel.
Thor Hushovd - Another Garmin rider. Done nothing to suggest he dopes.

There are some others that I'm unsure about, who have avoided scandal so far and were it any other sport I might give the benefit of the doubt to (Nibali, Menchov, Gilbert, Nuyens, Van den Broeck, Gesink). The Schlecks (how Frank persuaded the authorities that he paid a Spanish gynaecologist for cycling training plans is beyond me) and Contador do not fall into this category. 

I also don't believe in Cancellara (_too_ strong and he peaks too many times in a season), Boonen (if he takes Cocaine, what else is he taking), Vinokourov, Samuel Sanchez, Joaquin Rodriguez, Oscar Friere, Petacchi, Andreas Kloden, Levi Leipheimer. Some of these for obvious reasons others just for showing extraordinary strength at critical times or being on dodgy teams.

I think that's it for the real contenders.


----------



## Hont (5 Apr 2011)

ColinJ said:


> I recently watched a video of that tour and it was interesting to compare the facial expressions of a lot of the mountain stage winners from that year with what followed once EPO abuse was widespread.


Also note the _way_ they climbed. Grinding the gears, swaying from side to side in the saddle. I've seen a little of that style returning which is reassuring after years of watching Pantani and Armstrong sprinting up mountains out of the saddle for almost the whole climb.


----------



## rich p (5 Apr 2011)

I agree largely with your list Hont but not entirely. It's idle speculation as none of us can know unless they get nabbed. Even then, Pelizotti and his ilk will say that they never tested positive.


I have many doubts about Menchov, some about Sastre and Cunego has said that he can't 'understand' how these modern riders can go so fast. I believe that he is now clean and will never replicate his past doped GT performances.


----------



## Renard (5 Apr 2011)

Its just professional sport innit? Only the naive think its confined to cycling.


----------



## Hont (7 Apr 2011)

rich p said:


> I agree largely with your list Hont but not entirely. It's idle speculation as none of us can know unless they get nabbed.


Indeed. It's just MHO.

Couple of big players I forgot - Luis Leon Sanchez, Stijn Devolder, Igor Anton (none of whom make the "believe" list).


----------



## Dave_1 (10 Apr 2011)

Cunego's career progress trajectory looks the opposite of what nature and maturity give...2004 Giro winner and then never able to repeat it. Evans progress looked steady..he was heard of as a grand tour GC climber/TTist before he got good. I think Evans gave warning in 2002 that was pretty decent at grand tour GC racing. But Cunego? He appears as a dominant winner of the Giro as a 21 year old...never gave notice he could do it and never got near it since, so there we go. Who would you bet on being real? I think Evans


----------



## ColinJ (10 Apr 2011)

Dave_1 said:


> Cunego's career progress trajectory looks the opposite of what nature and maturity give...2004 Giro winner and then never able to repeat it. Evans progress looked steady..he was heard of as a grand tour GC climber/TTist before he got good. I think Evans gave warning in 2002 that was pretty decent at grand tour GC racing. But Cunego? He appears as a dominant winner of the Giro as a 21 year old...never gave notice he could do it and never got near it since, so there we go. Who would you bet on being real? I think Evans


If you look at what Cunego did early in his career and what he has done since, and also what he says now on the subject of doping, I wonder if he was doping then but decided to stop?


----------



## rich p (10 Apr 2011)

ColinJ said:


> If you look at what Cunego did early in his career and what he has done since, and also what he says now on the subject of doping, I wonder if he was doping then but decided to stop?




as I said above!


----------



## ColinJ (10 Apr 2011)

rich p said:


> as I said above!


Oops - so you did! I was guilty of not reading all the posts because I was in a hurry.


----------



## Hont (11 Apr 2011)

Just noticed I missed out Ballan. Recent events make him easy to call.


----------



## BJH (11 Apr 2011)

Really good stuff in this debate. 

I think the Le Mond as the last undoped winner is also a good call. 

Two things cry out to me - judge the riders on their comments towards cheats, it tells a very interesting story. Le Mond was always outspoken on the subject, others are, at best, creating the climate for it to continue by holding their silence.

Not a big fan of Cadel Evans, but thats to do with his whingeing voice. But the performance variation suggests he's clean. Some fantastic stages at the Tour and the Giro tend to be followed by what you would expect to see - knackered and clinging on the next day!

I would just like to ask Andy Schleck, how can he tolerate the thought of the title that he was beaten to sitting with someone else who has been found to have banned substances in their body. Would that not make him go apesh%t ????


----------



## mr_s81 (11 Apr 2011)

BJH said:


> I would just like to ask Andy Schleck, how can he tolerate the thought of the title that he was beaten to sitting with someone else who has been found to have banned substances in their body. Would that not make him go apesh%t ????



+1

If I was Andy Schleck and riding clean, and realised that over a 3 week tour I was beaten by only 39 seconds by someone who tested positive for banned substances - I think it would be pretty hard not to go daft. The fact he's not (publicly at least) said much on the subject would for me create more questions than answers regarding his own position.


----------



## ColinJ (11 Apr 2011)

BJH said:


> I would just like to ask Andy Schleck, how can he tolerate the thought of the title that he was beaten to sitting with someone else who has been found to have banned substances in their body. Would that not make him go apesh%t ????


It's a wee bit revealing that, isn't it! 



Cycling Weekly said:


> The friendship between Alberto Contador and Andy Schleck ended on the Port de Balès today at the Tour de France. Contador flew by Schleck in his yellow jersey, who was struggling to get his bicycle to go after losing his chain.
> 
> Luxembourg's Schleck said last Monday he had no enemies in the peloton and that he was friends with Contador, but today that changed.
> 
> "We are only here to bike race, let's leave it at that," said Schleck. "I asked him in there [behind podium], how can you do that?"





Cycling Weekly said:


> A cynic would argue Andy Schleck, the 2010 Tour de France runner-up, could be the one with the most to gain if Alberto Contador is finally suspended for his clenbuterol positive, but the Luxemburg-born star doesn't see it that way at all.
> 
> "I don't think he's done anything wrong," Andy Schleck told Spanish sports daily MARCA after a criterium in Mexico.
> 
> ...


Hmm ...!


----------



## Hont (12 Apr 2011)

Shades of what Pineiro said after Landis was disqualified. Hmm indeed.


----------



## PaulB (12 Apr 2011)

How come one branch of medicine (pharmacology) is not allowed yet another branch of medicine (psychology) is allowed when sportsmen can receive hypnotism?


----------



## Hont (12 Apr 2011)

Doping kills.


----------



## DaveC (13 Apr 2011)

I think he can be trusted not to do anything as stupid as Floyd did and get caught at it. I like his chances of winning the TdF. He's got a strong team this year.


----------



## Paul Walters (13 Apr 2011)

Evans will never be big in the peleton - he is ginger after all ....


----------



## oldroadman (13 Apr 2011)

PaulB said:


> How come one branch of medicine (pharmacology) is not allowed yet another branch of medicine (psychology) is allowed when sportsmen can receive hypnotism?



Because despite what the brain says, you can only get from your body what is in it. The usual technique is visualisation, seeing yourself performing well. It's also useful in counterbalancing mental pressure of expectation. One thing to push through the pain, helped by positive messages, entirely another to get "help" from physical "preparation".
I'm not convinced about the Lemond arguments, his allegations. After all, attack is the best method of defence. And anyway, why now and not just after his career? A cynic might say because there are no old stored samples that could be retrospectively tested?


----------



## BJH (22 Apr 2011)

oldroadman said:


> Because despite what the brain says, you can only get from your body what is in it. The usual technique is visualisation, seeing yourself performing well. It's also useful in counterbalancing mental pressure of expectation. One thing to push through the pain, helped by positive messages, entirely another to get "help" from physical "preparation".
> I'm not convinced about the Lemond arguments, his allegations. After all, attack is the best method of defence. And anyway, why now and not just after his career? A cynic might say because there are no old stored samples that could be retrospectively tested?



Le Mond questioned LA from very early on and when it was vey unfashionable to do so. Threats about his business future forced him to back down for a while, but he his comments have been consistent. He was often quoted with similar comments that Chris Boardman made, just not really understanding what was going on when also rans were flying past him as though on.......well indeed they were on rocket fuel.

Compare his comments to any other winners of the TdF you care to name and it makes for an interesting comparisons - as I keep saying, judge people by their reactions, responses and comments.


----------

