Cadel Evans, a winner we can trust.

[yello]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What a lot of drivel!

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

 

[oldroadman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.