The professional cycling thread
Discussion
pablo said:
just a quick question but assuming Hesjedal and the rest only started doping when they were in the pro tour teams, who back in the early 2000s when the proliferation and knowledge of using EPO effectively wasnt what it is today, surely it stands that they still got to the pro level clean?....
I believe - based on the Zabriskie testimony - that more often than not riders rose up through the levels and got their first top level pro tryout clean, and very soon realised that they had a choice of cruising around at the back and getting sacked, or taking the blue pill and finding out how deep the rabbit hole went. I think what made me cringe is the vitriol on twitter, mostly from virtuos triathletes, saying that he had cheated honest hard working people from achieivng thier dreams... Hesjedal got to the top level clean - and I know peopel dope in the early stages of their career as well but this was 2003 when proliferation of EPO and its efficient use was not what it is today - so in effect he has cheated no one but himself. Boo hoo, we all move on to the next one. I find it sad that Rasmussen has had to write the book though, seems like thats the only reveleation in it despite the blurb that it exposes doping throughout the peleton. Unless he has evidence that Ned Boulting is also on the juice then its just old stuff packaged to try and give him a pension.
As for doping in the 2012 Giro, Hesjedal won on the final ITT against Rodriguez on a course well suited to an all rounder and not an all out climber.... I'm pretty sure Vaughters will have known, in fact I'm pretty sure they all know who has and who hasnt...
As for doping in the 2012 Giro, Hesjedal won on the final ITT against Rodriguez on a course well suited to an all rounder and not an all out climber.... I'm pretty sure Vaughters will have known, in fact I'm pretty sure they all know who has and who hasnt...
okgo said:
How do you know he got to the top level clean?
Obviously we don't know. However, off the top of my head I can't think of any cases where an admitted doper has said they started doping before turning pro. Obviously that doesn't mean there aren't any, but it may suggest it is more common to start doping once pro (to ensure the elusive second contract) rather than to become pro.There are going to be a lot more of these stories to come and, although I believe cycling is on the right path now, it will definitely have more sections of pavé to come before I can be confident calling the peloton "clean" (with the caveat that it will never be 100% clean but that doesn't mean it's not an ideal worth aiming at).
Doping is rife in lower level cycling just like it is at pro level, Belgian Kermesse races probably contain more dopers than the class of 1992. I have heard a few rumours about the pro conti teams in the UK too, so I don't imagine for a minute doping is only something you do when you make it pro.
I agree that peopel can dope befor ethey turn pro but this was 2003 and not 2013, knowledge of and access to EPO was different back then so I dont suppose that it was particularly easy for a wannabe-pro in a league or two below to get hold of the stuff and make it work and I suspect the peloton would have been quick to jump on anyone they suspected of doping on the way up to protect their secrets.
As I said before, the finger of suspicion is pointing at anyone who rode in that era so I fail to see why peope are getting so angry and upset when another rider is exposed for doping in the past decade. Why dwell on what we already suspect if its just to have another opportunity to faux outrage at the next exposed doper...
As I said before, the finger of suspicion is pointing at anyone who rode in that era so I fail to see why peope are getting so angry and upset when another rider is exposed for doping in the past decade. Why dwell on what we already suspect if its just to have another opportunity to faux outrage at the next exposed doper...
pablo said:
As I said before, the finger of suspicion is pointing at anyone who rode in that era so I fail to see why peope are getting so angry and upset when another rider is exposed for doping in the past decade. Why dwell on what we already suspect if its just to have another opportunity to faux outrage at the next exposed doper...
Exactly. My anger for this sort of thing has dissipated or maybe transformed into tired resignation. I prefer to look forward now.
Vocal Minority said:
The girls on imperious form as usual
Those girls are unbelievable! Truly inspirational and a brilliant set of role models to boot for young'uns.Remember the qualifying at London 2012, record after record to the point that each time they took to the track, the whole place simply went beserk and everyone (and I mean pretty much everyone) was simply wondering how much more they would shave off the record with each and every race? Brilliant sport and true dominance.
Imagine working your whole life/career and coming up against a team like them at the major races; you would be gutted.
Just wish I had seen them live on the button!!!
Well done ladies
Armstrong in "transparency and honesty" shocker...
He argues some of those involved in cycling's culture of doping have been given "a total free pass", while others have received "the death penalty".
"If everyone gets the death penalty, then I'll take the death penalty," he said. "If everyone gets a free pass, I'm happy to take a free pass. If everyone gets six months, then I'll take my six months."
So this will be a thinly veiled whinge-athon at why Vaughters et al have been allowed to return to the sport and he was persecuted, boo hoo...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/24893598
He argues some of those involved in cycling's culture of doping have been given "a total free pass", while others have received "the death penalty".
"If everyone gets the death penalty, then I'll take the death penalty," he said. "If everyone gets a free pass, I'm happy to take a free pass. If everyone gets six months, then I'll take my six months."
So this will be a thinly veiled whinge-athon at why Vaughters et al have been allowed to return to the sport and he was persecuted, boo hoo...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/24893598
I shall don my flame proof suit and say this.
He is not an innocent, and I am not condoning what he did. Also, whilst I have no sympathy with him in his situation (he showed himself to be a pretty objectionable character during his period of 'defending' himself.
HOWEVER - He raises a valid point. The UCI need to employ more consistency. There are riders who have done the same as him, and been equally unrepentant, who have gotten off lighter (Virenque being an example off the top of my head).
It seems that his punishment was levelled in relation to his success. I suppose you could argue that is fair. But for the purposes of being as clear and transparent as possible, the UCI need to be more informative
He is not an innocent, and I am not condoning what he did. Also, whilst I have no sympathy with him in his situation (he showed himself to be a pretty objectionable character during his period of 'defending' himself.
HOWEVER - He raises a valid point. The UCI need to employ more consistency. There are riders who have done the same as him, and been equally unrepentant, who have gotten off lighter (Virenque being an example off the top of my head).
It seems that his punishment was levelled in relation to his success. I suppose you could argue that is fair. But for the purposes of being as clear and transparent as possible, the UCI need to be more informative
Armstrong isn't just the same as all the other guys who were cheating though is he? What I took from Tyler Hamilton's book and David Walsh's 'Seven Deadly sins' is that Armstrong seemed to have an unbelievable hold, not only over the peleton (although you could argue Hinault or Anquetil held similar sway in their day) but a disturbing level of influence on the sport as a whole, the UCI included.
Payments, sorry, donations of upwards of $100k to fund better methods of catching drug cheats is at best a massive conflict of interest for the UCI, at worst total complicity with a known (and at the time still competing) cheat for reasons as yet unknown. (lets not forget that dodgy prescription in '99) for one man to hold such level of influence on his sport and its governing body is surely without precedent? (althogh im happy to be proved wrong)
Other dopers didn't intimidate and bully in such a disgusting fashion as Armstrong either. For him to say that now he'll tell the truth is one of the most laughable things ive heard, he's lied so much that I wouldn't be suprised if his name wasn't Lance Armstrong. The conviction with which he did it means he should become a pro poker player. He doesn't get that its a case of 'the punishment needs to fit the crime' not 'the punishmet needs to be based on what the other bloke did'
I do however think cycling should be treated equally with other sports when it comes to all this, lets face it, all major sports are riddled with drug cheats. I wonder why the judge wanted the blood bags that didnt belong to cyclinss in the Fuentes case destroyed? Could it be that they belonged (as the good doctor himself confimed) to tennis players football players etc, all sports with MASSIVE amounts of money at stake, and less stringent testing. Its laughable.
Payments, sorry, donations of upwards of $100k to fund better methods of catching drug cheats is at best a massive conflict of interest for the UCI, at worst total complicity with a known (and at the time still competing) cheat for reasons as yet unknown. (lets not forget that dodgy prescription in '99) for one man to hold such level of influence on his sport and its governing body is surely without precedent? (althogh im happy to be proved wrong)
Other dopers didn't intimidate and bully in such a disgusting fashion as Armstrong either. For him to say that now he'll tell the truth is one of the most laughable things ive heard, he's lied so much that I wouldn't be suprised if his name wasn't Lance Armstrong. The conviction with which he did it means he should become a pro poker player. He doesn't get that its a case of 'the punishment needs to fit the crime' not 'the punishmet needs to be based on what the other bloke did'
I do however think cycling should be treated equally with other sports when it comes to all this, lets face it, all major sports are riddled with drug cheats. I wonder why the judge wanted the blood bags that didnt belong to cyclinss in the Fuentes case destroyed? Could it be that they belonged (as the good doctor himself confimed) to tennis players football players etc, all sports with MASSIVE amounts of money at stake, and less stringent testing. Its laughable.
Well we all know the limitations of drug testing.
Are their currently any drugs that cannot be tested for? Eg. Like EPO, which they knew about for a decade before they could do anything effective about?
Apologies for a potentially naive question
ETA: neilr - I may have misread your post, but the UCI were not complicit in the back-dated prescription in 99 (As in a UCI official didn't administer it that was the US Postal doctor), the UCI just accepted it and I guess if they had before they didn't have grounds to reject it.
Not trying to be moral, just pedantic!
Are their currently any drugs that cannot be tested for? Eg. Like EPO, which they knew about for a decade before they could do anything effective about?
Apologies for a potentially naive question
ETA: neilr - I may have misread your post, but the UCI were not complicit in the back-dated prescription in 99 (As in a UCI official didn't administer it that was the US Postal doctor), the UCI just accepted it and I guess if they had before they didn't have grounds to reject it.
Not trying to be moral, just pedantic!
Edited by Vocal Minority on Monday 11th November 18:18
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff