O/T but relevant as it's Tour time

secretsam

Has any top cyclist ever, in your opinion, been clean?

Forgetting the usual "Lance inhaled gnat's scrotums every day" kind of thing, what about the heroes of yesteryear? The Kelly's, Roche's, even (whisper) Merckx...

"Put me back on my bike" - oh Tom, will they never learn...

W1

Why did our insurance thread get locked?

Anyway to add to your post on that - there is a distiction between actual and potential liabilities. Most insurance companies can meet their actual liabilities, otherwise they wouldn't exist. On the other hand the government can't, hence the (increasing) budget deficit.

As to me having a problem with "government", I don't. I just want them to intrude into my life as little as possible and at as low a cost as possible.

On topic - I can't believe that every cyclist is on something - but equally I can't understand why cycling seems to suffer so badly from it.

Gussio

It would be nice to think so, but the list in the attached link is a long one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

holybinch

I don't believe any of the winners of the post war era was clean.

Cycling doesn't suffer more, I'd rather have a sport where some guys get taken, than one where "everyone is clean" (yes, I'm looking at you mister Blatter)

Everyone someone gets caught, it reinforces my belief that the fight against doping is progressing.

secretsam

W1 wrote:

Why did our insurance thread get locked?

Anyway to add to your post on that - there is a distiction between actual and potential liabilities. Most insurance companies can meet their actual liabilities, otherwise they wouldn't exist. On the other hand the government can't, hence the (increasing) budget deficit.

As to me having a problem with "government", I don't. I just want them to intrude into my life as little as possible and at as low a cost as possible.

On topic - I can't believe that every cyclist is on something - but equally I can't understand why cycling seems to suffer so badly from it.

To answer your question - because I dibbed on you to the mods, you and Porgy were getting a little out of hand.

Fair comment on the gov't thing.

I think the answer to the "why cycling" thing is there's real benefit in an endurance sport like this. I'll bet those marathon runner pop a pill or two, f'ck knows I would if I had to do such a dull sport. I'd be yipped up to the eyeballs, I'd not need any flaming "look at me" dragon suit or whatever.

Anyway, back on topic...

Gussio

Turning the question around slightly, is it physically possible to ride a 3 week race like the Tour clean, at the intensities that the pro riders reach? Similarly, is the gulf between Cat 1 racers and Pro Tour riders just down to physiology and training? I can't think of another sport where the gap between top amatures and pros is so wide.

Gussio

holybinch wrote:

Everyone someone gets caught, it reinforces my belief that the fight against doping is progressing.

Presumably at the same time, doping practices are becoming progressively sophisticated.

W1

SecretSam wrote:

W1 wrote:

Why did our insurance thread get locked?

Anyway to add to your post on that - there is a distiction between actual and potential liabilities. Most insurance companies can meet their actual liabilities, otherwise they wouldn't exist. On the other hand the government can't, hence the (increasing) budget deficit.

As to me having a problem with "government", I don't. I just want them to intrude into my life as little as possible and at as low a cost as possible.

On topic - I can't believe that every cyclist is on something - but equally I can't understand why cycling seems to suffer so badly from it.

To answer your question - because I dibbed on you to the mods, you and Porgy were getting a little out of hand.

Fair comment on the gov't thing.

I think the answer to the "why cycling" thing is there's real benefit in an endurance sport like this. I'll bet those marathon runner pop a pill or two, f'ck knows I would if I had to do such a dull sport. I'd be yipped up to the eyeballs, I'd not need any flaming "look at me" dragon suit or whatever.

Anyway, back on topic...

Boo - we were barely getting started!

OK, but you hear of more sprinters than marathon runners getting done for doping (from my illeducated perspective on the matter)?

whyamihere

I reckon Sastre's clean. Evans too. Wiggins and the rest of the Sky team are clean, I'd be fairly confident of that. Cavendish is probably clean too. I do get the feeling that overall things are getting cleaner, but there's still problems, certainly.

I've said elsewhere, that I don't believe there had ever been a clean winner of the TDF before 2008 (Sastre).

secretsam

I so wanted Kelly to be clean, he was one of my boyhood heroes.

Still, if the alternative was being a potato farmer...

NOTE: KELLY OWNED A FARM, this is not an Anti-Irish joke

Gussio

SecretSam wrote:

I so wanted Kelly to be clean, he was one of my boyhood heroes.

Still, if the alternative was being a potato farmer...

NOTE: KELLY OWNED A FARM, this is not an Anti-Irish joke

But was it a potato farm...?

secretsam

Gussio wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

I so wanted Kelly to be clean, he was one of my boyhood heroes.

Still, if the alternative was being a potato farmer...

NOTE: KELLY OWNED A FARM, this is not an Anti-Irish joke

But was it a potato farm...?

It might have been, you can grow spuds anywhere.

spen666

Gentlemen and Ladies,

Can I advise you to be very careful on this topic.

Both you and the forum owners are liable for any libellous remarks posted on here.

The laws of libel are different to any other law.

If you say X took drugs, then all X has to prove is you posted said remark oer it was on the fiorum.

Then it is up to you to justify the remark, not to X to prove he was clean

holybinch

As long as you say "I think" before, you're fine though

and I meant:
EveryTIME someone gets caught, it reinforces my belief that the fight against doping is progressing.

Gussio: I know they progress, but surely, some people getting caught is better than none?!

Gussio

holybinch wrote:

Gussio: I know they progress, but surely, some people getting caught is better than none?!

I agree with you 100%. Guess that the point I was trying to make is that as more money enters the sport, competition for sponsorship becomes greater and the profile of winners becomes higher, then the incentive (and funding) to find new ways around the anti-doping measures becomes greater. It is amazing that riders are still getting caught out for using substances for which there are already checks in place.

Gussio

spen666 wrote:

Gentlemen and Ladies,

Can I advise you to be very careful on this topic.

Both you and the forum owners are liable for any libellous remarks posted on here.

The laws of libel are different to any other law.

If you say X took drugs, then all X has to prove is you posted said remark oer it was on the fiorum.

Then it is up to you to justify the remark, not to X to prove he was clean

Thanks Spen. Everything above and below this post is alleged

spen666

Gussio wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Gentlemen and Ladies,

Can I advise you to be very careful on this topic.

Both you and the forum owners are liable for any libellous remarks posted on here.

The laws of libel are different to any other law.

If you say X took drugs, then all X has to prove is you posted said remark oer it was on the fiorum.

Then it is up to you to justify the remark, not to X to prove he was clean

Thanks Spen. Everything above and below this post is alleged

Allegedly


Using the word allegedly is not going to stop anyone losing a libel action

symo

Lemond