Philippe Gilbert

P_Tucker

gsk82 wrote:

that's exactlywhat's ridiculous about it

Well, the "other" view is that whilst pretty much every top dominant cyclist since 1903 has been on the sauce, Philippe Gilbert, who just achieved something unprecedented in cycling, is clean.

This isn't a court of law, we don't have to prove he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe when you've followed cycling for a bit longer you'll become as cynical and jaded as everyone else. On the plus side, the cynical and jaded are normally right.

frenchfighter

"Gilbert is impressive, both physically and mentally. Pressure does not destabilize him. He has finally been rewarded for his work. He has committed himself one hundred percent to his sport. I think his is an example for everyone. He is very thorough, much more than Tom Boonen. Gilbert can win almost every race. He is still only 28 years old. I think if he loses some weight, he could play a role in the mountainous races, and thus play a role in the Tour de France."

- The Cannibal.

andyxm

Anyone who has followed cycling for any length of time will have at least half-raised an eyebrow at Gilbert's recent performances, but to offer a case for the defence:-

1 - The advantages of doping are almost certainly less than 10-15 years ago when Pantani, Riis et al were doped up to the eyeballs

2 - He is overtly anti-doping, witness the recent advert that is floating around. If he's done that ad and is still doping then he's got some nerve

3 - Crucially, and not to take even an ounce away from his recent performances, who are his rivals for the Ardennes classics? He is probably the only rider who specifically targets them, others will either be on their way down from peaking for the earlier classics, or on there way up to peak form for the grand tours. You can probably say the same about the autumn classics too. One thing that has definitely changed in cycling recently is riders abilities to peak for specific events, and he is one of the few that will have been at 100% in the last couple of weeks, maybe that makes the crucial difference?

RichN95.

andyxm wrote:

Anyone who has followed cycling for any length of time will have at least half-raised an eyebrow at Gilbert's recent performances, but to offer a case for the defence:-

1 - The advantages of doping are almost certainly less than 10-15 years ago when Pantani, Riis et al were doped up to the eyeballs

2 - He is overtly anti-doping, witness the recent advert that is floating around. If he's done that ad and is still doping then he's got some nerve

3 - Crucially, and not to take even an ounce away from his recent performances, who are his rivals for the Ardennes classics? He is probably the only rider who specifically targets them, others will either be on their way down from peaking for the earlier classics, or on there way up to peak form for the grand tours. You can probably say the same about the autumn classics too. One thing that has definitely changed in cycling recently is riders abilities to peak for specific events, and he is one of the few that will have been at 100% in the last couple of weeks, maybe that makes the crucial difference?

I'd agree that completely, and add a couple of things to point 3.

3a - All the races he won were reasonably well controlled, with the biggest threat coming from exactly the riders expected (J-Rod and Schleck Jnr being well tipped by PTP players). While it takes a bit more effort, effectively he's done what Cav has does when in form. Cav is the fastest in a flat sprint, Phil is the fastest in a short burst uphill (he would have won RVV too if it finished at the top of the Bosberg).

3b - His racing history shows that he targets clutches of one day races. He won four in a row, including Paris-Tours and Lombardy in 2009, so this is something he's done before.


While I understand some scepticism, none of this looks that unusual to me.

TheYorkshireMan

Ms Tree wrote:

That was 6 years ago. A lot's changed in that time, not least the passport. Anyone who thinks he's dirty needs their head read, frankly.

Given your obvious insider knowledge, just how much slower is the racing nowadays, especially when the hammer goes down, what with the passport having eliminated doping and all? From what I have read the passport system is hardly foolproof, and riders are already wise as to how they can combine blood doping with the micro-dosing of EPO to beat the system.

Anyhow, I never said Gilbert was doping, only that if he was this would be ironic given what had been written about him in the past. That said, given the recent history of the sport I wouldn't bet a tenner on any given rider been 100% clean.

mattshrops

innocent till proven otherwise

i say let us enjoy the moment and the man 8)

rick_chasey

Does this really need to be asked everytime someone is very good?

Jez mon

The more relevant problem with the 2005 interview, is that it is referring to GTs.

As I read it, Gilbert says he might shine for a few individual days, but wouldn't be able to string them together in a row as he would have to for le tour.

What he has done this year, is shone for a few individual days...

RichN95.

Jez mon wrote:

The more relevant problem with the 2005 interview, is that it is referring to GTs.

As I read it, Gilbert says he might shine for a few individual days, but wouldn't be able to string them together in a row as he would have to for le tour.

What he has done this year, is shone for a few individual days...

Indeed. Although personally, I think the landscape has changed enough that he could put up a good GC show in a GT (his TT will hold him back)

jimmythecuckoo

Rick Chasey wrote:

Does this really need to be asked everytime someone is very good?

I think it will be for a while yet until people get more convinced we are watching something credible.

Shouldn't be the case but history has kicked cycling supporters in the balls so many times.

wildmoustache

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

If others are still doping - and there is no real reason to think they are not - his dominance must raise questions. If he has 'got on a program' it is ironic given the way he has been portrayed as being the victim of doping in the past. For example, in The Times in 2005 Kimmage wrote

He’s a bright young star of cycling, but Philippe Gilbert believes that his talent will not be enough for him to make it big

...it is not an ideal world, and the grim facts of this very grim sport are that Philippe Gilbert’s dreams have already ended.

...“I can tell you now,” Gilbert said, “that I will never reach the level I saw at the Dauphine. It doesn’t matter how hard I train; I’m never going to get there. I understand now that I am never going to win the Tour de France — maybe I will shine for a day or two, but that’s it.”

Surprised at his response, the journalist asked whether Gilbert was implying what he thought he was implying — that the cancer of doping was still prevalent in the sport. Gilbert affirmed that he was.

...Imagine what it must feel right now to be Christophe Bassons. Imagine how Philippe Gilbert will suffer in the next three weeks. Imagine a dream you’ve held since childhood dying before it begins. Allez, Philippe, bonne chance.

A couple of weeks later Jeremy Whittle wrote

This has been a hard and fast Tour and the stages through the Massif Central are taking their toll. Yesterday, as the peloton climbed towards the striking edifice of the new Millau viaduct, the imperious Armstrong laughed and joked, mimicking the suffering of others. “I wanted to throw my water bottle at him,” Philippe Gilbert, the Belgian who is making his Tour debut and who is languishing in 71st place, more than two hours behind the Texan, said.

Yes, it was enjoyable to watch Armstrong get ripped at last year's Tour after his charming behaviour in earlier years wasn't it?

Gilbert has been anti-doping for a while and as others have said has steadily progressed. He also specifically targets a certain type of race that he's very very good at, and doesn't / can't win much else. Also, one day races are far far less susceptible to doping advantage than grand tours, though not immune obviously.

I'm willing to believe in him. I don't see anything to differentiate him significantly from Cancellera who I'm also willing to believe in.

wildmoustache

RichN95 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

The more relevant problem with the 2005 interview, is that it is referring to GTs.

As I read it, Gilbert says he might shine for a few individual days, but wouldn't be able to string them together in a row as he would have to for le tour.

What he has done this year, is shone for a few individual days...

Indeed. Although personally, I think the landscape has changed enough that he could put up a good GC show in a GT (his TT will hold him back)

]

Gilbert is too heavy to win a GT as things stand. If he silmmed down then yes perhaps. But much like Cancellara he'd have to sacrifice his bread and butter.

RichN95.

wildmoustache wrote:

Gilbert is too heavy to win a GT as things stand. If he silmmed down then yes perhaps. But much like Cancellara he'd have to sacrifice his bread and butter.

I wasn't suggesting he could win one. I meant finishing top ten. I don't think he'd have to make too many changes to have a shot at that.

pat1cp

wildmoustache wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

The more relevant problem with the 2005 interview, is that it is referring to GTs.

As I read it, Gilbert says he might shine for a few individual days, but wouldn't be able to string them together in a row as he would have to for le tour.

What he has done this year, is shone for a few individual days...

Indeed. Although personally, I think the landscape has changed enough that he could put up a good GC show in a GT (his TT will hold him back)

]

Gilbert is too heavy to win a GT as things stand. If he silmmed down then yes perhaps. But much like Cancellara he'd have to sacrifice his bread and butter.

Stijn Devolder (a good TT'r) fancied a crack at a GT. Slimmed down, and IIRC was quite fancied for a top ten before the Tour in 2008. Failed miserably.

He may however have been forced into it because of Quick Steps lack of a GT rider at the time.

Pip should stick with what's he's got I believe.

rick_chasey

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Does this really need to be asked everytime someone is very good?

I think it will be for a while yet until people get more convinced we are watching something credible.

Shouldn't be the case but history has kicked cycling supporters in the balls so many times.

But why watch it if that's the first question that comes into your head when there's a victory? Especially since cycling is such a relative sport.

I can understand if people are sceptical of any excellent performances, but I don't understand why people would still watch it if they have that scepticism.

I can't say how irritated I was when Harmon went on and on about Vino after he won LBL.

wildmoustache

RichN95 wrote:

wildmoustache wrote:

Gilbert is too heavy to win a GT as things stand. If he silmmed down then yes perhaps. But much like Cancellara he'd have to sacrifice his bread and butter.

I wasn't suggesting he could win one. I meant finishing top ten. I don't think he'd have to make too many changes to have a shot at that.

Think about it though ... anything outside the podium is a "so what?" compared to his performances over the last two seasons.

Even the timing issue is non-trivial ... to have a realistic podium chance in le Tour Gilbert would have to peak in July which would very likely compromise performances in the Ardennes Classics.

He'd also have to lose weight - primarily upper body muscle mass which wld be a big problem for maintain his puncheur power

There isn't anyone who wins the classics and the Tour ... and there are good reasons for that.

Jez mon

Erm, didn't andy schleck just come very close to winning a classic?

Valverde (sp?) was always in with a shout in the hillier classics, and was good at GTs.

Its not impossible.

andyp

Andy Schleck has won a classic, LBL in 2009. But he hasn't won the Tour yet.

As for Valverde, he's not really a good example is he, given he's currently serving a ban for doping.

wildmoustache

Jez mon wrote:

Erm, didn't andy schleck just come very close to winning a classic?

Valverde (sp?) was always in with a shout in the hillier classics, and was good at GTs.

Its not impossible.

Schleck has never won a Grand Tour and has won one classic. He's about as close as it gets though I agree.

It isn't impossible but very difficult. Schleck is very substantially inferior to Gilbert in the
Classics. Should Gilbert accept being at that level in the Classics to come 3rd, 6th, 10th whatever in the Tour? You get the point.

Valverde is a cheat. End of.

RichN95.

Of current riders, Cunego, F Schleck, A Schleck, Vino, DiLuca, Valverde, Sanchez, Evans and Contador have all mean in the top two in both an Ardennes week classic and a Grand Tour, so there's a pretty heavy correlation between being good at one and also being good at the other.

Gilbert doesn't need to focus his season on a GT, just get in decent shape and see how it goes. At least then he won't retire wondering 'What if'.

dougzz

Rick Chasey wrote:

But why watch it if that's the first question that comes into your head when there's a victory? Especially since cycling is such a relative sport.

I can understand if people are sceptical of any excellent performances, but I don't understand why people would still watch it if they have that scepticism.

I can't say how irritated I was when Harmon went on and on about Vino after he won LBL.

I can't help it for myself. I like to watch cycling for many reasons, but I'm sceptical of exceptional performance. They don't seem either or to me. I hear you on the Vino thing. But it's been oft commented on here how certain dopers come back rehabilitated, and other's come back as whipping boys. Harmon can be a bit of a tw*t really, although that's also a no win situation, damned if you mention doping, and damned if you don't.

wildmoustache

RichN95 wrote:

Of current riders, Cunego, F Schleck, A Schleck, Vino, DiLuca, Valverde, Sanchez, Evans and Contador have all mean in the top two in both an Ardennes week classic and a Grand Tour, so there's a pretty heavy correlation between being good at one and also being good at the other.

Gilbert doesn't need to focus his season on a GT, just get in decent shape and see how it goes. At least then he won't retire wondering 'What if'.

I think you're missing the point. He wants to win these races, not just come in the top 3 in one and maybe win the odd one. He's a Belgian. He rides for the main Belgian teams. These - and RF - are the big races in the part of the world. It's that dominance he'd have to sacrifice to really have a chance of doing well at the Tour.

He could have a go without changing that it's true, but he's not anywhere near good enough on long climbs or TT'ing to do so much ... which means he'd have to change things and so on.

From your list you can disregard Valverde, Vino, and Di Luca.

RichN95.

wildmoustache wrote:

He could have a go without changing that it's true, but he's not anywhere near good enough on long climbs or TT'ing to do so much ... which means he'd have to change things and so on.

How do you know he's not good enough unless he gives it a go? This time last year people would have said the likes of Porte, Pinotti, Hesjedal and Velits weren't good enough either. But they went out and tested themselves and it's turns out they were good enough for a GT top ten. Gilbert hasn't really got much to do until the Worlds so he may as well give it a shot

wildmoustache

RichN95 wrote:

wildmoustache wrote:

He could have a go without changing that it's true, but he's not anywhere near good enough on long climbs or TT'ing to do so much ... which means he'd have to change things and so on.

How do you know he's not good enough unless he gives it a go? This time last year people would have said the likes of Porte, Pinotti, Hesjedal and Velits weren't good enough either. But they went out and tested themselves and it's turns out they were good enough for a GT top ten. Gilbert hasn't really got much to do until the Worlds so he may as well give it a shot

Well ... he has done long climbs and TTs before, so what we do know is he'd need to radically improve with all that impliies.

If you're riding for the main Belgian team, thrashing the opposition in the key races for the sponsors, is it worth putting that at serious risk to have the team riding for 5th or 9th place in the Tour? Wld the sponsors wear it? Wld it be reversible? How easy wld it be to re-build what he has if things didn't work out?

Leaving aside the cheats I think Cunego is the only current rider who's won a monument and grand tour, and there's no-one who has gone from being a classics specialist to winning grand tours.

Bronzie

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

Given your obvious insider knowledge, just how much slower is the racing nowadays, especially when the hammer goes down, what with the passport having eliminated doping and all? From what I have read the passport system is hardly foolproof, and riders are already wise as to how they can combine blood doping with the micro-dosing of EPO to beat the system.

A very interesting couple of articles on the Sports Scientist blog on the workings and effects of the passport system if you have a little time to spare:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03 ... tific.html

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03 ... ht-or.html

The standout part for me is the graph in the 2nd article (everyone loves a graph don't they?):



Whilst doping no doubt is still failry rife, to stay within the limits it's effectiveness is greatly reduced.

frenchfighter

Great data, thanks.

RichN95.

Bronzie wrote:

The standout part for me is the graph in the 2nd article (everyone loves a graph don't they?):

Can we adopt this as the new official forum graph? The old one hasn't been seen for quite some time.

frenchfighter

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

Bronzie wrote:

The standout part for me is the graph in the 2nd article (everyone loves a graph don't they?):

Can we adopt this as the new official forum graph? The old one hasn't been seen for quite some time.

+1

There are some excellent comments on the article as well, really interesting stuff. Can't remember who posted the link here but we had a thread on it.

What would be really good though would be to get data on the full spectrum of results, to see what the percentage of riders sitting just below the maximum values was - like the 49% ers after the hemocrit max was introduced.

TheYorkshireMan

Bronzie wrote:

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

Given your obvious insider knowledge, just how much slower is the racing nowadays, especially when the hammer goes down, what with the passport having eliminated doping and all? From what I have read the passport system is hardly foolproof, and riders are already wise as to how they can combine blood doping with the micro-dosing of EPO to beat the system.

A very interesting couple of articles on the Sports Scientist blog on the workings and effects of the passport system if you have a little time to spare:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03 ... tific.html

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03 ... ht-or.html

The standout part for me is the graph in the 2nd article (everyone loves a graph don't they?):



Whilst doping no doubt is still failry rife, to stay within the limits it's effectiveness is greatly reduced.

From that link

It shows the percentage of blood samples measured in professional cycling that had UNUSUAL reticulocyte percentages.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I had thought that the whole thing about microdosing Epo was to manipulate reticulocyte levels, so preventing their production from stopping in response to blood doping?