Time to put up or.....
Rule74Please
Posts: 307
Name me a grand tour winner you know is clean in the last 100 years.
Tried this in a pub a while ago and failed
Tried this in a pub a while ago and failed
0
Comments
-
Rule74Please wrote:Name me a grand tour winner you know is clean in the last 100 years.
Tried this in a pub a while ago and failed
Cadel Evans
Greg Lemond
Can you define clean though? Until the 60's, doping didn't infringe any rules.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
There's not a single pro athlete, in any sport, that I'd bet my house on being clean.
However I'm with iainf72 as the two most likely to be clean in recent history.0 -
How are we defining clean? If it's doing nothing remotely performance enhancing regardless of what the rules of the sport say at the time, I'd say "none".
If it's complying with the doping rules as they stand at the time, but possibly doing things that were later decalared illegal I'd go with everyone up until about 1965 and after that Cadel Evans, Greg Lemond and Ryder Hesjedal in my "as certain as I can be" column with Carlos Sastre, 2010's Ivan Basso, Hinault and Kelly in my "A decent feeling" column."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
-
Kelly?!?0
-
Eric Caritoux, 1984 Tour of Spain.
Lemond.
Er....0 -
ShinyHelmut wrote:Kelly?!?0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Does it matter..?
Does anything?
Forums are a bit dull if nobody talks about stupid pub conversation that doesn't matter.
And yes shiny, Kelly. I'm not saying "bread and water", I'm saying "nothing that was illegal at the time". I'm not claiming any specialist knowledge, just not having read anything to contradict that."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
BikingBernie wrote:ShinyHelmut wrote:Kelly?!?
My point exactly. I was responding to disgruntledgoat's post.0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Does it matter..?
Does anything?
Forums are a bit dull if nobody talks about stupid pub conversation that doesn't matter.
And yes shiny, Kelly. I'm not saying "bread and water", I'm saying "nothing that was illegal at the time". I'm not claiming any specialist knowledge, just not having read anything to contradict that.
Yeah for sure, but I think that's an interesting debate in and of itself.0 -
Moser too, he was only doing blood transfusions which were legal at the time. And what about Fignon?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Does it matter..?0
-
I haven't read it, but I thought Kelly admitted to stuff in his book?0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Does it matter..?
dead right it does not matter. I'm just sick of the comments on a certain american who has never been caught.
Those using EVANS wake up he is linked to Ferrari and Sasi.
Sastre - seemed to come good LATE in his time and who did he ride for?
Hiesedal ? Brunyeel and then Phonak? Food for thought
And Garmin have a habit of hiring former dopers who seem to be just as good if not better when racing "clean"
Makes you wonder if all the money wasted on dope and time here really matters.
I have said before let them take what they want as I only really care about the show put on and to be honest it is getting boring as nobody seems capable of ripping a race apart at present.0 -
Rule74Please wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Does it matter..?
dead right it does not matter. I'm just sick of the comments on a certain american who has never been caught.
I have said before let them take what they want as I only really care about the show put on and to be honest it is getting boring as nobody seems capable of ripping a race apart at present.
have you met Bernie, I feel you'll be well acquainted by the end of the day..."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Rule74Please wrote:
Those using EVANS wake up he is linked to Ferrari and Sasi.
He met Ferrari once when he was younger. Sassi was his coach but has an impeccable reputation.
If you're going to use information to try and argue your position, at least make sure it's accurate, eh?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Rule74Please wrote:
I have said before let them take what they want as I only really care about the show put on and to be honest it is getting boring as nobody seems capable of ripping a race apart at present.
Also, when did you start following cycling? You seem to have some kind of cartoon expectation of what it should be like.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Does it matter..?
I see it like this:
Ultimately, we don't actually know what goes on. We can speculate, and we can make educated guesses, but we don't actually know.
So, as far as I am concerned, re-enjoyment, as long as there is a reasonable facade that it's a level playing field and most people aren't juicing, whether that's the actual case or not, suits me as a fan.
I really enjoyed watching racing in the '90s. That didn't stop because I thought they were juiced. For sure, I was disappointed when I heard, but they can't take that enjoyment away from me - only my future enjoyment of those performances, and that's pretty limited anyway since there's always another race on around the corner.
Now, when you get Ricco esq performances, where everyone is raising an eyebrow, it's not ideal - the facade is broken. The same with other doping busts.
Now, that's not to say I don't consider doping. I do. But I consider it over a longer period, as like a long term background change, rather than considering it during the nitty gritty of racing. For sure, that side is of interest to me, but that perspective doesn't encroach on my thoughts and analysis and excitement of what's happening on the road during an actual race.
So when I say, "does it matter?" - what I mean is, do we really want to bring down the facade, despite still not knowing what actually happened? What's the value in it?
I guess you could say that, given it's all in the past, it doesn't matter as much. Which can either be taken as "since it doesn't matter, I won't invest time in it", or "it doesn't matter so why not go to town, since It won't spoil my enjoyment anyway".
Having said all that, doping chat with non-cycling fans I find very difficult. I want these chumps to enjoy the sport like I do, but it's a barrier they can't seem to get over.0 -
As others have said, I wouldn't put my money on any of them being 100% clean."I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:as long as there is a reasonable facade that it's a level playing field and most people aren't juicing, whether that's the actual case or not, suits me..
To me authenticity is (almost) everything.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:as long as there is a reasonable facade that it's a level playing field and most people aren't juicing, whether that's the actual case or not, suits me..
To me authenticity is (almost) everything.
Ja look, I'm not the governing body, right? This is a fan's perspective.
Ideally, we all want it clean - I don't think anyone says otherwise.
There's nothing I can do about the doping. Doping or no doping I'll still watch. I don't care enough about the cause to not watch out of principle.
--
Out of interest, do you watch much? You comment a lot on here re-doping but not much on pro-race (not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just a little curious! You'd think you'd want to discuss both!)0 -
Rule74Please wrote:I have said before let them take what they want as I only really care about the show put on
Blood doping is a very effective way to boost performance, so why not let riders take their haemocrit level up to 60%, or 65% or 70%, with heart attacks and blood clots being controlled through yet more drugs? Four reasons
1) It is dangerous to the riders health and it's effectiveness means that those who don't want to dope are forced to risk their health or give up an idea of being competitive.
2) Being prepared to support a 'sport' where such behaviour is the norm degrades the spectator as much as the competitor. The following quote illustrates what I mean by this very well:
WADA is the logical response to an argument that gets aired from time to time: that since cheating is impossible to eliminate, the only recourse is to simply legalize everything- that way, no athlete has a hidden advantage over another, since everyone would be free to try anything that might increase endurance.
Like a lot of powerfully bad ideas, that one has a certain mad logic. But it would turn every sport into a test of how much damage an athlete was willing to risk to improve performance, and would basically force every serious athlete to cheat and risk his or her health. Athletic contests would have a strange life-or-death quality. If we don't keep drugs out of these events, they become freak shows, the athletes like gladiators- with us playing the role of decadent Romans, urging them on.
From Outside magazine, January 2004.
3) Such methods mean that the riders performances are not 'real' and due to the varying effectiveness of such methods the results become meaningless. Who has the most 'natural talent', or will or whatever becomes a very secondary issue with the rider who wins being the one who is prepared to push the limits of doping the furthest or whose body has a physiology which responds best. In turn what should be a showcase of human endeavour becomes mere sports entertainment, akin to American Pro Wrestling. ('Le syndrome du catch' as it was termed in a major article on doping in the Tour in Le Mond of 27/07/07).
4) The 'artificial' nature of the performances produced via doping also creates a 'fatal distance' between the riders and the spectators, a point which appears to be more understood from a French perspective than a Anglo-Saxon one. For example, the French philosopher Robert Redeker in his book Le Sport Contre Les Peuples (Sport against the people) has argued that riders such as Armstrong, Indurain, Virenque and Ullrich have been transformed into fabricated 'Cyber heroes', akin to Lara Croft, 'virtual human beings' whom the man at the side of the road can no longer feel an intimate association with as they could with riders such as Robic or Coppi, especially in times when the spectator could see the hardships, misfortunes and toil of the riders as reflections of their own lives.0 -
Thing is, you've worded the question wrongly. You mean 'believe' not 'know'. We don't know if anybody was clean, or ever will, because you simply cannot prove it. You can only prove someone was doping.
Basically if you're asking who never got popped or admitted it then there are quite a few, if you're asking who you have suspicions about then.....................
You cannot add stuff that wasn't outlawed at the time or that you find unacceptable. Rules are rules, eh?0 -
iainf72 wrote:Rule74Please wrote:
I have said before let them take what they want as I only really care about the show put on and to be honest it is getting boring as nobody seems capable of ripping a race apart at present.
Also, when did you start following cycling? You seem to have some kind of cartoon expectation of what it should be like.
1986 and to be frank this year's giro was pretty boring. big mountains no risks taken by the favourites even when it was obvious they needed to0 -
Rule74Please wrote:Name me a grand tour winner you know is clean in the last 100 years.
Tried this in a pub a while ago and failed
Andy Schleck...0 -
Both brothers transferred money to our dr friend in Spain. said it was for "training advice"
Yeah pull the other one it says it was for "attempted doping"0 -
Rule74Please wrote:Both brothers transferred money to our dr friend in Spain. said it was for "training advice"
Yeah pull the other one it says it was for "attempted doping"
Only Frank transferred money.
For training plans.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Is there anything a rider can do to prove they're not cheating?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
TailWindHome wrote:Is there anything a rider can do to prove they're not cheating?
Can't prove a negative.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Is there anything a rider can do to prove they're not cheating?
Can't prove a negative.
I would say reliance on others to bend the rules for you as in generosity of cut off times, the lingering hand on the bidon/interesting car door handle which is invitingly close. All the sorts of things sprinters of the 90's never had to really do because of their superior bread and water diet over the climbs.0