Delusional Bertie
Comments
-
If you're going to tar him with the teams he's ridden for I think you can do better than those two !MiddleRinger wrote:Contador was/is an incredible rider to watch. Loved his style. Especially awesome seeing him crushing it up climbs dancing on the pedals like a devil, but....
DISCOVERY CHANNEL
ASTANA
Where there's smoke and all that.0 -
iainf72 wrote:nickice wrote:
I didn't ask the question....I wouldn't have either as I think it's a pretty silly question. I'm just pretty sure Boonen isn't clean as I think most classics winners aren't clean.
Based on what though? His reputation in the peloton has always been one of a clean athlete, the things he says would support that.
The other obvious legend I should've mentioned is Cavendish.
Based on the fact that I just don't think cycling is a clean sport like most other sports. It might be cleaner now with the bio passport but history tells us that the only way it can change is to have a test for everything and to test cyclists all the time. Once money and fame are involved, cheating becomes inevitable. Maybe Boonen was an exceptional clean athlete who was able to beat dopers or maybe he just did what he had to do. Either way, he's still a legend.
I'll give you Lemond of course.0 -
Indurain.
I've never heard any actual evidence that he doped other than the old "he must have - they all did" refrain.
I'm all ears if anyone's got any (evidence, not PEDs).0 -
OCDuPalais wrote:Indurain.
I've never heard any actual evidence that he doped other than the old "he must have - they all did" refrain.
I'm all ears if anyone's got any (evidence, not PEDs).
He must have as they all did is actually pretty good evidence. In other words, are we to believe that Indurain was so exceptional (and, of course, let's not forget that every pro-cyclist is exceptional) that he was capable of beating other riders who were on EPO? I doubt it and he hadn't really shown himself to be that exceptional before the EPO era.0 -
OCDuPalais wrote:Indurain.
I've never heard any actual evidence that he doped other than the old "he must have - they all did" refrain.
I'm all ears if anyone's got any (evidence, not PEDs).
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 36949.html
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report- ... i-clients/0 -
During the Festina hearings in 2000, a rider called Thomas Davy testified that there had been systematic team-wide doping at Banesto when he was there in 1995-6. He didn't say anything about Indurain specifically, but....OCDuPalais wrote:Indurain.
I've never heard any actual evidence that he doped other than the old "he must have - they all did" refrain.
I'm all ears if anyone's got any (evidence, not PEDs).Twitter: @RichN950 -
MiddleRinger wrote:Contador was/is an incredible rider to watch. Loved his style. Especially awesome seeing him crushing it up climbs dancing on the pedals like a devil, but....
DISCOVERY CHANNEL
ASTANA
Where there's smoke and all that.
There was also a doping ban“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
RichN95 wrote:I actually read that again. He stressed he had been laying out the possibility of a transfusion having taken place, rather than proving that it had. (And I think that the plasticizer test has since been proved to be deeply flawed).
While I wouldn't want to defend Contador being a clean rider throughout, I equally have to consider the very real possibility that the clenbuterol positive genuinely was due to misfortune rather than malice.
A bit of background...
https://lightatheendofthetunnelisdim.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/whatever-happened-to-the-the-plasticizer-test/0 -
nickice wrote:OCDuPalais wrote:Indurain.
I've never heard any actual evidence that he doped other than the old "he must have - they all did" refrain.
I'm all ears if anyone's got any (evidence, not PEDs).
He must have as they all did is actually pretty good evidence. In other words, are we to believe that Indurain was so exceptional (and, of course, let's not forget that every pro-cyclist is exceptional) that he was capable of beating other riders who were on EPO? I doubt it and he hadn't really shown himself to be that exceptional before the EPO era.
All cyclists were unexceptional before they became exceptional.
This is where the language becomes so critical.
I'll be honest; it's the p!ss-poor leaps of logic that grate - and which you've perfectly exemplified: I can't deny that over the years the "balance of probability" in my own mind that Indurain was indeed doped has taken sway... but how come Prudencio never did nuffink? You telling me his bro never passed him some of the good stuff!?
Based on the same "they all did" argument, the utterly astounding performance of Boardman at the '94 Tour Prolougue should be as suspicious as any other in that year: obviously not for EPO though (because we all know that's for the guys still performing at the end of mountainous 220km + days), right? But he was clearly on something.
Lest you forgot the sanctioned/connected dopers he ground into the dust (Rominger, Armstrong, Leblanc, Bugno... Indurain)
https://youtu.be/IH4GQnmXc3w
On this logic and on this performance alone, Boardman should never be taken seriously as as a non-doper.
Conversely, it's this "logic" that disallows someone like Evans or Wiggins or Froome from ever being able to win a Grand Tour (in their largely monotonous and predictable manner - rather than with panache) without the "bread and water" thing being thrown at them (and their proof of doping is their admission that they might have consumed something other than bread and water over 3 weeks). Please insert rolling eyes emoji throughout...0 -
iainf72 wrote:nickice wrote:
I didn't ask the question....I wouldn't have either as I think it's a pretty silly question. I'm just pretty sure Boonen isn't clean as I think most classics winners aren't clean.
Based on what though? His reputation in the peloton has always been one of a clean athlete, the things he says would support that.
.
All round good bloke: http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/03/01/vo ... th-boonen/
0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:iainf72 wrote:nickice wrote:
I didn't ask the question....I wouldn't have either as I think it's a pretty silly question. I'm just pretty sure Boonen isn't clean as I think most classics winners aren't clean.
Based on what though? His reputation in the peloton has always been one of a clean athlete, the things he says would support that.
.
All round good bloke: http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/03/01/vo ... th-boonen/
Boonen did go through a stage of acting like a dick unfortunately, something similar happened in the Tour of Britain. I've heard coke can do that to people 0 -
-
OCDuPalais wrote:nickice wrote:OCDuPalais wrote:Indurain.
I've never heard any actual evidence that he doped other than the old "he must have - they all did" refrain.
I'm all ears if anyone's got any (evidence, not PEDs).
He must have as they all did is actually pretty good evidence. In other words, are we to believe that Indurain was so exceptional (and, of course, let's not forget that every pro-cyclist is exceptional) that he was capable of beating other riders who were on EPO? I doubt it and he hadn't really shown himself to be that exceptional before the EPO era.
All cyclists were unexceptional before they became exceptional.
The point was that Indurain wasn't particularly exceptional for a pro-cyclist before the EPO era so it would be really stretching credulity to believe that he was beating EPO users clean when he couldn't beat them before EPO was commonly used. So it went from a level playing field (well as level as you could get...) where he was good but not a GT winner to a time when EPO made a massive difference and made GT winners out of people like Riis so you had to be on EPO to win a GT. Nothing poor about that logic.
As for Boardman, you've answered your own question. Sometimes and exceptional athlete was able to compete but not over a three-week tour (to be honest, most pro-riders like Lemond and Dave Millar have said this).0 -
Indurain's pre-EPO era palmares were a lot better than most of his rivals in the 90s. He certainly had plenty of natural talentnickice wrote:The point was that Indurain wasn't particularly exceptional for a pro-cyclist before the EPO era so it would be really stretching credulity to believe that he was beating EPO users clean when he couldn't beat them before EPO was commonly used. So it went from a level playing field (well as level as you could get...) where he was good but not a GT winner to a time when EPO made a massive difference and made GT winners out of people like Riis so you had to be on EPO to win a GT. Nothing poor about that logic.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Indurain's pre-EPO era palmares were a lot better than most of his rivals in the 90s. He certainly had plenty of natural talentnickice wrote:The point was that Indurain wasn't particularly exceptional for a pro-cyclist before the EPO era so it would be really stretching credulity to believe that he was beating EPO users clean when he couldn't beat them before EPO was commonly used. So it went from a level playing field (well as level as you could get...) where he was good but not a GT winner to a time when EPO made a massive difference and made GT winners out of people like Riis so you had to be on EPO to win a GT. Nothing poor about that logic.
I said he was good but not a GT winner. There's having a good palmares then there's winning the Tour five times in a row...0 -
nickice wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Indurain's pre-EPO era palmares were a lot better than most of his rivals in the 90s. He certainly had plenty of natural talentnickice wrote:The point was that Indurain wasn't particularly exceptional for a pro-cyclist before the EPO era so it would be really stretching credulity to believe that he was beating EPO users clean when he couldn't beat them before EPO was commonly used. So it went from a level playing field (well as level as you could get...) where he was good but not a GT winner to a time when EPO made a massive difference and made GT winners out of people like Riis so you had to be on EPO to win a GT. Nothing poor about that logic.
I said he was good but not a GT winner. There's having a good palmares then there's winning the Tour five times in a row...
or 7 0 -
It's funny, most GT winners have a period in their career where they're not GT winners.0
-
I'm fairly sure Indurain was on it but the only way to know someone doped is to know they doped. Extrapolating results is nonsense. You can't be multiple GT winner before you're a multiple GT winner. The guy had won 4 or 5 one week races and finished 10 th in the Tour riding as a domestique. Youngest ever wearer of the pink jersey? What more do you want?nickice wrote:I said he was good but not a GT winner. There's having a good palmares then there's winning the Tour five times in a row...0 -
inseine wrote:It's funny, most GT winners have a period in their career where they're not GT winners.
I meant not a GT winner as in not thé kind if rider that would be expected win, or be on the podium of a GT. And that was exactly the case for Indurain before thé early nineties.0 -
A couple of Tours de l'Avenir and 2 x Paris-Nice, the Vuelta a Murcia, Volta a Catalunya, the Critérium International, then 10th in the Tour riding for his team leader seems like a fair start to a GT career.0
-
Not to forget GTs with a huge amount of TTing, his speciality.0
-
inseine wrote:
I'm fairly sure Indurain was on it but the only way to know someone doped is to know they doped. Extrapolating results is nonsense. You can't be multiple GT winner before you're a multiple GT winner. The guy had won 4 or 5 one week races and finished 10 th in the Tour riding as a domestique. Youngest ever wearer of the pink jersey? What more do you want?nickice wrote:I said he was good but not a GT winner. There's having a good palmares then there's winning the Tour five times in a row...
Why exactly is it nonsense? Again, I repeat, the strong evidence for his having doped is that although he was a very good cyclist, he wasn't so strong that you'd expect him to start winning the tour when many, if not all, of the other contenders were on EPO. If Indurain was that strong, he would have been winning tours before 1991.
Two points about his tenth place:
1) He could potentially have been on EPO in 1990 (it was early days so perhaps they didn't really learn how to use it properly until 1990).
2) Look at all the other cyclists who've finished top 10, or even top 5, at the tour and who haven't gone on to dominate. Most who won more than two or three were finishing high up from day one.
The point is almost moot as everyone seems to agree he was on it.0 -
inseine wrote:A couple of Tours de l'Avenir and 2 x Paris-Nice, the Vuelta a Murcia, Volta a Catalunya, the Critérium International, then 10th in the Tour riding for his team leader seems like a fair start to a GT career.
It does but it doesn't look like the start of a career of someone who's going to win five tours.0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Not to forget GTs with a huge amount of TTing, his speciality.
People didn't think he'd win the tour, not because of his TT ability, but that he would lose time in the mountains.0 -
What does though? Froome's didn't. Nor Dumoulin's (who I think will win at least two Tours) - very much a modern day Indurain.nickice wrote:inseine wrote:A couple of Tours de l'Avenir and 2 x Paris-Nice, the Vuelta a Murcia, Volta a Catalunya, the Critérium International, then 10th in the Tour riding for his team leader seems like a fair start to a GT career.
It does but it doesn't look like the start of a career of someone who's going to win five tours.
I think he doped, but in a world without EPO he would have still been a big contenderTwitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
What does though? Froome's didn't. Nor Dumoulin's (who I think will win at least two Tours) - very much a modern day Indurain.nickice wrote:inseine wrote:A couple of Tours de l'Avenir and 2 x Paris-Nice, the Vuelta a Murcia, Volta a Catalunya, the Critérium International, then 10th in the Tour riding for his team leader seems like a fair start to a GT career.
It does but it doesn't look like the start of a career of someone who's going to win five tours.
I think he doped, but in a world without EPO he would have still been a big contender
I think Froome is a bit of an exception (late entry to the sport, Bilharzia etc.) but I don't really believe in him. Dumoulin is a good point but he's never going to dominate the Tour the way Indurain did. Add in the fact, that there's no evidence that there's mass doping going on (though I'd be surprised if there wasn't).0 -
nickice wrote:inseine wrote:
I'm fairly sure Indurain was on it but the only way to know someone doped is to know they doped. Extrapolating results is nonsense. You can't be multiple GT winner before you're a multiple GT winner. The guy had won 4 or 5 one week races and finished 10 th in the Tour riding as a domestique. Youngest ever wearer of the pink jersey? What more do you want?nickice wrote:I said he was good but not a GT winner. There's having a good palmares then there's winning the Tour five times in a row...
Why exactly is it nonsense? Again, I repeat, the strong evidence for his having doped is that although he was a very good cyclist, he wasn't so strong that you'd expect him to start winning the tour when many, if not all, of the other contenders were on EPO. If Indurain was that strong, he would have been winning tours before 1991.
Two points about his tenth place:
1) He could potentially have been on EPO in 1990 (it was early days so perhaps they didn't really learn how to use it properly until 1990).
2) Look at all the other cyclists who've finished top 10, or even top 5, at the tour and who haven't gone on to dominate. Most who won more than two or three were finishing high up from day one.
The point is almost moot as everyone seems to agree he was on it.
Pedro Delgado was team leader on Reynolds/Banesto before 1991, so no-one was winning tours on that team before then. But Indurain was 17th in '89, 10th in '90, both when riding for Delgado so he didn't just come out of nowhere. And he was good very early on in his career.
It's not as clear-cut as you think. Everyone is different, with different career trajectories. And the only way we can be 100% sure someone doped is the positive test or an admission, whether we like it or not, and neither of those apply to Indurain. Anything else is supposition which isn't really fair on those who might not have doped.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
I certainly don't think it's crazy to say that a big unit like Indurain profited from EPO to change him into a a GT rider. I'm just not sure you can say his early career excluded his future success. He seems like a self afacing sort of guy who ride for others but showed plenty of talent ( won Vuelta prologue at 21).0
-
nickice wrote:inseine wrote:
I'm fairly sure Indurain was on it but the only way to know someone doped is to know they doped. Extrapolating results is nonsense. You can't be multiple GT winner before you're a multiple GT winner. The guy had won 4 or 5 one week races and finished 10 th in the Tour riding as a domestique. Youngest ever wearer of the pink jersey? What more do you want?nickice wrote:I said he was good but not a GT winner. There's having a good palmares then there's winning the Tour five times in a row...
Why exactly is it nonsense? Again, I repeat, the strong evidence for his having doped is that although he was a very good cyclist, he wasn't so strong that you'd expect him to start winning the tour when many, if not all, of the other contenders were on EPO. If Indurain was that strong, he would have been winning tours before 1991.
Two points about his tenth place:
1) He could potentially have been on EPO in 1990 (it was early days so perhaps they didn't really learn how to use it properly until 1990).
2) Look at all the other cyclists who've finished top 10, or even top 5, at the tour and who haven't gone on to dominate. Most who won more than two or three were finishing high up from day one.
The point is almost moot as everyone seems to agree he was on it.
Indurain could have won the 1990 tour if he had ridden as leader and not for Delgado. He looked the strongest rider. If I'd been a bit older, I would have put money on him for 1991. Unfortunately I was only 14! He won mountain stages in 89 and 90. His inability to climb is massively overhyped.0
