Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Time to put up or.....

Rule74PleaseRule74Please Posts: 307
edited June 2012 in Pro race
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
«13

Posts

  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,782
    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.
  • shinyhelmutshinyhelmut Posts: 1,345
    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.
  • disgruntledgoatdisgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    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'"

    @gietvangent
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 50,722 Lives Here
    Does it matter..?
  • shinyhelmutshinyhelmut Posts: 1,345
    Kelly?!?
  • BikingBernieBikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    Eric Caritoux, 1984 Tour of Spain.

    Lemond.

    Er....
  • BikingBernieBikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    Kelly?!?
    Not according to Willy Voet...
  • disgruntledgoatdisgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    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'"

    @gietvangent
  • shinyhelmutshinyhelmut Posts: 1,345
    Kelly?!?
    Not according to Willy Voet...

    My point exactly. I was responding to disgruntledgoat's post.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 50,722 Lives Here
    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.
  • disgruntledgoatdisgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    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'"

    @gietvangent
  • BikingBernieBikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    edited May 2012
    Does it matter..?
    I guess that depends on whether you think it is at all important that the performances of the riders are 'authentic', and that those who stand on the podium truly were the best in the race. If not, what on Earth is the point of watching the competition at all?
  • TheStoneTheStone Posts: 2,291
    I haven't read it, but I thought Kelly admitted to stuff in his book?
    exercise.png
  • Rule74PleaseRule74Please Posts: 307
    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.
  • disgruntledgoatdisgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    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'"

    @gietvangent
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,782

    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.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,782

    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.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 50,722 Lives Here
    Does it matter..?
    I guess that depends on whether you think it is at all important that the performances of the riders are 'authentic', and that those who stand on the podium truly were the best in the race. If not, what on Earth is the point of watching the competition at all?


    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.
  • inkyfingersinkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    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)
  • BikingBernieBikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    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..
    You are Pat McQuaid and I claim my five pounds...

    To me authenticity is (almost) everything.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 50,722 Lives Here
    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..
    You are Pat McQuaid and I claim my five pounds...

    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!)
  • BikingBernieBikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    I have said before let them take what they want as I only really care about the show put on
    I posted the following as an answer to this type of 'reasoning' a while ago:

    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.
  • inseineinseine Posts: 5,757
    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?
  • Rule74PleaseRule74Please Posts: 307
    iainf72 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 to
  • ilovebigwigilovebigwig Posts: 118
    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...
  • Rule74PleaseRule74Please Posts: 307
    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"
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,782
    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.
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 15,505
    Is there anything a rider can do to prove they're not cheating?
    Believe that a farther shore
    Is reachable from here.
    Believe in miracles
    And cures and healing wells
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,782
    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.
  • Yellow PerilYellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    iainf72 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.
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
Sign In or Register to comment.