Tour De France 2012

[Bruce Wayne]

Same question for you Dave. What would make you believe he was clean?

 

[davek]

Same question for you Dave. What would make you believe he was clean?

They clearly all are because every rider of note who's won it in recent years have eventually been caught out. I'm sure before they were they were protesting innocence in the same way as Brailsford is. They should be tested every single day that they're professional cyclists to gauge what's happening - whether in competition or out of it. It'd take a massive investment to do all that for all riders.

To be honest, I dont care if they are or not. I can accept they dope and still enjoy the spectacle. It's the hypocrisy that annoys me.

Brailsford et al will be found out some time in the near future...that's almost guaranteed if we use experience as a guide.

 

[moosed]

I'll ask you the same question Brailsford asked the other day. What exactly would prove to you that people are clean? What is it you want?

And seriously, that Paris Roubaix picture is a joke. It's well known that most riders (pros or amateurs) will lose a good few kg's over the course of a very long days riding. Couple that with the grime and **** you usually accumulate from riding on cobbles for so long + the thin'ness of Wiggins anyway and he's bound to look rough.


I'll say this though. I got back from the Maratona with 5% body fat, and I haven't touched drugs since my raving days as a kid. That was almost purely down to riding every day whilst there and clocking up 400km in a week. The pros do that in a couple of days and have all the diet support you can hope for.

Oh, and my threshold power has also increased 7% from last year, despite having lost 1.5kg in the same period. I must be doping though, right?

cant be arsed to debate, done it countless times before, i think we even did it last year lol... im not gonna change your opinion, you're not gonna change mine.

give it 6 years and i'll bump the thread going "ner ner told you so"

 

[Bruce Wayne]

They clearly all are because every rider of note who's won it in recent years have eventually been caught out. I'm sure before they were they were protesting innocence in the same way as Brailsford is. They should be tested every single day that they're professional cyclists to gauge what's happening - whether in competition or out of it. It'd take a massive investment to do all that for all riders.

To be honest, I dont care if they are or not. I can accept they dope and still enjoy the spectacle. It's the hypocrisy that annoys me.

Brailsford et al will be found out some time in the near future...that's almost guaranteed if we use experience as a guide.

So realistically nothing will convince you that they aren't cheating because lots were caught cheating in the past. It makes me wonder how you enjoy watching any sport at all, because rest assured cyclists aren't some kind of moral deviants whilst other athletes are whiter than white.

It's really no wonder the governing bodies of most other sports prefer to turn a blind eye to this, as if the public knew the scale of it then it would destroy the whole charade.

 

[Dylan]

I just prefer to not be cynical all the time. The riders are 'clean' as far as I am concerned, until it is proven that they are juiced to their eyeballs.

 

[Tubey]

I think people just need to accept that any cyclist will be guilty until proven innocent. Nobody who wins the tour will genuinely win it until a decade later. Cycling needs a sustained clean bill of health before anyone believes the outcome of a race is legit, and it'll take many many years to achieve that status.

As far as I'm concerned, although I want to believe Froome is clean, I consider him to be doping until proven otherwise, and that goes for any elite cyclist. Cycling has done this to itself. Hell, a proven drug cheat Contador is one of the leading contenders this year - if cycling was serious about doping, he wouldn't be allowed near a bike in an official race again.

 

[davek]

I think people just need to accept that any cyclist will be guilty until proven innocent. Nobody who wins the tour will genuinely win it until a decade later. Cycling needs a sustained clean bill of health before anyone believes the outcome of a race is legit, and it'll take many many years to achieve that status.

As far as I'm concerned, although I want to believe Froome is clean, I consider him to be doping until proven otherwise, and that goes for any elite cyclist. Cycling has done this to itself. Hell, a proven drug cheat Contador is one of the leading contenders this year - if cycling was serious about doping, he wouldn't be allowed near a bike in an official race again.

That decade later comment is pretty much spot on, tbf. Too many have been found out in retrospect not to take that sensible line.

Nevertheless. The spectacle is the spectacle. I can get into the spirit of the competition - if you just assume all the team leaders and their wingmen are doping.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Are you smart fellas really trying to prove a negative?

 

[Tubey]

Are you smart fellas really trying to prove a negative?

The stats say it all.

It's more likely they are doping than not. Therefore, you go with the odds.

I can still enjoy the race but accept that there's a high degree of likelihood that they're cheats. I don't think there's anything wrong with taking that view.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Last two years are clean then. Sastre was clean. Decent start I'd say. In an anecdotal sense, Armstrong was always suspicious because he was beating people who then later failed tests.

Froome/Wiggins aren't doing that. They're beating Contador, who has come back half the rider he was before his ban.

 

[davek]

Last two years are clean then. Sastre was clean. Decent start I'd say. In an anecdotal sense, Armstrong was always suspicious because he was beating people who then later failed tests.

Froome/Wiggins aren't doing that. They're beating Contador, who has come back half the rider he was before his ban.

Popper's true until proven false rule applies to Sastre, Evans and Wiggins.

The weight of evidence in this past two decades isn't really in their favour in terms of withstanding falsification...as tubey's post demonstrates.

 

[Tubey]

Last two years are clean then. Sastre was clean. Decent start I'd say. In an anecdotal sense, Armstrong was always suspicious because he was beating people who then later failed tests.

Froome/Wiggins aren't doing that. They're beating Contador, who has come back half the rider he was before his ban.

That's just it though - we don't know that they are. There's every possibility that they just haven't been caught yet.

I don't believe I'm being unreasonably cynical either. Sastre winning clean in 2008 when everyone was pumping themselves silly with performance enhancers seems... unlikely.

But we'll see... several years from now anyway.

 

[bluejock]

Same question for you Dave. What would make you believe he was clean?

If he wasn't a professional cyclist.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That's just it though - we don't know that they are. There's every possibility that they just haven't been caught yet.

I don't believe I'm being unreasonably cynical either. Sastre winning clean in 2008 when everyone was pumping themselves silly with performance enhancers seems... unlikely.

But we'll see... several years from now anyway.

Sastres main rival was Evans that year. Who else did he beat of note? Andy and Frank were on his team, Garmin are widely believed to be clean, so VDV looks ok. Menchov has a mirky past but seemed to fall off too regularly to be a serious challenger.

So Carlos beat a guy who is widely regarded to have been clean (and had a rubbish team), whilst having by far the strongest team in the race himself.

I'll say again though, are you folks seriously suggesting that with all the money in football, tennis etc. that this problem isn't as widespread in those sports? You seem happy in your ignorance that because those supports don't give a toss about catching people that it doesn't go on.

Of course, lets brush the 75% of athletes implicated in Operacion Puerto under the carpet and just focus on the cyclists that were clients of Fuentes. I mean English football doesn't even do blood tests as part of its anti-doping, so must be really hard for clubs to get around that.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

If he wasn't a professional cyclist.

Stick out of the thread if all you want to do is troll.