Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Doe ©

The Official Cycling Thread

Recommended Posts

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

Lets take a look at another controversy mostly of the French making-since I have not seen anyone here bring it up.

The French are seemingly upset about the results of the Olympics and are blaming "magic wheels" or is it Mavic wheels.

Will we see rules that have pulled back the use of technology as in Swimming or maybe a regulation of it's use like f1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

Lets take a look at another controversy mostly of the French making-since I have not seen anyone here bring it up.

The French are seemingly upset about the results of the Olympics and are blaming "magic wheels" or is it Mavic wheels.

Will we see rules that have pulled back the use of technology as in Swimming or maybe a regulation of it's use like f1?

Not so sure about the swimming comparison. There the suits were enhancing the athlete's capabilities whereas, in cycling, the bike does that anyway, regardless of the type of wheels.

The British were very successful in the cycling and all their equipment was available to buy for the other nations; they just chose not to go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

Not so sure about the swimming comparison. There the suits were enhancing the athlete's capabilities whereas' date=' in cycling, the bike does that anyway, regardless of the type of wheels.

The British were very successful in the cycling and all their equipment was available to buy for the other nations; they just chose not to go for it.[/quote']

reference material:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185516/Olympics-2012-cycling-Les-sour-grapes-Vast-majority-French-sports-fan-believe-Team-GB-Olympic-cycling-success-tainted-cheating.html

yeah but it's the degree to which it is augmented (Augmented is meant to tie in with the Oscar Pistorius debate) that is one of the issues (funding another).

Was it? Most of the equipment that they used would have been tailored made for them-so that might not be correct.

then there is the planned crashes in case you get a bad start:

This is what 19-year-old Philip Hindes said to reporters after the race:

“We were saying if we have a bad start we need to crash to get a restart,” Hindes said, according to guardian.co.uk. “I just crashed, I did it on purpose to get a restart, just to have the fastest ride. I did it. So it was all planned, really.”

Seems pretty clear, right? British cycling officials countered, saying it was a misunderstanding stemming from Hindes’ speaking English as a second language — he is German born.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2012/08/03/days-worst-british-cyclist-crashed-purpose-force-restart/23106/

0AOfyeVWnUE

Cycling IMO seems to have lots of issues with Governing bodies fighting over territory, doping etc and the Armstrong verdict just adds to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

Lets take a look at another controversy mostly of the French making-since I have not seen anyone here bring it up.

The French are seemingly upset about the results of the Olympics and are blaming "magic wheels" or is it Mavic wheels.

Will we see rules that have pulled back the use of technology as in Swimming or maybe a regulation of it's use like f1?

First time I hear about this. Not a very vivid controversy in the French press, I guess.

I'm surprised there is not more discussion about Contador and Froome attacking when Valverde crashed as the leader of Vuelta. Or to be accurate, Sky attacking and Contador following it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

Lets take a look at another controversy mostly of the French making-since I have not seen anyone here bring it up.

The French are seemingly upset about the results of the Olympics and are blaming "magic wheels" or is it Mavic wheels.

Will we see rules that have pulled back the use of technology as in Swimming or maybe a regulation of it's use like f1?

Lol' date=' the French shouldn't complain about the Olympics. I'm sorry but with cycling, right now they just don't have anyone who can really compete with the world's best. Maybe Voeckler and Chavanel can on a good day, but there's still better riders from other countries. Imo that wheel thing is just an excuse :rolleyes:

First time I hear about this. Not a very vivid controversy in the French press, I guess.

I'm surprised there is not more discussion about Contador and Froome attacking when Valverde crashed as the leader of Vuelta. Or to be accurate, Sky attacking and Contador following it.

Its an English forum, duh! :P

Anyways tbh both Sky and Contador didn't really win all that much with it and Valverde is on his way back (looks really strong atm) so I don't think there's a lot of reason to discuss it. Its not nice, but in the end it hasn't caused that much trouble. Great work from Rodriguez yesterday by the way and finaly a well deserved win for Gilbert!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

First time I hear about this. Not a very vivid controversy in the French press' date=' I guess.

I'm surprised there is not more discussion about Contador and Froome attacking when Valverde crashed as the leader of Vuelta. Or to be accurate, Sky attacking and Contador following it.[/quote']

yeah-well Le Equipe was one of the driving force behind it-the wheels and funding not the other bit about crashing intentionally.

Lol' date=' the French shouldn't complain about the Olympics. I'm sorry but with cycling, right now they just don't have anyone who can really compete with the world's best. Maybe Voeckler and Chavanel can on a good day, but there's still better riders from other countries. Imo that wheel thing is just an excuse :rolleyes:

Its an English forum, duh! :P

Anyways tbh both Sky and Contador didn't really win all that much with it and Valverde is on his way back (looks really strong atm) so I don't think there's a lot of reason to discuss it. Its not nice, but in the end it hasn't caused that much trouble. Great work from Rodriguez yesterday by the way and finaly a well deserved win for Gilbert![/quote']

Well they did not officially as they I guess they don't want to be seen as spoil sports. And would agree the wheel thing is really an excuse.

Must have missed a trick there as I did not realise as an English Forum particular subjects are not discussed.

Imagine if they had won!

Still awaiting a statement from the UCI as regards to Armstrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

Lol' date=' the French shouldn't complain about the Olympics. I'm sorry but with cycling, right now they just don't have anyone who can really compete with the world's best. Maybe Voeckler and Chavanel can on a good day, but there's still better riders from other countries. Imo that wheel thing is just an excuse :rolleyes:

Its an English forum, duh! :P

Anyways tbh both Sky and Contador[b'] didn't really win all that much with it [/b]and Valverde is on his way back (looks really strong atm) so I don't think there's a lot of reason to discuss it. Its not nice, but in the end it hasn't caused that much trouble. Great work from Rodriguez yesterday by the way and finaly a well deserved win for Gilbert!

Come on, they took over one minute lead due to it, and Valverde barely was able to get it to 55 seconds by the end of the stage and lost his leading position. That is a huge difference and could easily have cost him the victory of the Vuelta.

Anyway, the point is that there is a well agreed gentleman rule that if something happens to the leader, say he has a puncture or a crash, or goes to take a leak, then nobody attacks during that time so that he does not lose his leading position because of that. Allegedly Sky even caused the crash intentionally, but even without going to that, it is sure that they knew that almost the whole Movistar team had crashed (their team car passed the Movistar guys by like few seconds after the crash), and what did they do: speed up the pedaling.

Here's a video. Valverde is in the group at the time of the crash, so even if you talk about the offensive having been started before, the point is that relatively to Valverde, they were in the same group. When the crash occurs, leading Sky-cyclists looking back to the crash and speeding it up:

It is understandable that they try to get out of the crashing place at that point, but absolutely insupportable that they didn't slow down waiting afterwards, within a few minutes. Especially as almost the whole team movistar fell, it was even harder for Valverde to catch the lead back, because he could not really rely on the help of his team mates. Particularly there were none in the peloton to come back to get him. Moreover, in the strong wind, catching up in a small group is even harder, effectively causing him to lose more energy than others. Really screwed up thing to do by Sky there.

Sky's excuses were quite lame. "Oh, we couldn't know Valverde was amongst the crashed", yeah, they saw that almost the whole Movistar team crashed and couldn't think about the possibility that Valverde just might have crashed too? How likely is that? "We only knew when we were already a minute ahead", yeah, so they should have slowed down and waited for him. "All the others were going high pace at that point too", yeah, led by Sky who were setting the pace. They could have easily told the others to slow down too: the guy who took the lead at that stage, Rodriguez, was gentleman enough to tell his team not to contribute to the pace once he heard Valverde had crashed. He followed Sky's pacing, of course, why would have he deliberately lost the top spot to ungentlemanly competitor just because of his own sportsmanship? But his team no longer did anything to speed it up. Thank goodness he got the leader's shirt after that, and not Contador or Froome.

Finally Froome:

“We had a tactic and we cannot stop the race,” Froome continued. “Once everything kicked off in the crosswinds, the race was on. If we would have stopped, then someone else would have taken it up, and we would have been on the back foot. I empathize with Alejandro falling like that. It’s not a nice way to lose the jersey. That’s bike racing.”

Yeah, that's not bike racing. nobody has in their tactic written that "at n kilometers we stop to wait for the others," but in cycling, if the leader falls, everybody waits, because it is accepted that nobody should lose the leader's jersey for mere bad luck, but the others must win it from him through a serious fight. That is why Ullrich waited for Armstrong when they were escaping together in Tour and Armstrong fell down. That's what Sky and Saxo Bank should have done too, regardless of the team tactic that has nothing to do with it. Unless, of course, Sky's tactic was to attack when Valverde falls, as it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

yeah-well Le Equipe was one of the driving force behind it-the wheels and funding not the other bit about crashing intentionally.

Hardly even mentioned at L'Équipe' date=' and more in a way of reporting the questions of other teams.

Lol, the French shouldn't complain about the Olympics. I'm sorry but with cycling, right now they just don't have anyone who can really compete with the world's best. Maybe Voeckler and Chavanel can on a good day, but there's still better riders from other countries. Imo that wheel thing is just an excuse

I think you are missing the point about the Olympic Games. It is not that France didn't have such success, it is that the team Great-Britain with its massive budget (it is astronomical for cycling, as is that of Sky's especially, where does all that money go?) not only won, but made several world records and had won quite a few seconds from the previous times in just few months time. So, apparently there was something they had done very differently than others, even differently than themselves before that. Now, I made a little google search for the wheels, and apparently the thing is that they hid their wheels very well between the races, which is odd, since they were supposed to use same wheels with the others.

I am not at all sure whether there really can be anything illegal about these wheels, because to my knowledge they are not standardized, but of course it seems to be kind of unfair play, since despite cycling being, as Stuart said, a kind of sport in which equipment is important in any case, the technology generally available is cheap enough that even the poorer teams normally have bikes of equivalent quality with even the most rich ones. Especially as the most important part, the frame, is regulated by rules. So, usually the equipment makes no difference between two cyclists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

Sky's excuses were quite lame. "Oh' date=' we couldn't know Valverde was amongst the crashed", yeah, they saw that almost the whole Movistar team crashed and couldn't think about the possibility that Valverde just might have crashed too? How likely is that? "We only knew when we were already a minute ahead", yeah, so they should have slowed down and waited for him. "All the others were going high pace at that point too", yeah, led by Sky who were setting the pace. They could have easily told the others to slow down too: the guy who took the lead at that stage, Rodriguez, was gentleman enough to tell his team not to contribute to the pace once he heard Valverde had crashed. He followed Sky's pacing, of course, why would have he deliberately lost the top spot to ungentlemanly competitor just because of his own sportsmanship? But his team no longer did anything to speed it up. Thank goodness he got the leader's shirt after that, and not Contador or Froome.

Finally Froome:

“We had a tactic and we cannot stop the race,” Froome continued. “Once everything kicked off in the crosswinds, the race was on. If we would have stopped, then someone else would have taken it up, and we would have been on the back foot. I empathize with Alejandro falling like that. It’s not a nice way to lose the jersey. That’s bike racing.”

Yeah, that's [i']not[/i] bike racing. nobody has in their tactic written that "at n kilometers we stop to wait for the others," but in cycling, if the leader falls, everybody waits, because it is accepted that nobody should lose the leader's jersey for mere bad luck, but the others must win it from him through a serious fight. That is why Ullrich waited for Armstrong when they were escaping together in Tour and Armstrong fell down. That's what Sky and Saxo Bank should have done too, regardless of the team tactic that has nothing to do with it. Unless, of course, Sky's tactic was to attack when Valverde falls, as it seems.

Valverde fell when Sky hardened the rythm. Very easy to see from the video...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

Now' date=' I made a little google search for the wheels, and apparently the thing is that they hid their wheels very well between the races, which is odd, since they were supposed to use same wheels with the others.[/b']

Now that was the interesting part. Why hide the wheels if there was nothing there? Maybe it was legal and just new technology such as the systems in F1.

As for technology-equipment in all sports would augment the capabilities of the user-the question becomes to what degree? I personnaly believe that with all the money invested in creating personalised equipment for the cyclist that you would be able to buy it off the shelf. Just as buying a stock vehicle is not the equivalent of one used in let's say rallying.

Btw there is a wonderful rebuttal to these arguments here:

http://inrng.com/2012/08/british-cycling-funding/

But I have my misgivings..no fun without conspiracies I say ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

Now that was the interesting part. Why hide the wheels if there was nothing there? Maybe it was legal and just new technology such as the systems in F1.

Maybe' date=' I don't know the regulations about wheels, if there are any. But I agree, this kind of caught my attention as well. Why on earth to hide the wheels?

As for technology-equipment in all sports would augment the capabilities of the user-the question becomes to what degree? I personnaly believe that with all the money invested in creating personalised equipment for the cyclist that you would be able to buy it off the shelf. Just as buying a stock vehicle is not the equivalent of one used in let's say rallying.

The thing is that the bicycling equipment never goes that expensive that a cycling team couldn't afford having the best stuff. All the professional teams, let alone top National Teams, normally have equivalent bikes, because if there are differences, they are small enough to be insignificant. Normally, that is. If somebody has developed some new equipment, that changes the situation. But I think that for the precise reason that the sport really should be about how good the men are, not about how good the bikes are, there is a rule that says that the used equipment should be available for everybody (if they go and buy it).

Btw there is a wonderful rebuttal to these arguments here:

http://inrng.com/2012/08/british-cycling-funding/

Apart from the well known fact that British cycling is ridiculously well funded relatively to others, which of course is not illegal in any way, this was another well known thing:

Like the Australians, most of the best British riders seem to come from the track. Of course their are exceptions like Cadel Evans and Chris Froome but there’s been a lot of money spent on detecting talent and getting it on the track, including paying riders a salary if they are part of the programme. This contrasts with the more traditional approach, from France to the USA and beyond where a talented points or pursuit rider is likely to be a road rider first and then a track rider second.

All true, and nobody doubts the positive effect to the Olympic success. It is kind of normal: if a country invests on some sport, it gets good results. Fair play.

On the other hand, people who grow up road cycling, which I suppose people agree is the regular style of cycling, kind of feel that Olympic Games are quite unbalanced in terms of cycling medals.

That is because all those track competitions, like men's sprint, really seem to have very little to do with what cycling is about - at least for us. For very few cycling lovers cycling is about standing on your bike almost still and aiming to a super short sprint. One reason to that is that the bicycle actually is innovated as an energy efficient way to move long distances fast. It is not a good sprinting vehicle, even the best riders lose to runners on short distances.

Personally, I couldn't care less about these Olympic cycling competitions. I have no idea who won which race, apart from Vinokourov taking the actual road cycling gold, and Kuhlavy's mountain bike gold, which though is much secondary in importance. I don't even know who are the cyclists competing on the track. I don't know them, because they would never make it in competitions like Tour and Giro. They wouldn't because: look at their freaking bodies!? They look like body builders. Try to get that frame go uphill, it kills the guy. Cycling, as it is regularly done, is in first place an aerobic performance. Your muscles need to be enduring and strong, but not big. You need big lungs and enduring thighs, but carrying some 15kg extra weight, even if it is 100% muscle, 40km up to a 1500km ascent in the end of a 200km stage gone on >40km/hour speed for the 3rd day in a row, kills you. In fact, already the first mountain day often drops some "road sprinters" and these guys are not the track sprinters. That is why it was said about Sagan who impressed everybody in this years tour, that because he is young and strong willed, he could perhaps do the GC one day, but he has to lose at least 5kg before that. And that means losing 5kg of muscle.

The unbalance in Olympics is this:

In road bikes, there were just 4 golds given, women counted, and that implies the time trials. In fact, even the growth in importance of the time trials, that started at late 90's, is kind of boring event, at least for "conservatives" like me. By conservative I mean just that I like the traditional cycling and that is a competition where evrybody goes rolling the same time, climbing those freaking mountains. No decent uphills, no real competition.

I just checked it that in the track cycling they gave out as many as 10 gold medals!!!:eek: Wouldn't 1 for men and 1 for women be enough? How many ways are there to go around the velodrome? Omnium is quite cycling-like. I have even watched it sometimes, although not very enthusiastically. But wouldn't one omnium for men and one for women be enough? There are competitions like

. Why? To me cycling is the first sport, the one that I practice myself, I love it and I understand what is happening in that video: one does not have to explain men's sprint to me. Yet I find hard to accept that what they do is cycling. It is not, not for me it isn't. Yes, they have bikes under them, but when I see people going slow on bikes I just think why on earth don't they just walk. To me, cycling means going long distances as fast as you can. Preferably a lot of uphill. If not, then it's not really cycling. It is abuse of a great vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

Lots of good points there-I think one of the reasons for having so many events and thus gold medals awarded is to open up the sport and increase it's exposure to a wider audience.

And to compound the matter there are these BMX downhill racing and other forms of cycling that may find it's way into the Olympics. Personally I think the Olympics have grown a bit too much in terms of the events but that's a debate for a another day and time.

AIGLE, Switzerland (AP) — Statement issued Friday by the International Cycling Union in regard to Lance Armstrong:

"The UCI notes Lance Armstrong's decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him.

The UCI recognizes that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognizes the World Anti-Doping Code.

Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr. Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.

Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/uci-statement-lance-armstrong-usada-wadc_n_1827250.html

Interesting that-can USADA really offer a logical argument for reaching it's verdict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

I'm absolutely bloody sure about it. If not' date=' why would have they started with this in the first place?[/quote']

image003.jpg

They did everything they could to get him-if police officers did the same we would be crying foul.

Whether he is guilty or not no longer becomes the point, the focus has shifted on the motives and actions of their prosecution/persecution of Armstrong.

Maybe they just got fed up of him thumbing his nose at them ..and decided to make him guilty by association? I don't know -but I begin to worry if this is applied to everyone-like when the US swim coach (I think) imputed drug abuse to the Chinese swimmer or Bolt (isn't he a bit too fast ..).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

image003.jpg

They did everything they could to get him-if police officers did the same we would be crying foul.

Whether he is guilty or not no longer becomes the point' date=' the focus has shifted on the motives and actions of their prosecution/persecution of Armstrong.

Maybe they just got fed up of him thumbing his nose at them ..and decided to make him guilty by association? I don't know -but I begin to worry if this is applied to everyone-like when the US swim coach (I think) imputed drug abuse to the Chinese swimmer or Bolt (isn't he a bit too fast ..).[/quote']

Apparently it's a standard part of the Chinese training regime to have a blood transfusion before major events so there aren't traces of drugs and the body still has the effects. Other countries are prevented from doing that by spot checks, which China don't have.

Bolt's just crazy fast though :D He's got competitors near his time though who don't have the physical advantages (height) that he does. The Chinese swimmer recovered a huge distance on the final leg of an IM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

Apparently it's a standard part of the Chinese training regime to have a blood transfusion before major events so there aren't traces of drugs and the body still has the effects. Other countries are prevented from doing that by spot checks' date=' which China don't have.

Bolt's just crazy fast though :D He's got competitors near his time though who don't have the physical advantages (height) that he does. The Chinese swimmer recovered a huge distance on the final leg of an IM.[/quote']

Can you post the site you got that from-would be interesting reading.

Secondly not sure if that will help as the precursors of the drug/steroids remains for much longer as many bind with the active transporter, and masking agents will show up.

As for Bolt when he first shattered the record legions of US sports personnel invaded the Jamaican High performance center looking for the goods on him-and then decided it was partly physical and yams ...:D

She did-and should her performance be questioned without solid proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

They did everything they could to get him-if police officers did the same we would be crying foul.

I think not. It is not unusual to put all the effort just to get the proofs for an already known crime. In fact' date=' that is kind of normal procedure. It seldom is so that police just randomly looks for evidence and eventually arrests those people that accidentally turn out to be proven guilty.

Whether he is guilty or not no longer becomes the point, the focus has shifted on the motives and actions of their prosecution/persecution of Armstrong.

This "shift of focus" is what Armstrong has tried to do all the time and what Sparks denied him (by not letting him make his public relations through court). But the thing is that I can't figure out any other potential motive than to try to convict the guilty person for his crimes. That's it. The focus should remain on whether he is guilty or not. Especially as this is not a question of him getting a death sentence. It is a question of him losing the glory he gained by fraud. That's all. Even if a confession was cheated from him, or the USADA agents spied his house and found the dopes there, no matter how the truth is found out, Armstrong should be stripped of those victories. It is a whole another question whether USADA has done something illegal that should be sanctioned, but I got it that they have not.

Maybe they just got fed up of him thumbing his nose at them ..and decided to make him guilty by association? I don't know

Yeah, so basically you don't have idea what the motive could be other than having the guilty person convicted? Me neither.

-but I begin to worry if this is applied to everyone-like when the US swim coach (I think) imputed drug abuse to the Chinese swimmer or Bolt (isn't he a bit too fast ..).

Bolt has all the right to be fast, but it of course rises suspicions if Jamaica practically lacks doping control. Aside from Bolt's physics, I would like to note that he has very different running technique to everybody else. Not sure of the other Jamaican, I didn't watch these Olympics really, so haven't seen that other guy running at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

I think not. It is not unusual to put all the effort just to get the proofs for an already known crime. In fact' date=' that is kind of normal procedure. It seldom is so that police just randomly looks for evidence and eventually arrests those people that accidentally turn out to be proven guilty.

[/quote']

So starting off with the premise that he is guilty does not hint of bias with a process set up to get one result?

BTW from reading various sources there seems to be some variation-did Armstrong ever fail a drug test? Official results not hearsay.

Also is it a fact that Armstrong donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the anti-doping efforts of cycling’s governing body, the Union Cycliste Internationale, during his pro years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

So starting off with the premise that he is guilty does not hint of bias with a process set up to get one result?

When there are good reasons to doubt someone of a crime that possibility is investigated with extra focus on proving that. There is nothing wrong with that. If unproven' date=' then of course the allegations will be turned down, but I've got it that in Armstrong's case there is quite a lot of proofs.

BTW from reading various sources there seems to be some variation-did Armstrong ever fail a drug test? Official results not hearsay.

Also is it a fact that Armstrong donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the anti-doping efforts of cycling’s governing body, the Union Cycliste Internationale, during his pro years.

Yes, and that is pretty dubious, isn't it. In fact, there should be an investigation about UCI. I would like to see that organization brought down and cycling rebuilt on a new, less corrupt basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

Can you post the site you got that from-would be interesting reading.

Secondly not sure if that will help as the precursors of the drug/steroids remains for much longer as many bind with the active transporter' date=' and masking agents will show up.

As for Bolt when he first shattered the record legions of US sports personnel invaded the Jamaican High performance center looking for the goods on him-and then decided it was partly physical and yams ...:D

She did-and should her performance be questioned without solid proof?[/quote']

It's more ITK hearsay I'm afraid. My best mate used to swim at national standard (he has Chad Le Clos on Facebook :P) and gets well placed rumours from friends he knows still in the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

It's more ITK hearsay I'm afraid. My best mate used to swim at national standard (he has Chad Le Clos on Facebook :P) and gets well placed rumours from friends he knows still in the sport.

Best we leave that aspect out of the debate out for the moment then until it's verified.

Not sure how cycling can recover -especially road racing with the revelations' date=' findings and internal feuding taking place. Sometime ago on this thread someone indicated that cycling is arguably the cleanest sport-not sure if it matters anymore whether it is or not. Public perception matters to sponsors and with it taking a hit not sure what will happen next.

Let's look at some of those runners-up who would "win" the Tour if Armstrong officially loses those crowns:

* 1999 - Alex Zulle (Switzerland). The year before, he was implicated in the Festina doping affair.

* 2000, '01 and '03 - Jan Ullrich (Germany). The 1997 Tour champion retired from the sport after he was implicated heavily in the 2006 Operation Puerto doping scandal.

* 2004: Ivan Basso (Italy). Banned for two years in 2007 after admitting he had intended to dope. No wonder cycling has made such stringent efforts in the last few years to fight doping. No wonder the sport's reputation is so tarnished.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1685625/What-comes-next-for-Armstrong-and-cycling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

But to me the bottom line is this: cycling has not done "stringent efforts to fight doping," it just hasn't. A stringent effort would imply cooperating with WADA and changing the composure and role of the UCI. It is ridiculous that UCI is in control of the testing. Either they are incompetent or reluctant to get the doping exposed. In an article on anti-doping that particularly addressed Contador's case, the problems were listed:

Producing positive tests is difficult enough - between undetectable drugs, alleged inside information allowing athletes to evade testers, micro-dosing to stay beneath the radar and the "mundane" problem of limited financial resources in a very, very expensive battle, the authorities appear almost "lucky" when a test comes back positive.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/02/state-of-doping-control-dangerous.html

What I said above remains true: doping control in cycling has caught hardly any riders ever, yet so many of the top riders have recently been caught doping that it has become pretty clear by now that pretty much all GC winners (and second and third placed) of all time in all major competitions have been doped.

What I want to see in big letters in front of each cycling journal is this: "Why did all those doped riders pass UCI's doping control?"

The article I quoted actually is not only concerned with cycling, and states this problem as a more general one:

All of this points to one very important question - where is the fight against doping headed? Two things stand out:

The absence of a failed dope test is a very poor indication of a clean athlete - Jan Ullrich only ever failed a test for recreational drugs. Ivan Basso and Marion Jones never did. Nor did Tim Montgomery or Dwain Chambers, until a tip-off led to a new drug test. The point is that athletes are tested all the time but elude detection. "World's most tested athlete" is a completely meaningless phrase. Even the introduction of the sophisticated biological passport has not yet "caught" anyone, thanks to equally sophisticated micro-doping, though I would argue that it has been an effective deterrent and in time, will make inroads

The presence of a failed dope test is no indication of a dirty athlete - ask Diana Taurasi, who has failed one more drug test in her life than Marion Jones. Jones doped, Taurasi (seemingly) did not.

So, perhaps you would ask why to bother with WADA. It is not perfect solution either, but as is said in the end of that article:

Oh, and one last thing - there has to be a central authority to whom federations are accountable. The allegations made against the UCI by the likes of Landis may be only partly true, but as has been said before, if even 10% of them are true, then there is corruption and collaboration at the head of the sport. Yet nothing will come of it, because the people who should act are those who stand accused. Until there is a central body, with teeth and authority to act, the sport will resist change from within. So fix the management structure, before the Feds have to come knocking incidentally...

In any event, this article very clearly shows us why Armstrong's appeal to the number of the tests he has passed is worthless as evidence of him being clean, and more likely just his media games.

Here's an interesting thread in which is discussed L'Équipe's leak of list that rates riders on the basis of how much evidence there is for them doping:

http://justcycling.myfastforum.org/archive/l-and-quotequipe-to-publish-on-friday-uci-wada-leaks__o_t__t_4396.html

The list is not from this year, but I think 2010, leaked 2011. Armstrong has rating 4, while his performances had clearly come down from his winning years.

That is an archive from 2011, and here you can join the thread if you wish:

http://justcycling.myfastforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=4396&start=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

But to me the bottom line is this: cycling has not done "stringent efforts to fight doping' date='" it just hasn't. A stringent effort would imply cooperating with WADA and changing the composure and role of the UCI. It is ridiculous that UCI is in control of the testing. Either they are incompetent or[b'] reluctant to get the doping exposed[/b]. In an article on anti-doping that particularly addressed Contador's case, the problems were listed:

What I said above remains true: doping control in cycling has caught hardly any riders ever, yet so many of the top riders have recently been caught doping that it has become pretty clear by now that pretty much all GC winners (and second and third placed) of all time in all major competitions have been doped.

What I want to see in big letters in front of each cycling journal is this: "Why did all those doped riders pass UCI's doping control?"

[/url]

Would agree with reluctance rather than incompetence as too much information is out there on effective doping concerns etc.

And it seems that cycling and doping has always been hand and glove:

His ultimate legacy most likely is out of our hands. Fans who may not yet be alive will decide who he was. To us, today, Eddy Merckx is the greatest cyclist who ever lived, not a fraud who tested positive for a stimulant while leading the 1969 Giro d'Italia and had his 1973 Giro di Lombardia win stripped for the same. Joop Zoetemelk is the hardman who started and finished 16 Tours—a record—and won one. He's not a reprobate who was caught doping at the 1979 Tour, received a paltry penalty of a 10-minute time addition, and maintained his second-place podium spot. Jacques Anquetil is the five-time Tour winner who in 1961 took the yellow jersey on Stage 1 and wore it all the way to Paris, not a boastful cheater who said, during a French television interview, "Leave me in peace—everybody takes dope." And Fausto Coppi is il campionissimo, the champion of champions, not an admitted doper who said on Italian television that he only took drugs when necessary—"which is nearly always."
http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame?page=0,4

One quick note on Armstrong-was it worth it ?

His Livestrong campaign has already collected nearly $500 million for cancer research and helping people cope with the disease. And Armstrong announced that his foundation would donate an additional $500,000 to a joint initiative aimed at increasing access to cancer care throughout the world.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ihy3AbF2_KanDjBt1YzWfqnBhmJA?docId=CNG.ac7114b5b0ca815bed513f9a903ff781.c61

That sounds like a heap of good...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

and the soap opera continues...

Disgraced Tour de France winner Floyd Landis has been found guilty in a Swiss court of defaming the International Cycling Union (UCI).

The UCI sued the American cyclist after he alleged they had protected Lance Armstrong from doping claims.

Landis must now pay current and former UCI presidents Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen compensation.

"The defamation judgment upholds and protects the integrity of the UCI and its presidents," a UCI statement read.

Landis claimed in an interview with a German TV station in November 2010 that Verbruggen and McQuaid had accepted a donation from his former US Postal Service team-mate Lance Armstrong to conceal a positive test in the 2001 Tour de Suisse.

The UCI admitted receiving $100,000 (£62,200) from Armstrong to help finance anti-doping measures, but denied the payment was part of a cover-up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19822662

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Official Cycling Thread

The list of Armstrong's team mates to testify against him:

Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters et David Zabriskie.

Wow. That list has half of the guys who set the pace for him in the mountains during his victories (or more than half), but more than that, it has pretty much every strong American cyclist, bar Armstrong, from last decade. Wow.

Apparently there are a lot of other proofs, like bank transfers, medical tests and documents of communications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...