Was This a Clean Tour?
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 29, 2008 2:31 PM EDT
in News
Email
PrintI know this is the third rail of Cycling, but since it's also the single most vital issue to the sport's health, we have to wonder... was this Tour a "clean Tour"? I'm saying yes, so far.
First, the definition of "clean" can't be 100% pure as the driven snow; it refers to the essential competition being untainted by drugs. This refers to the main protagonists being clean, as well as the larger forces driving the peloton. I'd say you need about 90% or so of the workers being clean too, so the average daily pace isn't affected. Also, "so far" refers to what we now know. In 2006 the LNDD broke the Landis positive within 48 hours, but I wouldn't rule out the chance that they're still doing tests, given the go-it-alone structure of testing this year.
I'm something of a naif by nature, so react accordingly, but I didn't see anything that made me particularly suspicious. If you want to tag all surprise performaces as suspicious, you could wonder why Stef Schumacher won both time trials, or Bernhard Kohl found himself on the podium, but I'm not overly inclined to question them. Gerol run one of those "serious internal checks" programs, and it's not like these guys aren't strong, or that they sauntered away painlessly from the peloton.
We know who did dope, and when Ricco flew away from the group nobody could match his pace. Same for Piepoli (known) and Cobo (suspected). Everyone in the top ten suffered visibly at times. Sastre launched the only heroic escape on the Alpe, along with a lesser version at Prato Nevoso with Schleck and Kohl. Time trial scores were generally quite credible.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this Tour, though, is the significant role of team tactics. I wouldn't reflexively pronounce the Tour clean simply on the basis of CSC's masterful work, and teamwork wasn't exactly absent during the big doping era (most of which I sat out anyway and can't really speak of). But one thing we know about a doped peloton is that the top guys would robotically march up the biggest climbs, teammates or no. Among the many crimes against Cycling perpetrated by doping is how deadly dull the racing could be. Clean riders, by contrast, have limited matches to burn and dire consequences for running out. This calls for some pretty careful decisionmaking, and team tactics becomes ever more vital as a result.
I could be talked out of this, but my quick take is that things looked pretty OK to me.
112 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks, Chris. I concur.
Watching CSC’s domineering performance on the stages that counted, is kind of what I’ve been hoping for all along. How much time did Carlos spend in the wind? Probably not much (other than the TT’s of course). I hope we see more of this style of GT racing – You want to win? Bring 8 guys that can beat my 8 guys.
I think the Vs crew touched on something briefly the other day, where teams will bring a “2 or 3 pronged” approach and kill themselves for whoever’s strongest in the last week.
I’d like to say it was a clean tour…but I always say that. I’ve been pulling for Sastre to win this thing for a few years now and he finally stacked up all the intangibles to get ‘er done. And I believe he is clean.
I agree too but
Weren’t there more positives in this Tour than the two previous? If so, and we’ve seen previous dopers struggle on various stages (Chicken last year, Landis the year before) are we engaging in group think?
This is a wee bit of selective recall
We remember Ricco, Cobo and Piepoli, but we’re choosing to ignore that fact that Frank Schleck squirted after those guys, he just couldn’t catch them.
And Andy Schleck was looking very, very strong, day after day. He looked Basso-comfortable there for a while on Alpe D’Huez.
And Stefan Schumi shut down the TT experts TWICE (I hear you - Stefan who?) ... he won the penultimate TT stage AFTER spending TWO DAYS on long breakaways on the most massive climbing stages in the Tour.
And there was that one stage when Cancellara towed the CSC train over the Joux Plan or whichever HC col was on order that day.
Look, I’m not suggesting these guys were enhanced chemically, but performance-wise there were a few eyebrow-raisers and/or surprises.
Not heroic or dominating enough to dampen my enjoyment of the spectacle, but enough so that I’m still waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I do very much agree with Chris that it was insane to see guys suffering what looked like 10 hells on the climbs, though!
Chris’ post got me thinking - was this a cleaner Tour as in less EPO and blood doping, or a cleaner Tour as in less doping all around? By that I mean less stimulants, steroids, testosterone, etc, etc?
Hm
additional definition would probably be useful. I guess I was thinking of everything, though I tend to believe EPO is the one true menace, just because of detection issues.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 29, 2008 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
They seem to be catching people like crazy lately, too!
Wasn’t some mountain bike champ just nailed for EPO?
Ouch.
At this point, it seems kinda safe to say that if you’re doing EPO or blood doping, you WILL get caught. It may take 3-5 years, but they will nail you.
I mean, of the ‘05 Tour, 12 of the top 20 finishers —60% -- have been booted/suspended due to doping! That is a MEGA turnover.
12 of the top 20
for real? wow, now I need to go back and look at that list. I’m counting 8, who am I missing? Still a very big turnover.
1 Lance Armstrong
2 Ivan Basso -Doper
3 Jan Ullrich – suspected doper
4 Francisco Mancebo – Puerto suspicion?
5 Alexander Vinokourov – doper
6 Levi Leipheimer
7 Michael Rasmussen – doper
8 Cadel Evans
9 Floyd Landis – doper
10 Óscar Pereiro
11 Christophe Moreau
12 Yaroslav Popovych
13 Eddy Mazzoleni – doper….I think
14 George Hincapie
15 Haimar Zubeldia
16 Jörg Jaksche – doper
17 Bobby Julich ”
18 Oscar Sevilla – doper – Puerto suspicion?
19 Andrey Kashechkin – doper
20 Giuseppe Guerini
not me
the ” is a left-over from his time, oops
I thought Guerini was busted?
Also, I am considering Armstrong.
Schumi
is my biggest concern. I’m believing him clean til proven otherwise. Andy Schleck doesn’t concern me, he wasn’t good enough to disappear up the road. The days when he pulled the pack maniacally, he eventually blew up.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 29, 2008 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions
agree, I'm very suspicious about
Schumi.
He had that drunk&drug hit and run car accident last year, which I can’t stand at all.
and at the worlds some extreme diarhhea that caused his blood values go crazy but was still able to take the bronze medal. And now he wins both TT’s at the Tour, the second, long TT after burning a lot of matches in breaks just before the TT…..
Don’t like the guy and certainly don’t think he is clean.
Naif LOL
cleaner I think, still some ways to go. Maybe most importantly, the Ricco bust made it appear that the gap between doper tech and tester tech is shrinking. For those that are still on the juice, seems like there would be a higher level of anxiety of getting caught.
I am also still kinda waiting for the other shoe to drop re the targeting of the Schlecks and whoever else they had their eye on. As for Gerol, the prospect of unemployment no doubt is a motivating one. to dope or to put in the ride of your life. Schumi’s party escapades over the last year does to me pose a tiny question mark. Moreau’s departure and the recent stuff about Dekker (perhaps explaining his lack of Tour selection) also smell slightly unclean.
I would like to see future Tours actually use the biopassport program (they didn’t this year, right?). Wonder if that made any difference in the results. I also wonder what kind of stuff they are seeing that they think is not quite right they just don’t have the test for yet – like the comment about seeing the new generation of EPO in the Giro.
I still wonder....
...what was with Moreau and the “dozen or so” riders with weird blood levels.
Certainly the CSC tactics wouldn’t have worked with the super-teams of the past who would have had 5 riders in the final group at the bottom of the Alpe.
Also, regarding the mega-EPO era ---
I would suggest that back then we didn’t see guys “robotically march up climbs;” in this case, Chris, maybe you’re confusing Indurain for the rest of the bunch?
Bugno, Chiapucci, Millar (Robert), Jaja, even “I Can Look All My Rivals in the Face” Pantani were some real firecrackers on climbs - and guys like Pantani were notorious for blowing themselves up on long breakaways on climbing stages.
I think of it this way —there really WERE two pelotons -- the guys on EPO, who were all going x-percent faster than everyone else, and the guys who were not on EPO.
The EPO will let you train harder and recover faster - but only so that you can suffer at higher speeds in order to keep up with the OTHER guys who are on EPO who have trained just like you.
It doesn’t make Alpe D’Huez hurt any less on a bad day, it won’t help you if you forget to eat or drink, it won’t prevent a bonk.
Two thoughts: I feel for all the guys who didn’t take EPO and who burned out faster trying to keep up with the guys on EPO; the guy who wrote the Lance and Landis books called it “secondhand EPO fallout” or something. Imagine riding out of your skin every day for THREE WEEKS just to hang onto the BACK of the peloton! Mothereffer.
And two, you can tell it affects the peloton these days when the speeds (and the climbing speeds) have seemingly been reduced and then guys like Ricco (and Vino last year) explode off the front with frightening ease, maintain a strong lead, and then repeat that performance again soon after.
report on doping in sport
coincidentally, my librarian gf just sent this to me, for anyone who is really into this stuff. -
Scientists race to stay ahead of the drug-taking and genetic manipulation that threatens sport. Major 4-decade review by 3 leading doping-in-sport experts published. (Don Catlin of UCLA one of the co-authors). This is just the press release – the full report you have to pay for. Published in the August issue of the European Journal of Internal Medicine. Notes that genetic manipulation may be the concern of the future.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-07/w-srt072908.php
More at VN
same basic topic. To Andy Hood’s credit, it’s kind of long, so I think he started it before my post went up. heh
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 29, 2008 4:27 PM EDT reply actions
Cleaner, but not clean
I’m cautiously optimistic that the Tour, and the sport of cycling in general, is cleaner now than it was a few years ago, and that this trend will continue.
In my opinion, it’s risky to base an opinion about the cleanliness of the race on whether the riders’ performances looked “suspicious.” Of the four riders who tested positive at the Tour this year, only Ricco displayed anything on the road that looked out of the ordinary. And while no team looked as freakishly strong in the mountains as US Postal used to, CSC came awfully close, and I believe CSC is a pretty clean team.
My optimism stems not so much from how the racing looked, but from other factors. Of the top five GC finishers in the Tour this year, two (including the winner) were riders that I believe - based not on performances, but on team anti-doping practices, lack of involvement in OP and other scandals, etc. - are currently racing clean, two others are riders I have no particular reason to suspect, and while there have been whispers about the fifth, Menchov, I haven’t seen any damning evidence against him. That gives me hope that the Tour is becoming cleaner.
Also, the race organizers and governing bodies seem to be taking the anti-doping efforts a lot more seriously in the past couple of years, and they’re catching and punishing a lot more riders, and I have to believe that’s having, and will continue to have, an increasing deterrent effect on both riders and teams.
....but gene theapy/doping
is here already and how do they test for that when they can’t come up with a test for HGH.
90%???
I’d say 100% of the workers on the winner’s team need to be clean. If you have juiced up dopers on your team who can throw attack after attack at the opposition where’s the fairness in that?
Which lead on to Lance. I’m not suggesting he used anything, but isn’t there a large number of his team mates who have been caught doping? How many of his victories were assisted in that way? Kind of tarnishes the achievement but it’s worth asking.
As for this tour, I think we got the big names and the majority of the rest were probably clean.
Blame my wife!
100% of the winning team
OK, that’s probably a prerequisite.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 29, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
one problem with that argument
I hope this doesn’t violate Chris’ moratorium on Lance/Disco arguments, but I’m curious about this. This argument - that a “large number” of former Lance teammates were caught doping after they left - keeps getting repeated in the media. But it’s just four, right? (Hamilton, Beltran, Landis, and Heras…and even Landis’ positive tests are arguable). Why does this get emphasized despite the fact that many more Lancemates haven’t tested positive, and that of those riders, Hamilton is the only one who seems to have “come of age” with Brunyeel and Lance.
I’ve only been a serious cycling fan for about five years, so please feel free to point out if I’m missing something here. But from a pure logical standpoint, it bothers me that the emphasis is on The Four when they’re in the minority.
BTW, I lurk here regularly and I really appreciate all of the knowledge and opinion shared here. I still consider myself a cycling novice, so I appreciate hearing from the vets. Cheers!
Welcome from Lurkdom :-)
I have no answers on all the questions and am mixed with my own thoughts but maybe the former teammates is also including those who have since admitted it, like Frankie. No positives but admitted to using.
"The most wasted day is that in which we have not laughed."
You can probably add JV to this list too
He all but admitted doping on his climb up Ventoux (misspelled) when he set the record for the climb in an article in the NY Times (I think). Reporter asked him if he doped on that ride and he said something along the lines of I won’t answer that directly, but that result could answer the question pretty well based on who he beat. It was a little vaguer than that but I clearly said to me he was offering a non-denial denial to the question of his use of dope while at USPS.
Just spinning the pedals in the hills of Western Maryland
Here's the article
link for anyone that missed the Times Online interview Paul Kimmage did with JV.
"The most wasted day is that in which we have not laughed."
Piepoli isn't...
We don’t have any test results from Piepoli. If he doped the same as Ricco and the test is as good as claimed, it ought to have reported a positive for him, but there is no word on that yet. Which raises questions about how good a test it really is. If it turns up positive later, why did it take so long? If it turns up negative, might Ricco’s B turn out the same way?
TBV
http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research, and comment.
No test results that I recall...
... but I seem to recall that he just out and out confessed to the DS when the news about Ricco broke.
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
Si...
Peipoli will be having a little chat with CONI on Thursday morning concerning the press reports that he told Gianetti that he had “done the same” as Ricco. I suspect that the lawyers will ensure that he denies everything.
The Ricco sample went to three labs – Barcelona, Lausanne and Paris – before they declared it positive. Since he had a history of trouble-making on the dopage front and could be expected to make results in the Tour, I suspect his sample was fast-tracked. With targetted testing, the anonymity principle breaks down a bit – though the labs likely did not know which of the tests from the cholet crono matched which rider. In any case, it’s likely – though not certain – that any sample from Peipoli, or anyone else on Saunier Duval, is following a similar path through multiple labs. But because the team is already withdrawn from the race after Ricco’s positive, there was no longer any reason to burn the midnight oil to get the test results quickly. Consequently, it’s possible, though not certain, that their could be other results still out there. Fofonov got nailed for a pretty mundane substance that doesn’t require much heavy lifting from the science guys, so that result came out pretty quickly.
Anyway, impossible to say if there are more positives coming.
Cross post: Interesting quote from Ricco about testing quality
“While Riccò’s positive was hailed a sign of the rigor of the Tour’s testing protocol, the rider said he wasn’t convinced.
“During the Tour they took a lot of samples (from me), they made 10 tests in about 13 stages, two were positive and in fact in theory all the tests should have been positive therefore the method needs to be checked,” he said”
From velonews
Just spinning the pedals in the hills of Western Maryland
If one were to look at who was caught at the Tour this year...
... and look at their performance… the baseline one might want to look for isn’t the superstar riding off the front of the pack, but the journeyman working hard for his last contract before forced retirement, hoping for any edge to keep the paychecks coming.
That, of course, doesn’t diminish Ricco’s Prick-itude (dickosity?) one bit :)
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
Interestingly
from the VN piece, it sounds like any riding that was at all unexpected got you added to the test list by LNDD or whichever entity made the testing decisions at the Tour. Journeymen breaking out of their shell would have gone to the head of the list.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 29, 2008 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions
quietly confident
That it’s a more level playing field.
I’ve read a story somewhere, and I’ll change the names, that rider number one got mad at rider number five, on his own team, and rider number one made rider number five watch while his “fresh” blood was being poured down the drain, deliberately wanting rider number five to suffer (greatly).
What are talking about here? Blood transfusion? With your own blood? Taken out when? Earlier in the year? During the racing season? Is there a test for that? Or someone else’s blood?...which is scary.
I’m suspicious of the (now old?) method of preparing for something like the TdF by NOT racing into the event. I admit I’m a runner more than cyclist, but there is no training substitute for well timed racing to get peaked for a big event.
What's the timeframe of this story?
... and please, divulge names, addresses, hatsizes…
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
homologous transfers
have been caught (Vino, Kash, Hamilton). One’s own blood: I think this is where the passports come in. Red blood cell counts suddenly spiking or something? Anyway, there aren’t passports… but they’re in process.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 29, 2008 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Vino & Kash
were busted for someone elses blood, if I recall correctly. The joke was that Kash got Vinos and vice-versa.
Autologous refers to donating to yourself. At least that’s what they called my patella tendon graft for my ACL.
Yeah... Vino was supposedly using his Dad's...
... and he said that if it was his Dad’s he’d have tested positive for Vodka.
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
Right you are
the passport is the only way to catch homologous transfers, i believe. Same with HGH…
"I won! I won! I don't have to go to school anymore." -- Eddy Merckx, after winning his first bike race
couple/few years ago
Number one is retired. Number five is serving a sentence. It’s the source I can’t remember, but it wasn’t number five.
Part of the point I didn’t make, does the racing season become much more old, old school if you can’t medicate? Take Garmin, they went into the Giro a bit under-trained and looking for some hard work pointing to the Tour. Couple years ago, did anyone do that?
Isn't the source an online chat between ex teammates of 1 and 5?
Carlos Sastre - Tour de France winner - Born From Jets
yes
Actually, I seem to remember 2 different parties all together having the chat. And both still in cycling.
the online chat transcript
is in Walsh’s From Lance to Landis.
Whether accurate or not, it’s important to note that neither of the parties retailing the story were first-hand witnesses to it.
I'm not a Lance fan,
but this story must be the most ridiculous ones out there! Why would Lance (or who ever it was speculated)pour Landis’ blood down the drain since he was working for him?!
I don’t believe this rumour at all, since it doesn’t make anykind of sence.
and to end the never ending debate,
lets just stop it here. No need to pour flames on fire, sorry for that…
LOL!!!!!
One would think you would have been able to see your post 20 seconds in the future and been able to correct your typo before posting it…
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
There was loads of doping in the the old-school, too.
I’m not saying it’s ok, but I don’t buy the “back in my day, uphill in the snow, we had to rub two sticks together to make fire, and nobody every doped” story.
Because they did.
On the whole
things certainly look better. Here’s my take: team leaders look to be off of the major juice (either EPO or blood boosting). Now, I have no idea if that holds true for growth hormone, steroids, stimulants, etc.. I can only judge by the peformances, as relying on testing alone has proven a piss poor barometer of cleanliness in the past.
If we consider that Sastre’s winning time up the Alpe was only 14th best in history, and yet he essentially won the Tour on that climb, gapping all the other heads of state by only two minutes, then I think it’s safe to say something has definitely changed over the past few years. The climbing speeds just seem more realistic.
Now, the domestiques are a different story. Flatlanders towing team leaders over mountains still doesn’t sit well with me. Some of the stuff I’ve read lately about internal testing programs leaves me a little cold. If one of the Schleks, Cance, Arveson, or god forbid Jens! should later be revealed to have doped, it will come as no surprise to me. Sorry to pick on CSC, but their performance was a bit too US Postal/Disco for my liking.
I’ll call bullshit on Schumi. I don’t give a damn if they didn’t pop him. His performances absolutely reek of PEDs. We’ve all been burned far too many times by this crap, and I for one am through giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. He’s a good rider, but has done nothing in the past to indicate he’s at this level. Wasn’t he the one with that inane stomach flu story offered as explanation for his high hemo at the Worlds last year? One short TT win, okay plausible, especially at the start of the Tour. The second win I’m not buying.
Yes, on the whole I’m encouraged, but we’ve still got problems.
17th best . . .
the speeds were down across the board.
If Paul Kimmage is willing to believe in the racing again, either we’re all really being fooled, or things are turning around.
I pulled that 14th best from memory, my bad.
I forgot about that Kimmage article. I really hope he’s right.
by The Team Chef on Jul 29, 2008 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I echo your call of bullshit on Schumi
Most guys in breaks that stay away for a long time look like suffering bags of beatdown the next day, and usually the next couple of days. I remember David Millar being interviewed after his long break at the Giro that he could barely move the next day.
to run away on breaks in preceding days and then still destroy 99% of the field in a long time trial was one of the most suspect things I saw at this year’s tour. In my opinion, more suspect then Ricco flying up the mountain.
Mixed feelings
Beating Cancellara sounds impossible, til you consider the work Cance did in the mountains. He had to be half-dead, and he has a history of slowing down as the Tour goes on. Makes sense, given his size. So I don’t have a problem with Schumi winning. I am a little troubled by his winning the day after a long break though.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 29, 2008 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions
But Cancellera took the day off before the TT
Didn’t Cancellera cruise in the day before the TT off the back with a small group? If I remember right, Cancellera lost time, took it easy, and then let it rip on the TT. I don’t remember Schumi doing the same…
I call shenanigans!
C said in one of the interviews that Tony sat up in the stage and rode in.
"The most wasted day is that in which we have not laughed."
Here's the video link
land he comments on Fabian sitting up just over 2 min’s into it.
"The most wasted day is that in which we have not laughed."
Results as an indicator
although there are flaws in my reasoning that I’m sure many will point out, I like to look at the results as an indicator. A few jump out at me:
1. Carlos Sastre – Maybe Carlos was able to seal the deal this year because he was on an even playing surface with everyone else, i.e. non-doped? Maybe he was one of the few clean guys the last five years, hence his always coming close, but never closing the deal.
2. Cadel Evans – Maybe he’s only as good as second place. In the past, a rider of his stature may have been tempted to dope after last year’s near miss. But Cadel is clean, and will accept that he’s not good enough to win the Tour instead of doping to win.
5. CVV – I sometimes question the “super domestique turned leader” line of thinking for his impressive results. I give CVV way more credit than that. I think he was always this good, but could not keep up with a doped peloton, so he was relegated to domestique duties. Maybe even forcefully so by his past teams of CSC and Postal. Just assuming, but maybe they didn’t give him a shot because he wouldn’t buy into their doping programs, and the teams knew he couldn’t compete because he didn’t dope?
I see a flaw in your reasoning! I see a flaw in your reasoning!
... but I’m not going to point it out… you have to find it for yourself!
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
Here I go again...
I agree with Carlos. I think he has always been strong and with out that boost, he kept finding 4th place.
I am okay with Cadel and this year, I will wonder what if – with his fall. It was a serious one and I wonder what that did as there were times on the climbs he looked to be trying to avoid putting weight on it. I think this year was a great showing of a pretty equal playing field battling it out. I think he had a shot for that top spot like several did. A crash and lack of team affected it in one way or another.
C had better riding #’s than Lance in the early years but Postal was funny with what they did with great riders. 2003-2005 involved back issues and such from being over worked and over trained to degrees. 2005 was the year CSC allowed him to get that together. 2006-2007 were the years he built back his form. CSC has amazing men on their team and many of them could be leaders of other teams. (They are #1 though because those on the team work for eachother.) Some get into those domestique roles and they find comfort. C had a chance with Slipstream to help mold a new team and it wasn’t until he believed in himself and that confidence grew that GC contender served notice. I’m sure you all dismiss my fanfare at times but if there is one I believe in with out any doubts, it’s C.
"The most wasted day is that in which we have not laughed."
No Nikki....
Sastre did not keep coming up 4th….that ony happened pretty recently. He was not always the favored contender. Sastre’s final Tour positions:
2001 -20th overall
2002 -10th overall
2003 – 9th overall
2004 – 8th overall
2005 – 21st overall
2006 – 3rd overall
2007 – 4th overall
2008 – 1st overall
In a recent interview on as.com, Pereiro explained Sastre’s Tour win. This win did not happen in days but in years. Sastre decided a few years ago to focus and train specifically for the Tour. He improved his TT to start. His was a very methodical approach to winning.
I can see Classics guys like Valverde and Cunego take this same approach and possibly be in contention in the future.
I didn't mean it litterally...
sorry. Should’ve said it differently. In the recent years in GT’s (including Vuelta) he seemed to be closer and closer and just couldn’d get to the top step.
I agree, and I those that are fans of Carlos, have been waiting for this as it has been a win in the making. He has successfully grown as a rider and has made a nice steady move to the top. I like Carlos and I did not mean any disrespect or it infer he litterally has always been 4th. 2006 and 2007 were 4th (with the change made for 06 to 3rd).
Thanks for the results listings!
"The most wasted day is that in which we have not laughed."
On the whole, it looked much cleaner
People were suffering, speeds were low, and winners of stages seemed to pay for their efforts in the following stages. Ricco’s crew aside, there were no rides like “the look” from LA or Landis’s one man rampage a few years ago. Sastre’s victory and Evans’ defeat seem to point towards that.
If I just had one more gear, I...
It was cleaner because Bruyneel didn't have a team there.
Bruyneel is the smartest Team Director in all of cycling, he’s figured out how to beat the testers for 10 years now. The most convincing piece of evidence for me is the fact that nobody ever failed a drug test on his team, but then failed one after leaving his team: Triki Beltran, Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, etc.
Now he’s got a skinny climber, Contador, beating Cancellara and other specialists in TT’s. That’s a little hard to believe. Does anyone remember the final TT of the ‘98 Giro when Pantani was supposed to lose 4 minutes to Tonkov and instead beat him. That’s a sure sign of blood boosting.
Speaking of TT’s, this year’s Tour TT was an indicator of cleanliness. TT specialists in the top 5 spots. It’s always hard for me to believe that after many mountain stages, in which the GC contenders are riding as hard as possible, they beat TT specialists who have been in the grupetto just trying to make the time cut. Now I won’t assume the grupetto is easy because I have never ridden in one. But assuming the specialists are going as hard physically for the same number of days as the GC guys, essentially equal exertion, that they can beat the TT specialists?
But in all reality, I don’t really care as long as the playing field is level.
Can you explain how that conclusion gels with...
... Schumacher and Cancellara being 1 and 2 for the final TT? Neither were in the Grupetto at all in the Alps. Not trying to flame you, just want clearer explanation…
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
WIth all due respect
the argument that Bruyneel knew how to beat the testers, showed his team how to do it, only to have them “unlearn” the techniques after they left his team has never made sense to me. Just saying.
I think part of that theory is that
Bruyneel had inside information about the timing of tests.
And how did he do that?
And why just him and not anyone else? And if Bruyneel did it, meaning corruption in the testing ranks, if not the race organizers, why wouldn’t that corruption still be happening? Just wondering about this theory, not you.
Wow... one thread devolves into Armstrong...
... the other into Bruyneel…
Someone tell the UCI or ASO or whoever is in charge now that PdC needs some live racing damn quick or we are going to start consuming ourselves!
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
the threads always digress
We haven’t had a discussion about doping yet that didn’t go this route.
by australopithecine on Jul 29, 2008 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Hence
the moratorium. Starting tomorrow and for no less than the next six months, no more digressions about US Postal/Disco. Enough already. If you see threads going that way, feel free to call foul.
I’m not joking. I know it’s an important subject, but I think it’s been so tortured here that I don’t want any more comment threads hashing it out, one more time. No punishments—this is a free speech forum. But can we agree that this is pointless and repetitive?
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 29, 2008 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Motorola?
How ‘bout them huh? Can we talk about them? Canwecanwecanwecanwecanwe???
I mean the Motorola was a pretty tough hill in the Giro, wasn’t it?
Motorola is a bunch of sheit!
Everyone knows that they’re pawning off their rehashed version of Atmel’s silicon controlled rectifier when the Qualcomm communications circuitry is vastly superior in terms of both inductance and resonance abatement in the gigahertz spectrum is only proof that you know they have been cheating ever since they entered the field in 1999!!!!! Seriously, anyone that likes Motorola is an idiot…
Ok… that’s as close as I can get to coming up with a fake flamebait response… sorry if I’ve offended you Ursula… I do truly respect your opinion when it comes to semiconductors :)
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
Heh... he said "Up your alley"
...eheeheheheheeeheheheheee…
Honestly… I have no idea what i posted up there. It’s a clutch of jargon soldered together with a thorough lack of subject knowledge. I… uh… I can make an LED blink… I like Blinky Kits.
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
How did you get a comment to post with nothing?
"The most wasted day is that in which we have not laughed."
Okay, if I highlight I see the pong! Or is it a ping?
"The most wasted day is that in which we have not laughed."
From home,
I totally see the atari pic. At work it litterally was a dot.
"The most wasted day is that in which we have not laughed."
Are you sure you're not in marketing?
They have a penchant for stringing together buzzwords in a semi-coherent fashion.
I used to do R&D work in Silicon Valley...
... and I’ve seen enough technology related marketing pitch books to spew BS with the best of them.
But as far as electronics go… it’s me… and my Ramsey catalog (actually sitting on my desk in front of me under a turned-into-paper-weight-dead-hard-drive) and a dream…
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
Heh.
I dunno. I guess I have mixed feelings about saying no more debate on it. Me, I don’t really want to write about it, but if people feel strongly, eh, why not? You can always scroll past it. And, of course, intervene if the furniture starts flying. But I guess I don’t have a problem if people want to discuss it?
I agree... the Bruyneel/Armstrong/Disco discussions...
... don’t seem to provide much in the way of information or honest debate but much in the way of vitriol. If it were the other way around, I wouldn’t agree… but you wouldn’t have to suggest it.
So, now that that subject is over, the Cafe members need your input on the most pressing matter of the day… whether to grant Jens! a second exclamation point.
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
oh please, let's not go there!
There are so many forums etc. out there to debate that issue, and it has poisoned most of them with the never ending debate.
Yeah
I think it’s reached an unhealthy point. We have a good community… and there’s nothing to be gained from further chatter on it.
"If writing too much about the Classics is wrong, I don't want to be right."
by Chris Fontecchio on Jul 29, 2008 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Bruce... I thought you were answering the Jens! debate question.
I so need to go home to continue my laughing at my misread following of comments tonight.
"The most wasted day is that in which we have not laughed."
your site, your call
but I disagree on the moratorium. As long as the discussions stay civil, why not let them happen. If no one wants to engage then they’ll die naturally, killed by the community as it were.
by lyne on Jul 29, 2008 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Theory of Darwinian Commentary...
... the circle of blog life is a harsh, harsh mistress.
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
Now all I can imagine
is Robert Heinlein in thigh high black leather boots at a Disco, so I also can’t see how productive this discussion is…
Wow... it took me a second...
... but after turning it over in my head… I finally got it. I think that may well win “Obscure Reference Award” for those not raised on 1950’s SciFi…
Bueno Carlos!!!!!
I know
but it was the first thing that came to me after three glasses of wine. I’ll do better next time. ;)
Better as in more wine before reading?
We at the drinking game camp are proud of you.
"The most wasted day is that in which we have not laughed."
the corruption issue
I’m not going to touch the whole Lance-Bruyneel thing, cuz bleh.
But, there is lots of evidence of corruption at the UCI and the national federations on the testing question. That corruption ranges from informing riders about their “surprise” tests to finding negative test results that weren’t necessarily negative. It’s unclear how much of that is still going on. WADA was invented in an effort to remove the inherent conflict of interest for the UCI and the national federations when it came to doping controls. That is, that the federations, one of whose roles is to promote the sport, had an interest in not finding doping to be a problem. Ie, promoting the sport and punishing its stars are contradictory roles. Anyway, that was the goal. Hard to say how much it’s working, and how much of the system has changed.
To my eyes, it’s looking better.
A detour back to the present
In the old days, so the story goes, Organizers, Directors, everybody behind the curtain so-to-speak, wanted the APPEARANCE of testing so as to gull sponsors and fans into thinking the product was legit. (See Verbruggen, Hein and Jean Marie Leblanc (whose son rode for Festina, right?))
In that system (much like the ones that American pro sports are trying out now), there was plenty of leeway for performance-enhancement through chemistry thanks to the Casablanca-style enforcement policies (see Manzano, Jesus . . .).
What seems to have changed is that for a variety of reasons, the organizers (ASO) and to some degree the UCI want the REALITY of testing.
Certain parties (see Ricco and possibly Chatenay-Malabry) seem not to have figured this out . . .
Agreement was ended
I agree – For the 20 years (+) before 2006 or so, it always seemed that there was a don’t tell, we won’t test, unless it was exposed, rule. I think riders were probably forced to dope to keep their jobs in many cases. I think this fairly rapidly changed with many casualties such as Vino and co who were still in the old school. But anybody this year had to know that things were different at the Tour at least.
With the UCI and ASO on the outs ASO was going to be as strict as they could to show they had the goods. So the SD guys were really stupid. I suspect there is still a fair amount of drug use, but the big effect drugs – EPO, steroids, and the doping didn’t have as big a bearing.
It seemed like the riders didn’t know their limits as well. I think some were underestimating them. We’ll see how that changes in the next few years.
I think it was better
I believe that there were fewer major race shaping drugs being used. These, as mentioned above, are the family of blood manipulators. Perhaps there were still guys with testosterone patches in the evening but to stay under the limit of detection one can not get that great of an advantage. Probably just a placebo.
It was said a couple of years ago that a sign of a cleaner tour was when the breakaways succeeded more. We had one succeed and one left awfully close in the first week. I believe this is due to a clean peloton misunderstanding its new limits and abilities. Maybe it was just a lack of horsepower due to some big names not being present and a hesitancy to work by the domestiques if they didn’t think they were guaranteed of a win, but I took it as a cleaner peloton.
by australopithecine on Jul 29, 2008 7:03 PM EDT reply actions
Maybe what is needed...
is a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Cycling.
Will not another word.
Racing for Victory and Free Beer!
I thought I would post of this article
on some of C’s test results from this year that was published in The Wall Street Journal.
"The most wasted day is that in which we have not laughed."
Schumacher's ride
looks suspicious because he won – but I’m not sure it is in absolute terms. Go back to 2006 when Sastre was in top form heading into the final ITT of around the same length and take a look at the results. Sastre finished nearly 5 minutes down, in around the same time as Menchov and Rogers, so for him a good ITT I’d say. But he’s a full 4 minutes behind Kloeden and was over 3 minutes down on Landis. So I’d say that Schumacher’s performance was good enough to win – but not exceptional. DFatigue does play its part, does anyone really think that Cancellara is only 2 minutes better than Sastre over that course; but I don’t think that Sastre was working less hard than Schumacher – Schumacher might have been off the front in a break for a lot of the time, but he climbed much more slowly than did the MJ group behind – it’s one of the advantages of being in a break after all.
2006 TdF Stage 19ITT
1. HONCHAR Serhiy TMO 01h07’45” 80
2. KLÖDEN Andreas TMO 41” 50
3. PEREIRO SIO Oscar CEI 02’40” 35
4. LANG Sebastian GST 03’18” 25
5. ZABRISKIE David CSC 03’35” 15
7. EVANS Cadel DVL 03’41” 5
9. CUNEGO Damiano LAM 03’44” 2
10. MILLAR David SDV 04’01” 1
13. VOIGT Jens CSC 04’16” 0
14. LARSSON Gustav Erik FDJ 04’21” 0
15. CHAVANEL Sylvain COF 04’32” 0
16. MENCHOV Denis RAB 04’33” 0
18. ROGERS Michael TMO 04’35” 0
19. SASTRE CANDIL Carlos CSC 04’42” 0
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Podium Cafe
Related FanShots on Podium Cafe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
