I think cycling is getting cleaner each year, though I can fully understand the negative attitude some people have after what happened in the past.
Gilbert had a good 2011 season, but let's face it, he was very good before. He just had a very good shape, a good team and the luck he needed to win some races. The theory that he improved incredibly like other dopers is invalid.
I'm not putting my hand in the fire for anyone anymore, but my personal opinion is that I find unlikely Gilbert would have doped.
And wtf about the Kristof Vandewalle comment? He's the reigning Belgian TT champion, beating guys like De Gendt, Gilbert and Monfort. As a time trial specialist, he won a TT and held on to win the GC, can't see what's so strange about that..
Ollfardh wrote:
Gilbert had a good 2011 season, but let's face it, he was very good before. He just had a very good shape, a good team and the luck he needed to win some races. The theory that he improved incredibly like other dopers is invalid.
No-one is saying he improved incredibly. In fact the opposite, he stopped winning too quickly. He didn't stop performing well, he just stopped winning.
The suddenly came back at the end of the season to dominate again.
Frankly i don't even care, i just like a debate
And i have the opinion that almost everyone is doped, so it doesnt even matter
Ian Butler wrote:
Armstrong did test positive, but UCI put it under the mat.
Ok then, Wiggins, Froome, Porte etc.?
It is a bit odd to go from domination to really struggling, especially after warnings about high blood values.
What about them?
Riders, and people's life in general, have ups and downs, like I said.
Ciolek now returning, is that doping?
Peter Sagan, definitely doping, then? Too young, no?
Tom Boonen's not winning? Maybe he took doping last year and now he stopped?
I believe more than 50% of the riders (below 30 years) are riding clean, especially the younger generation.
Ian Butler wrote:
I'm pretty sure Gilbert is/was almost as clean as they come.
He'd be taking too much a risk by saying (upon winning L-B-L): "They'll never be able to take these victories away from me, I'm 100% clean, something something..."
And he's never been bad, too. Last year was spoiled by a bad winter (happens all the time), then he won Vuelta stages and World Championships. Riders have ups and downs, it's not all doping-related, you know.
Ian, come on. Face the facts, you are smart person.
Ian Butler wrote:
Armstrong did test positive, but UCI put it under the mat.
Ok then, Wiggins, Froome, Porte etc.?
It is a bit odd to go from domination to really struggling, especially after warnings about high blood values.
What about them?
Riders, and people's life in general, have ups and downs, like I said.
Ciolek now returning, is that doping? Peter Sagan, definitely doping, then? Too young, no?
Tom Boonen's not winning? Maybe he took doping last year and now he stopped?
I believe more than 50% of the riders (below 30 years) are riding clean, especially the younger generation.
When Sagan had his down, according to your theory Ian?
He seems to me, like he is in steady improvement for last three proffesional years, nothing much irregural. Maybe he is doping too, i cant lnow that, but you point is invalid i think.
Edit: While i am almost sure about Boonen last year. Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 20-03-2013 09:34
Not biased because of your country? Gilbert is definitely doping, but Sagan surely can't be? Okay
Be sure, Sagan will have his downs in his career, it's only natural. Will it be because of doping?
And I don't have a theory It just seems like I'm the only one who still has some belief in some riders and I think it's ruining cycling that everyone's screaming doping whenever someone wins, or worse, doesn't win.
And don't do that thing: "oh you think he's clean? You must be pretty stupid.."
Look, I'm not saying there is no doping, or not even that I'm 100% sure that Gilbert is doping-free, but I'm just saying I chose to believe him, as I believe many others to be clean (I do believe Sagan is clean, by the way).
---
Enough said now. I'm not going to change your mind, you're not going to change mine. I just wanted to speak my two cents worth, that's my right Edited by Ian Butler on 20-03-2013 09:40
Ian Butler wrote:
I'm pretty sure Gilbert is/was almost as clean as they come.
He'd be taking too much a risk by saying (upon winning L-B-L): "They'll never be able to take these victories away from me, I'm 100% clean, something something..."
"This medal is a victory for clean cycling. I'm proud that today I showed the young people at home that with hard work and talent you don't need drugs to win in life and in sport" - Davide Rebellin, shortly before testing positive.
I could quite literally be here all morning naming similar examples
Ian Butler wrote:
How many victories did Gilbert have in 2011? Did he test positive once in all these victories, starting early in the year, finishing late in the season? No.
18. Zabel has beaten that more than once. Never tested positive. Admitted to doping. Petacchi's been well into the 20s year after year after year. Never tested positive.....remind me again how many doping investigations he's been caught in?
Ian Butler wrote:
And if he'd take cortizone, why would he suddenly stop?
Different doctors, different treatments.
Ian Butler wrote:
Last year, when he, according to the cortizone-theory, already stopped doping?
Who said he stopped doping?
Ollfardh wrote:
Gilbert had a good 2011 season, but let's face it, he was very good before. He just had a very good shape, a good team and the luck he needed to win some races. The theory that he improved incredibly like other dopers is invalid.
He close to doubled his previous points maximum. You really wanna stick to your story?
TheManxMissile wrote:
Frankly i don't even care, i just like a debate
*HIGH FIVE*
Ian Butler wrote:
Sagan surely can't be?
That's the opposite of what Avin said. Don't twist words.
Ian Butler wrote:
And I don't have a theory It just seems like I'm the only one who still has some belief in some riders and I think it's ruining cycling that everyone's screaming doping whenever someone wins, or worse, doesn't win.
The problem is you constantly take it too far and refuse to see the smoke where it very clearly is.
Honestly Ian, your posts on doping remind me of the Iraqi information minister (you might be too young to get the reference)
"There is no doping here"
Ian Butler wrote:
Look, I'm not saying there is no doping, or not even that I'm 100% sure that Gilbert is doping-free, but I'm just saying I chose to believe him
Personally that's the part that irks me.
You choose what you want to believe and only then look at the facts trying to find a way they'll support what you've already chosen to believe.
You should derive a conclusion from the facts, not the other way around
Edited by issoisso on 20-03-2013 10:30
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
I follow the media closely, I get the Iraqi Minister-joke
So very suddenly it's come to Gilbert doping as well? It's just odd, as no one was bringing it up in 2011, but now he's just been labeled an extreme doper? (Of course I wasn't here in 2011, but I mean in the general media etc)
And you're right, I misread Avin's post (read it too quickly, not closely enough). However, I still think it would be stupid to conclude doping when a rider has an off-year, that was just the point I was trying to make. Ups and downs are not (necessarily) doping related, but human.
About the believing: call me stupid, naive and all that, but maybe I just have to believe him for myself. I'm too passionate about cycling to see this beautiful sport being dragged through the dirt with all these scandals. Maybe I do know that there is a lot of doping, but I can't help to raise up to their defense, because else who will? I don't expect you to understand this, it's just something personal I have to do. If it's 99% sure he's doping, is it so wrong to hope for that 1%? Edited by Ian Butler on 20-03-2013 10:51
Yes, I wanna stick with my story. Despite Gilbert nearly doubling his points, he has shown his talent and potential before 2011. Sorry, but if you question Gilbert's ability before 2011, you understand very little of cycling.
Again, I can understand some people are so disappointed with cycling they have become very suspicious of every rider getting a good result. But I think cycling is going the right way again and that riders should be given the benefit of the doubt.
I think we have 2 options here, either we leave the past behind us and enjoy cycling as it is now, either we turn into a bitter person that can't cheer for a rider who showed something magnificent, because he's bound to have doped. Everyone can decide for themselves, but I choose the first one.
Farmer Sam wrote:
I agree with Ian, just because a rider is going through a bad patch or a rich vein of form it doesn't make them a doper just human.
Problem is, that cycling is closer to science, not a sport in true meaning. In basketball, football, you can have rich vein of form more likely. In cycling, where watts, power meters and millimeters matters more than human brain or tactics (it matters for directeur sportifs, who tell riders what to do), your main weapon can be rich veins also, but full of dope.
So if you are 1500 cq pointer in one year, good form will not bring you to 3600 points next year, probably anything else. Same with abyssmal climbers becoming Tour winners in two years, because of their marginal gains.
And it was easy Ian to misread my post, i made like thousand grammatic mistakes there.
Still point was clear and yeah, everybody here knows i am a bit biased to Peter, but i will be one of first to curse him, if i have big doubts about him.
I think we have 2 options here, either we leave the past behind us and enjoy cycling as it is now, either we turn into a bitter person that can't cheer for a rider who showed something magnificent, because he's bound to have doped. Everyone can decide for themselves, but I choose the first one.
I agree, what's the point in continued suspicion every time someone does a good ride, if you're going to be suspicious about everyone and skeptical then what's the point in your continued interest in cycling?
Porte had an excellent Paris-Nice. Therefore he's CLEARLY doping.
Kwiatowski is having an excellent year. That MUST be down to doping.
Ciolek wins Milan-San Remo. Super doper.
The reason cycling hasn't moved on is because as soon as guys start riding really well and picking up results people assume that they must be doping. I realise you'll say that you put faith in riders in the past but they let you down, but if you have no faith in what you're watching anymore then why are you watching it in the first place.
That's the way I see it.
Edited by Farmer Sam on 20-03-2013 11:12
Farmer Sam wrote:
I agree, what's the point in continued suspicion every time someone does a good ride, if you're going to be suspicious about everyone and skeptical then what's the point in your continued interest in cycling?
Except that's not what happens. Here we are talking about a rider who went from very good to unbeatable when a well known doping doctor joined his team, and then made a very noticeable step back when leaving that doping doctor's team.
Farmer Sam wrote:
The reason cycling hasn't moved on is because as soon as guys start riding really well and picking up results people assume that they must be doping.
Of course, it's fault of the fans that complain, not of the riders who dope.
Farmer Sam wrote:
I realise you'll say that you put faith in riders in the past but they let you down, but if you have no faith in what you're watching anymore then why are you watching it in the first place.
I'm not a man of faith. I use the available evidence to form my own opinion, rather than swallowing the new cycling mantra.
Question for issoisso: Do you believe that every single rider that wins 1 race, or shows some great performance, is using doping? Please tell me if I'wrong, but it seems to be like that. It's getting pretty irritating to me....
Ian Butler wrote:
I follow the media closely, I get the Iraqi Minister-joke
So very suddenly it's come to Gilbert doping as well? It's just odd, as no one was bringing it up in 2011, but now he's just been labeled an extreme doper? (Of course I wasn't here in 2011, but I mean in the general media etc)
And you're right, I misread Avin's post (read it too quickly, not closely enough). However, I still think it would be stupid to conclude doping when a rider has an off-year, that was just the point I was trying to make. Ups and downs are not (necessarily) doping related, but human.
About the believing: call me stupid, naive and all that, but maybe I just have to believe him for myself. I'm too passionate about cycling to see this beautiful sport being dragged through the dirt with all these scandals. Maybe I do know that there is a lot of doping, but I can't help to raise up to their defense, because else who will? I don't expect you to understand this, it's just something personal I have to do. If it's 99% sure he's doping, is it so wrong to hope for that 1%?
Nothing wrong with hoping for that 1% (and in this case I wouldn't at all say it's 99%-1%), but it's wrong to let that influence your critical view
Farmer Sam wrote:
I agree with Ian, just because a rider is going through a bad patch or a rich vein of form it doesn't make them a doper just human.
Nobody said it did. What Aquarius pointed out is that Gilbert's evolution over the last few years closely matches the effects of cortison use as alleged in recent weeks
Ollfardh wrote:
Yes, I wanna stick with my story. Despite Gilbert nearly doubling his points, he has shown his talent and potential before 2011.
He showed the talent before 2011 to dominate the sport? Please point me to how and when he showed that talent.
Ollfardh wrote:
Sorry, but if you question Gilbert's ability before 2011, you understand very little of cycling.
I'm sorry I'm new around here.
Ollfardh wrote:
Again, I can understand some people are so disappointed with cycling they have become very suspicious of every rider getting a good result. But I think cycling is going the right way again and that riders should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Porte had an excellent Paris-Nice. Therefore he's CLEARLY doping.
Kwiatowski is having an excellent year. That MUST be down to doping.
Ciolek wins Milan-San Remo. Super doper.
And you just disproved it with your examples. Who accused Kwiatkowski or Ciolek of anything?
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
The reason cycling hasn't moved on is because as soon as guys start riding really well and picking up results people assume that they must be doping.
No, the reason cycling hasn't moved on is because riders continue to dope
kumazan wrote:
Farmer Sam wrote:
The reason cycling hasn't moved on is because as soon as guys start riding really well and picking up results people assume that they must be doping.
Of course, it's fault of the fans that complain, not of the riders who dope.
Or to say the same in the words of cyclists: "Forget the past. Pretend it didn't exist", aka "Please be gullible"
kumazan wrote:
I'm not a man of faith. I use the available evidence to form my own opinion, rather than swallowing the new cycling mantra.
+1
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Again, I'm not saying Gilbert did not dope. It is just my strong opinion that these doping allegations against him lack strong evidence. He did have a fantastic year and people immediatly blame it on doping. I will be the first to admit I was wrong if something comes out on him, but I will support any rider until there's evidence. Anyway..
Gilbert before 2011:
Won several stages in minor and major tours. Won several small stage races. Won several small classics. Won Omloop Het Volk twice. Won Paris Tours twice. Won Lombardia twice. Won Piemonte. Won Amstel Gold race.
Podium in San Remo. Podium in Wevelgem. Podium in Ronde x2. Podium Brabantse Pijl. Podium Liege-Bastogne-Liege.
Several podiums in Belgian NC. Both in RR and TT. Two top 10's in WCs.
Ranks on the WT: 2009-9th 2010-2nd
Gilbert in 2011:
A few wins, stage in Algarve, stage in Tirreno, nothing special for him
3rd Milan-San Remo, good result of course, but nothing new
9th Ronde Van Vlaanderen, not his best result
But yeah, people only judge him by what he did in the Ardennes so here it goes:
Brabantse Pijl: defeated Leukemans in a sprint with 2. Sounds reasonable to me.
Amstel: repeated his win from last year in pretty much the same way. Very strong, but nothing extraordinary.
Fleche Wallon: Probably the most impressive win. If I have to choose one, this one would be the "suspicious result"
L-B-L: Beating Schleck and Schleck who did not even try to get away from him before the sprint, well..
Won Ronde van België against Van Avermaet en Leukemans. Nothing special there I think.
Won both the road and TT NC, both profiles were perfect for him
Won 1 stage in TdF to Mont des Allouetes, another perfect profile for him
2nd on stage to Mur de Bretagne, was a bit surprised he lost that one to be honest
Won San Sebastian, after great work by Vanendert
Won Quebec, again not that surprising in my opinion..
Gilbert in 2012:
Fall in Milan-San Remo took him out of the race
Total crap on the cobbles
6th in the Gold Race, started way too soon to get Freire back
3rd in Fleche Wallon, which still is a great result
L-B-L was sleeping when Nibali attacked
3rd Belgian NC time trial
won 2 stages in Vuelta
WC won RR impressively, 2nd on TTT due to crap team mates
Looking at this, 2011 was a very impressive year, but nothing out of the ordinary. Good team, good shape, bad opponents and a bit of luck.
Ollfardh wrote:
Ok, gonna give it one last go for Gilbert.
Again, I'm not saying Gilbert did not dope. It is just my strong opinion that these doping allegations against him lack strong evidence.
It's fine to have whatever opinion, but what you did was essentially tell us we should be ashamed of even raising the question.
Ollfardh wrote:
He did have a fantastic year and people immediatly blame it on doping.
You keep throwing up this fallacy (to avoid calling it something stronger). Nobody did it immediately. It's been a year and a half, that's anything but "immediately".
Ollfardh wrote: Gilbert before 2011:
Won several stages in minor and major tours. Won several small stage races. Won several small classics. Won Omloop Het Volk twice. Won Paris Tours twice. Won Lombardia twice. Won Piemonte. Won Amstel Gold race.
Podium in San Remo. Podium in Wevelgem. Podium in Ronde x2. Podium Brabantse Pijl. Podium Liege-Bastogne-Liege.
Several podiums in Belgian NC. Both in RR and TT. Two top 10's in WCs.
Ranks on the WT: 2009-9th 2010-2nd
Gilbert in 2011:
A few wins, stage in Algarve, stage in Tirreno, nothing special for him
3rd Milan-San Remo, good result of course, but nothing new
9th Ronde Van Vlaanderen, not his best result
But yeah, people only judge him by what he did in the Ardennes so here it goes:
Brabantse Pijl: defeated Leukemans in a sprint with 2. Sounds reasonable to me.
Amstel: repeated his win from last year in pretty much the same way. Very strong, but nothing extraordinary.
Fleche Wallon: Probably the most impressive win. If I have to choose one, this one would be the "suspicious result"
L-B-L: Beating Schleck and Schleck who did not even try to get away from him before the sprint, well..
Won Ronde van België against Van Avermaet en Leukemans. Nothing special there I think.
Won both the road and TT NC, both profiles were perfect for him
Won 1 stage in TdF to Mont des Allouetes, another perfect profile for him
2nd on stage to Mur de Bretagne, was a bit surprised he lost that one to be honest
Won San Sebastian, after great work by Vanendert
Won Quebec, again not that surprising in my opinion..
You're comparing one year to his entire career leading up to it put together. If the previous results you list as "evidence" were from the previous year it would be a believable progression up to 2011, but they're not. You listed everything he ever accomplished before that year and it still pales in comparison to that ONE season.
Let's put into perspective what you've done by doing the same with another rider:
So if in 2014 he wins all of those races plus the world championships it'll be perfectly believable"
I'm sorry, that doesn't fly.
Ollfardh wrote: Gilbert in 2012:
Fall in Milan-San Remo took him out of the race
Total crap on the cobbles
6th in the Gold Race, started way too soon to get Freire back
3rd in Fleche Wallon, which still is a great result
L-B-L was sleeping when Nibali attacked
3rd Belgian NC time trial
won 2 stages in Vuelta
WC won RR impressively, 2nd on TTT due to crap team mates
Looking at this, 2011 was a very impressive year, but nothing out of the ordinary. Good team, good shape, bad opponents and a bit of luck.
All I see are excuses. As for "bad opponents" in 2011 that's not an excuse, it's a joke. It has to be. A whole season of domination throghout the calendar against the best in the world being blamed on "bad opponents" is just....are you trolling?
Edited by issoisso on 20-03-2013 13:55
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
As if they could've but decided not to. "Poor Phillipe, let's give him a win". As if everyone else decided not to contest the race and he only beat the Schlecks. Did the other 200 riders stop for a snack? Of course not, he dropped everyone but those two and those two couldn't shake him, he was at least as strong as them.
You keep making silly excuses like those, I'm sorry but it's hard to take that stuff seriously Edited by issoisso on 20-03-2013 14:05
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
