Evans' Tour victory beyond question, says Hamilton

[Citizen_Tiger]

With all due respect to cyclists on here, IMO cycling is not a sport. I am aware it takes enormous fitness and endurance to perform at this level….but to an outsider like me there seems to be little or no actual skill involved. Maybe it should just be content to be a pasttime or hobby for people with an addiction to fluorescent clothes and dodgy footwear.

I just can't bring myself to consider it a legitimate sport, but for some reason the Europeans seem to lap it up?

Perhaps I should apologize in advance because you may be a teenager, but that is one of the most foolish comments I've read in any discussion about any sport. It doesn't take skill to descend at eighty or ninety clicks, sit on a wheel at fifty km/h, know when to attack, when to sit in, when to chase, how to ride the right tempo for your team mates?????? These athletes are the fittest on the face of the planet, with the best VO2 maxs and resting heart rates among other things. Your problem is more likely the culture rather than the sport, based on your last comments

You want lack of technical skills, run a Keith Galloway highlight reel

 

[weststigers4life]

http://m.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/uci-a … 281uc.html

GENEVA: Cycling's governing body has agreed to strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and ban him for life.
UCI President Pat McQuaid announced on Monday that the federation accepted the US Anti-Doping Agency's report on Armstrong and would not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
''We will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and we will recognise the sanction that USADA has imposed,'' UCI president Pat McQuaid told a news conference.
''The UCI will strip him of his seven Tour de France wins. Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling.''
Earlier this month the US body released a devastating dossier on Armstrong, detailing over 202 pages and with more than 1000 pages of supporting testimony how he was at the heart of the biggest doping program in the history of sport.
The revelations, including evidence from 11 of Armstrong's former teammates, plunged a sport which has been working hard to rid itself of its murky doping past into crisis.
The decision clears the way for Tour de France organisers to officially remove Armstrong's name from the record books, erasing his consecutive victories from 1999 to 2005.
Tour director Christian Prudhomme has said the race would go along with what cycling's governing body decided and will have no official winners for those years.
Hours before the decision, Armstrong cheered on thousands of cyclists at a charity race in his home town in Austin, Texas.
He spoke for about 90 seconds to riders before the start of the Livestrong Challenge, a 160-
kilometre cycling event to benefit the cancer-fighting foundation he created 15 years ago. Armstrong stepped down as Livestrong chairman last week after revelations about his role in a sophisticated doping ring.
Earlier, Australia's Cadel Evans said the only reason he met disgraced sports doctor Michele Ferrari was to conduct a field test about his road cycling abilities. Evans stressed he spoke to the Italian only once and that the test in 2000 of the cyclist's road climbing ability had nothing to do with doping.
Ferrari is a key figure in the Lance Armstrong case and, like the disgraced Texan, is banned for life because of doping offences. ''I have never seen or had contact before or after this test,'' Evans told SBS. ''There was never any discussion of doping [with Ferrari] or any sign of anything illegal.
''My only motive at the time … was to understand my capabilities as a road rider. At that time, Mr Ferrari's opinion was very highly regarded by teams and team managers, and therefore helpful for me to gain opportunities with road teams.''
Key figures in the sport, including disgraced American cyclist Tyler Hamilton and Australian anti-doping expert Anne Gripper, have hailed Evans's Tour de France win last year as a victory for clean cycling.
Ferrari posted on his website last year that Evans's management contacted him in 2000 about assessing the Australian's climbing abilities. It was a crucial stage of Evans's career, with the Australian on the verge of switching from mountain biking to road racing.
Ferrari used the VAM test, which is based on short climbing repetitions, to assess Evans's potential. The test results on a climb at St Moritz, Switzerland, were impressive, and Evans switched to the road in 2001.
Evans's Australian manager, Jason Bakker, strongly backed the rider's credentials. ''I have absolute and utter faith in Cadel Evans - he's a man of the highest principles that I have met, without doubt,'' he said.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[Yossarian]

Is this going to be like the Melbourne Storm thing and nobody will be the official winner those years? Seeing as though many of the riders who finished just behind Armstrong have their own doping scandals some bloke who came 14th could be getting a phone call… Seriously who's left? Sastre? Evans? Andy Schleck?

 

[Tiger_Watto]

Is this going to be like the Melbourne Storm thing and nobody will be the official winner those years? Seeing as though many of the riders who finished just behind Armstrong have their own doping scandals some bloke who came 14th could be getting a phone call… Seriously who's left? Sastre? Evans? Andy Schleck?

Sastre disappeared pretty quickly after his Tour Win… 3 days after his 'amazing' Time Trial he was gooonnneeee??? :wink:

 

[Yossarian]

Is this going to be like the Melbourne Storm thing and nobody will be the official winner those years? Seeing as though many of the riders who finished just behind Armstrong have their own doping scandals some bloke who came 14th could be getting a phone call… Seriously who's left? Sastre? Evans? Andy Schleck?

Sastre disappeared pretty quickly after his Tour Win… 3 days after his 'amazing' Time Trial he was gooonnneeee??? :wink:

He did come 3rd in the Spanish tour the same year and was 3rd in the Giro the next year. The fact he was not a factor in the 2009 Tour was probably more to do with trying to do the big 2 in the same year. Also remember he was what 33 or 34 when he won the 2008 tour. That he peaked around then and dropped off is not surprising - Evans has followed a similar course.

In any case his time trial was good but not great. He lost close to 30 seconds of his lead and I don't think he was even in the top 10\. It was very good by his standards but hardly breathtaking.

 

[TigersFan4Life]

I'd think that if Evans had been doping, he would have won the tour more than once by now. If he hadn't won it last year, NO ONE would be questioning whether he took drugs or not.

 

[Citizen_Tiger]

Been watching this unfold with some interest, having been involved with bike racing on and off for over 30 years. First thing is the amount of moralizing that's going on in the media is not just laughable, but hypocritical. Whether it's Four Corners, Channel 9, the BSB, or the likes of Mike Tomalaris, they all demonstrate little knowledge of the pro peloton and it's culture. Drugs in cycling has been a fact of life for decades, it's hardly a new phenomenon. Jaques Anquetil, the great French rider of the fifties once responded to a question about drugs thus 'You think we get through the Tour with iced tea in our bidons?' Google Tom Simpson and his tragic story, or the greatest of all time, Eddie Merckx and his positive tests in the seventies. Point is that drugs became common because of the demands of the sport, not necessarily to enhance performance.

Take a look at the UCI calendar sometimes, one that runs from January to October and includes three Grand Tours. Try riding a Tour event, 21 days, average 200kms or so a day, at min 80% your heart rate, accelerate, chase, drop back, collect drinks for the leaders, police the movements of your opponents, maybe climb a few cols, not an anthill like Jindabyne to Thredbo, but a twisting, turning 2000 metre giant. Sometimes do that three times in a day and then finish within the time limit, so you're good chance of keeping your job. You think you can recover from that by a session with the masseuse or a swim?

The UCI are corrupt liars. They have condoned the drug culture for years and have provided certain 'favors' to teams like US Postal and Armstrong. Armstrong went positive after the 2001 Tour De Suisse and Verbruggen, the President before McQuaid, made the results disappear. If you have the time google the famous Landis interview with Paul Kimmage. The reasons are simple. They know the calendar is inhuman, yet they also know that this sport generates billions worldwide and there's going to be no reduction in the number of events.

Ian Thorpe returned two irregular results yet these were never given publicity. Victorian police have initiated an investigation into what is thought to be the biggest race fixing network in Australia's history, harness racing and the greyhounds are thought to be rotten to the core, yet we fix our gaze on a bloke that engaged in a culture of which everyone was a part. We moralize about Armstrong while we all scamper to effect an online account with Waterhouse. We damn Armstrong for all time, while happily proclaiming that Evans was/is clean. Armstrong was the best Tour rider in the peloton for six years, as were Indurain,, Hinhault, Mercxk, Anquetil and Coppi in their times. None of them held any advantages over their opponents.

 

[Fade_To_Black]

Been watching this unfold with some interest, having been involved with bike racing on and off for over 30 years. First thing is the amount of moralizing that's going on in the media is not just laughable, but hypocritical. Whether it's Four Corners, Channel 9, the BSB, or the likes of Mike Tomalaris, they all demonstrate little knowledge of the pro peloton and it's culture. Drugs in cycling has been a fact of life for decades, it's hardly a new phenomenon. Jaques Anquetil, the great French rider of the fifties once responded to a question about drugs thus 'You think we get through the Tour with iced tea in our bidons?' Google Tom Simpson and his tragic story, or the greatest of all time, Eddie Merckx and his positive tests in the seventies. Point is that drugs became common because of the demands of the sport, not necessarily to enhance performance.

Take a look at the UCI calendar sometimes, one that runs from January to October and includes three Grand Tours. Try riding a Tour event, 21 days, average 200kms or so a day, at min 80% your heart rate, accelerate, chase, drop back, collect drinks for the leaders, police the movements of your opponents, maybe climb a few cols, not an anthill like Jindabyne to Thredbo, but a twisting, turning 2000 metre giant. Sometimes do that three times in a day and then finish within the time limit, so you're good chance of keeping your job. You think you can recover from that by a session with the masseuse or a swim?

The UCI are corrupt liars. They have condoned the drug culture for years and have provided certain 'favors' to teams like US Postal and Armstrong. Armstrong went positive after the 2001 Tour De Suisse and Verbruggen, the President before McQuaid, made the results disappear. If you have the time google the famous Landis interview with Paul Kimmage. The reasons are simple. They know the calendar is inhuman, yet they also know that this sport generates billions worldwide and there's going to be no reduction in the number of events.

Ian Thorpe returned two irregular results yet these were never given publicity. Victorian police have initiated an investigation into what is thought to be the biggest race fixing network in Australia's history, harness racing and the greyhounds are thought to be rotten to the core, yet we fix our gaze on a bloke that engaged in a culture of which everyone was a part. We moralize about Armstrong while we all scamper to effect an online account with Waterhouse. We damn Armstrong for all time, while happily proclaiming that Evans was/is clean. Armstrong was the best Tour rider in the peloton for six years, as were Indurain,, Hinhault, Mercxk, Anquetil and Coppi in their times. None of them held any advantages over their opponents.

You don't have to be Einstein to figure out that Armstrong is as guilty as sin.

From what I was brought up to believe cheats are really the bottom of the barrell when it comes to trusting the pieces of scum…..how much satisfaction can you get from reaching the pinnacle while knowing you are a cheating, lying piece of turd ie Armstrong and the Melbourne Storm circa 2007/2010.
Once you are basically proven as being a fake, people will rightly refer to you as being one for the rest of your career. So long Lance, pathetic ego-driven cheat.

 

[Citizen_Tiger]

Been watching this unfold with some interest, having been involved with bike racing on and off for over 30 years. First thing is the amount of moralizing that's going on in the media is not just laughable, but hypocritical. Whether it's Four Corners, Channel 9, the BSB, or the likes of Mike Tomalaris, they all demonstrate little knowledge of the pro peloton and it's culture. Drugs in cycling has been a fact of life for decades, it's hardly a new phenomenon. Jaques Anquetil, the great French rider of the fifties once responded to a question about drugs thus 'You think we get through the Tour with iced tea in our bidons?' Google Tom Simpson and his tragic story, or the greatest of all time, Eddie Merckx and his positive tests in the seventies. Point is that drugs became common because of the demands of the sport, not necessarily to enhance performance.

Take a look at the UCI calendar sometimes, one that runs from January to October and includes three Grand Tours. Try riding a Tour event, 21 days, average 200kms or so a day, at min 80% your heart rate, accelerate, chase, drop back, collect drinks for the leaders, police the movements of your opponents, maybe climb a few cols, not an anthill like Jindabyne to Thredbo, but a twisting, turning 2000 metre giant. Sometimes do that three times in a day and then finish within the time limit, so you're good chance of keeping your job. You think you can recover from that by a session with the masseuse or a swim?

The UCI are corrupt liars. They have condoned the drug culture for years and have provided certain 'favors' to teams like US Postal and Armstrong. Armstrong went positive after the 2001 Tour De Suisse and Verbruggen, the President before McQuaid, made the results disappear. If you have the time google the famous Landis interview with Paul Kimmage. The reasons are simple. They know the calendar is inhuman, yet they also know that this sport generates billions worldwide and there's going to be no reduction in the number of events.

Ian Thorpe returned two irregular results yet these were never given publicity. Victorian police have initiated an investigation into what is thought to be the biggest race fixing network in Australia's history, harness racing and the greyhounds are thought to be rotten to the core, yet we fix our gaze on a bloke that engaged in a culture of which everyone was a part. We moralize about Armstrong while we all scamper to effect an online account with Waterhouse. We damn Armstrong for all time, while happily proclaiming that Evans was/is clean. Armstrong was the best Tour rider in the peloton for six years, as were Indurain,, Hinhault, Mercxk, Anquetil and Coppi in their times. None of them held any advantages over their opponents.

You don't have to be Einstein to figure out that Armstrong is as guilty as sin.

From what I was brought up to believe cheats are really the bottom of the barrell when it comes to trusting the pieces of scum…..how much satisfaction can you get from reaching the pinnacle while knowing you are a cheating, lying piece of turd ie Armstrong and the Melbourne Storm circa 2007/2010.
Once you are basically proven as being a fake, people will rightly refer to you as being one for the rest of your career. So long Lance, pathetic ego-driven cheat.

Glad I didn't hold my breath waiting for a reasoned counter position

 

[system]

UCI and all cycling bodies have been feathering their nests whilst knowing of the doping situation rife throughout its entire existence.

Corruption is nothing new in the cycling world. One need only look at the undue influence Charlie Watt held for so many years over Australian cycling and the cronyism that followed closely on its heels.

The culture of the natural athelete has slowly dissapeared from all professional sport. Whether it be doping, fast suits, hyperbaric chambers or anything else it is just branches of the same tree. We apportion blame based on the morality of the day yet cheer the next world beating achievment.

Doping and scince driven cheating are the norm in most every sport and it is foolish to think otherwise

 

[yeti]

I agree with much of what you say CT, but it's a fact of life that those at the top of tree get the plaudits (and the financial windfalls) during the good times, but cop the brunt of the blame when things go wrong. Lance was without doubt the greatest cyclist of his generation, and arguably along with Mercyx, the greatest of all time - it's just a shame that the majority of the riders of his time were 'dirty'. The sport of cycling (in particular the grand tours), is perhaps the most gruelling of all sports. Is it possible to compete 'clean'? Of course it is. But we would see a vastly different cycling 'landscape'. Once again you would see riders gaining or losing dozens of minutes on certain stages when the variations in their physical condition manifested in 'good' or 'bad' days. This was the case decades ago when a rider could gain over half an hour on a stage against a major rival just to lose the same the next day. The evolution of the sport has seen gains and losses shaved to seconds as riders and the physiologists hone their skills to the edge of the known science. I love cycling and I hope out of all of this, we see a cleaner sport where again it comes down to the man and his machine and not the man, machine and the latest drug. And let's hope that other sports also take up the challenge to clean up their back yard as well. And you're right CT about laying some of the blame directly at the feet of the UCI. Their are far too many races through the year that the pro teams are forced to attend to maintain their licences. Every aspect of the cycling world needs adjustment - not just the attitude of the peleton.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

UCI and all cycling bodies have been feathering their nests whilst knowing of the doping situation rife throughout its entire existence.

Corruption is nothing new in the cycling world. One need only look at the undue influence Charlie Watt held for so many years over Australian cycling and the cronyism that followed closely on its heels.

The culture of the natural athelete has slowly dissapeared from all professional sport. Whether it be doping, fast suits, hyperbaric chambers or anything else it is just branches of the same tree. We apportion blame based on the morality of the day yet cheer the next world beating achievment.

**Doping and scince driven cheating are the norm in most every sport and it is foolish to think otherwise**

Nonetheless, it doesn't make it right. If they are going to out and vilify Armstrong, they need to put a broom through the ranks and pick off every single doper. You have a valid statement in the sense that modern medicine and science allows for improvement and recovery of the body that was previously thought impossible (and therefore arguably unnatural,) but I believe there's a stark difference between wearing Skins and going out of your way to obtain substances and masking agents to obtain a deceptive advantage.

Not quite sure who undertakes and maintains the drug screening process, but it ultimately identifies the UCI as one of two things: impotent or enablers. The integrity of the whole sport is in tatters.

 

[Citizen_Tiger]

I agree with much of what you say CT, but it's a fact of life that those at the top of tree get the plaudits (and the financial windfalls) during the good times, but cop the brunt of the blame when things go wrong. Lance was without doubt the greatest cyclist of his generation, and arguably along with Mercyx, the greatest of all time - it's just a shame that the majority of the riders of his time were 'dirty'. The sport of cycling (in particular the grand tours), is perhaps the most gruelling of all sports. Is it possible to compete 'clean'? Of course it is. But we would see a vastly different cycling 'landscape'. Once again you would see riders gaining or losing dozens of minutes on certain stages when the variations in their physical condition manifested in 'good' or 'bad' days. This was the case decades ago when a rider could gain over half an hour on a stage against a major rival just to lose the same the next day. The evolution of the sport has seen gains and losses shaved to seconds as riders and the physiologists hone their skills to the edge of the known science. I love cycling and I hope out of all of this, we see a cleaner sport where again it comes down to the man and his machine and not the man, machine and the latest drug. And let's hope that other sports also take up the challenge to clean up their back yard as well. And you're right CT about laying some of the blame directly at the feet of the UCI. Their are far too many races through the year that the pro teams are forced to attend to maintain their licences. Every aspect of the cycling world needs adjustment - not just the attitude of the peleton.

Some good points Yeti, here is a link to an interview that you will find enlightening, warning though, it'll take a few sittings to get through

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage

Armstrong, great Tour rider, with exceptional physiology and always put a great team together, however not in the top 5 IMO

1\. Merckx
2\. Coppi
3\. Anquetil
4\. Hinhault
5\. Indurain
6\. Armstrong

 

[yeti]

That's a hell of a read CT. Thanks. And I can't argue with your selection of riders either. cheers

 

[Citizen_Tiger]

Heard McQuaid interviewed yesterday and the sanctimonious so and so almost made me puke. He and his predecessor Verbruggen accepted money from teams, even personal donations from Armstrong, as valid 'donations' towards maintaining their testing procedures. Love the part where Lance says to Landis 'Look just apologize to the UCI, they look after us with favors'. He then goes on to explain how the UCI made his positive test in 2001 disappear. Corrupt liars, who have made the riders take the fall for their sins

 

[yeti]

Messy. What do you think about this…..
the Grand Tours to either be reduced in length (to say 15 days), and/or the stages reduced in length to around 150km on average. Obviously this would reduce the physical stress on the riders. Reduce the number of riders in each team to say 6 per race. This prevents one team from totally controlling the race as per US postal in the past and more recently, CSC and Sky. This would put more emphasis on the best riders coming to the for as opposed to the best teams. It would also mean that teams can either reduce the numbers of riders they contract, (making economic sense) or reduce the load on each rider by having more riders available to spread across the events.
I think the racing as a result would be more unpredictable which would be a good thing, and more dynamic because of the shorter stages. (I actually found this years' Tour to be among the more boring in recent times simply because of the complete dominance of one team). Your thoughts CT?

 

[Fade_To_Black]

Been watching this unfold with some interest, having been involved with bike racing on and off for over 30 years. First thing is the amount of moralizing that's going on in the media is not just laughable, but hypocritical. Whether it's Four Corners, Channel 9, the BSB, or the likes of Mike Tomalaris, they all demonstrate little knowledge of the pro peloton and it's culture. Drugs in cycling has been a fact of life for decades, it's hardly a new phenomenon. Jaques Anquetil, the great French rider of the fifties once responded to a question about drugs thus 'You think we get through the Tour with iced tea in our bidons?' Google Tom Simpson and his tragic story, or the greatest of all time, Eddie Merckx and his positive tests in the seventies. Point is that drugs became common because of the demands of the sport, not necessarily to enhance performance.

Take a look at the UCI calendar sometimes, one that runs from January to October and includes three Grand Tours. Try riding a Tour event, 21 days, average 200kms or so a day, at min 80% your heart rate, accelerate, chase, drop back, collect drinks for the leaders, police the movements of your opponents, maybe climb a few cols, not an anthill like Jindabyne to Thredbo, but a twisting, turning 2000 metre giant. Sometimes do that three times in a day and then finish within the time limit, so you're good chance of keeping your job. You think you can recover from that by a session with the masseuse or a swim?

The UCI are corrupt liars. They have condoned the drug culture for years and have provided certain 'favors' to teams like US Postal and Armstrong. Armstrong went positive after the 2001 Tour De Suisse and Verbruggen, the President before McQuaid, made the results disappear. If you have the time google the famous Landis interview with Paul Kimmage. The reasons are simple. They know the calendar is inhuman, yet they also know that this sport generates billions worldwide and there's going to be no reduction in the number of events.

Ian Thorpe returned two irregular results yet these were never given publicity. Victorian police have initiated an investigation into what is thought to be the biggest race fixing network in Australia's history, harness racing and the greyhounds are thought to be rotten to the core, yet we fix our gaze on a bloke that engaged in a culture of which everyone was a part. We moralize about Armstrong while we all scamper to effect an online account with Waterhouse. We damn Armstrong for all time, while happily proclaiming that Evans was/is clean. Armstrong was the best Tour rider in the peloton for six years, as were Indurain,, Hinhault, Mercxk, Anquetil and Coppi in their times. None of them held any advantages over their opponents.

You don't have to be Einstein to figure out that Armstrong is as guilty as sin.

From what I was brought up to believe cheats are really the bottom of the barrell when it comes to trusting the pieces of scum…..how much satisfaction can you get from reaching the pinnacle while knowing you are a cheating, lying piece of turd ie Armstrong and the Melbourne Storm circa 2007/2010.
Once you are basically proven as being a fake, people will rightly refer to you as being one for the rest of your career. So long Lance, pathetic ego-driven cheat.

Glad I didn't hold my breath waiting for a reasoned counter position

The bloke is a fake, cheat…whatever, what do you want people to say? Santa ain't real either

 

[T-REXX]

i think u are missing the point.. they condemn Armstrong as a Drug cheat… the whole peleton are on drugs. I know for fact that race organisers told teams either take it or dont come to race meetings.. as the organisers wanted a strong field.

Armstrong may have cheated but so did everyone else...... it doesnt make it a wrong BUT you cant deny HE IS THE BEST RIDER the sport has ever seen...

 

[Citizen_Tiger]

He's nowhere near the best rider the sport has seen, but yes, the years that Armstrong won tours, he was the best rider in the peloton. Level playing field

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

In any case, the UCI has a duty to quash the drug use, for the athletes health if nothing else.

They should probably announce an amnesty in order to allow everyone to come forward, and put more stringent controls and testing in place.

I have always found cycling to be a fairly noble sport and this tawdy affair has really done some damage to it's credibility.