Astana to ride the Giro

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Farking oath it has ! But what you expect ? Farking Kloden couldn't win shit when on the T-Mobile blood program & now he's clean with Bruyneel, without an ounce of racing in 08 he wins a major one week Tour ??????? I mean fark me. After a great start to the season we might as well all give up now. Contador will punch 600+ watts up Plan de Cornes..... boring.That's how I'm feeling with this. Kloden rode at the back of the bunch through the Tour of Turkey then shows up at Romandy in top form. Suspicious? Of course not.

I dont think you should read so much into Kloden getting good form for Romandie. He was targetting this race for starters. He hasnt done a lot of racing so hes probably fresher then most of the other guys in the peleton as well. The tour of turkey was just training, doesnt mean he has to go and win it to prove hes got/getting good form. I for one am happy that Astana are invited especially since they had limited time to prepare. It will be interesting to see if L.L and A.C are willing to work for Kloden or try and go for stage wins for themselves.

I was looking forward to the Giro but not so sure now. Was bad enough last two years when I was cheering on Gibo against ET, then the Killer ET, now he'll be up against a whole team of ETs!
Gibo! Gibo! Gibo! :)
Proper climber! Lives in the mountains, trains in the mountains and he is over 35!

Gibo! Gibo! Gibo! :)
Proper climber! Lives in the mountains, trains in the mountains and he is over 35!
I am with you on that. GO GIBO!

Quick reminder folks.

Lets keep the exchanges cordial.
That applies especially to the non-regular posters.
Understood?
Heh, you have to earn the right to insult and otherwise aggravate the muppets who still believe the pros don't dope.

Kloden, I would say, is a proven GT contender. Isn't always up their with the big boys, but has shown he can be. I'm not sure if the Giro's mountains really suit him, and I would suspect that one of the lighter weight climbers, i.e AC or LL would probably do better in the high mountains. But with three riders of that calibre in the race, with some pretty solid backup from the likes of Gusev, Colom, Iglinsky this could, unfortunately, be a pretty boring Giro. And their gear is probably better than everyone elses as well.

They'll rinse everyone in the TTT at the beginning, and so unless a long breakaway gets a stage in the opening week I don't see Astana loosing the pink jersey until possibly the last week when some creative attacking on the horrendously steep climbs we all love the Giro for could render having team members around not so useful as normal.

Heh, you have to earn the right to insult and otherwise aggravate the muppets who still believe the pros don't dope.
.

Point taken Eld.

Farking oath it has ! But what you expect ? Farking Kloden couldn't win shit when on the T-Mobile blood program & now he's clean with Bruyneel, without an ounce of racing in 08 he wins a major one week Tour ??????? I mean fark me. After a great start to the season we might as well all give up now. Contador will punch 600+ watts up Plan de Cornes..... boring.

Comments like this really bother. Not because they're borne of ignorance (Kloden stood on the TdF podium on the T-Mobile "blood programme") but because they destroy any positive feeling towards cycling in general.

Doping is so embedded that anytime somebody does anything out of the ordinary you label him/her a "doper"???

Writing off pro cyclists as a bunch of dopers damages the sport just as much as the dope itself.

I'm not saying riding is clean - not by a long shot but by rubbishing any victory you're only damaging the sport more.

He won, he was tested, he is clean according to the tests and rules. Appreciate his skill, sacrifice, suffering and dedication to entertaining YOU and everybody else who watched. Don't try and spoil it for those if us that still enjoy the sport.

Comments like this really bother. Not because they're borne of ignorance (Kloden stood on the TdF podium on the T-Mobile "blood programme") but because they destroy any positive feeling towards cycling in general.

Doping is so embedded that anytime somebody does anything out of the ordinary you label him/her a "doper"???

Writing off pro cyclists as a bunch of dopers damages the sport just as much as the dope itself.

I'm not saying riding is clean - not by a long shot but by rubbishing any victory you're only damaging the sport more.

He won, he was tested, he is clean according to the tests and rules. Appreciate his skill, sacrifice, suffering and dedication to entertaining YOU and everybody else who watched. Don't try and spoil it for those if us that still enjoy the sport.flaw is, how many write off Gilbert and Casar. Casar's win last year in the Tour was my personal highlight in a pretty shitty Tour.

Nope, we have to hold them to account and call them on BS doped performances. Doping precedes the vituperation.

flaw is, how many write off Gilbert and Casar. Casar's win last year in the Tour was my personal highlight in a pretty shitty Tour.

Nope, we have to hold them to account and call them on BS doped performances. Doping precedes the vituperation.

The question is who decides which performances are doped and which are not? We, the general public, have very little (if any) idea who is really doped and who is not.

And how does a "he's just a farkin doper" comment on a website hold them to account? All it does is blacken an already tarnished sport.

So what do we do? Just write off all performances that we deem extra ordinary? Hell, we could just as well write off all cycling from 1940 onwards.

Maybe Casar & Gilbert were dopers too? Nobody actually knows - I'm just not a fan of guilty without proof in a sport where proving you're innocent is impossible.

The question is who decides which performances are doped and which are not? We, the general public, have very little (if any) idea who is really doped and who is not.

And how does a "he's just a farkin doper" comment on a website hold them to account? All it does is blacken an already tarnished sport.

So what do we do? Just write off all performances that we deem extra ordinary? Hell, we could just as well write off all cycling from 1940 onwards.

Maybe Casar & Gilbert were dopers too? Nobody actually knows - I'm just not a fan of guilty without proof in a sport where proving you're innocent is impossible.
bar Pinotti, cannot believe there is a clean rider in Italy and Spain.

The question is who decides which performances are doped and which are not? We, the general public, have very little (if any) idea who is really doped and who is not.

And how does a "he's just a farkin doper" comment on a website hold them to account? All it does is blacken an already tarnished sport.

So what do we do? Just write off all performances that we deem extra ordinary? Hell, we could just as well write off all cycling from 1940 onwards.

Maybe Casar & Gilbert were dopers too? Nobody actually knows - I'm just not a fan of guilty without proof in a sport where proving you're innocent is impossible.Your points have some merit IF there was a testing regimen that could catch a good number of the cheaters. But the current system is built such that at least 95% of the cheaters go scot-free. On top of that some riders are prosecuted relentlessly. Hence, our speculation here is fair game. If you don't want to talk about it, you have other forums like DPF where you can blissfully put your head in the sand and pretend that there is no problem.

Your points have some merit IF there was a testing regimen that could catch a good number of the cheaters. But the current system is built such that at least 95% of the cheaters go scot-free. On top of that some riders are prosecuted relentlessly. Hence, our speculation here is fair game. If you don't want to talk about it, you have other forums like DPF where you can blissfully put your head in the sand and pretend that there is no problem.

I agree - the testing system is horribly flawed BUT why do most people always err on the side of guilty?

It's a bit tabloid really - "clean rider wins Tour" is pretty boring but "dirty rider with missing twin somewhere in body wins drug affected Tour" sells more papers and you're swallowing them by the dozen.

I'm certainly not doing the ostrich thing but to write off a rider as a doper on a whim just doesn't seem fair to me...

Thunder - it's obviously fair to you - you can write off two whole country's worth of cyclists with a few keystrokes. Imagine if someone decided you were guilty of stealing a stapler from work - everybody in the office decided the same. You get fired and nobody else will employ you. Is it still fair?

Thunder - it's obviously fair to you - you can write off two whole country's worth of cyclists with a few keystrokes. Imagine if someone decided you were guilty of stealing a stapler from work - everybody in the office decided the same. You get fired and nobody else will employ you. Is it still fair?That is a really unfair assumption. No way does thunder have a job.

I am a massive sceptic (thanks to being a member of this forum for so long) when it comes to which of the pro's are doping. I'd put a guess at 90% are doping to some degree. But in the end I enjoy watching cycling. When the race is on I forget about the doping. I enjoy watching cycling because of the tactics, the suicidal breakaways, the amazing scenery. The spectacle of the race, the sheer endurance and grit required to finish. The only way the doping can ruin the enjoyment of watching a race is for one person to be on such a good program that they wipe the floor with everyone else (Basso 2006).

But the doping does have to go. Because it is unfair on the athletes who are clean, because it is against the rules. And riders shouldn't feel compelled to dope to be successful because in the end doping is dangerous. So every time a doper gets caught and sanctioned that is a good thing. And the more money put into creating new tests the better from where I'm sitting. But doping isn't going to stop me watching the sport.

That is a really unfair assumption. No way does thunder have a job.
:D.

I see Astana's participation as a chance to catch them red - handed.
By now, anti doping authorities should have broken Bruyneel's miraculous system.
But, if higher interest is involved, RCS might close its eyes.

Edit:
Also, I'm sure Bruyneel is aware of the fact that all eyes will be fixed upon them.

I'm certainly not doing the ostrich thing but to write off a rider as a doper on a whim just doesn't seem fair to me...
I didn't go back to look, but wasn't the original comment about Kloden? There seem to be some pretty good reasons to strongly suspect him of doping much more so than just the general assumption that everyone from his generation was doping, no?

CNN has a pretty long article about Astana scrambling to prepare for the Giro: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SPORT/05/05/cycling.astana/index.html?eref=rss_latest

I take your point. However my point was your point. I was really really enjoying the racing this year. Watching most races 3 or 4 times each. What annoys me is that if Astana start racing with no previous testing & starting winning like this then we might as well all go home. And before anyone says anything the Tour of farking Turkey is not preparation.

I like Kloden; pedals like no one I've ever seen before. So smooth. However he was on the Ulle/Sink/Vino blood programme & if he is now clean & winning Romandie with zero prep well then I give up. Again Bruyneel is destroying cycling. Is this what we want ?


Comments like this really bother. Not because they're borne of ignorance (Kloden stood on the TdF podium on the T-Mobile "blood programme") but because they destroy any positive feeling towards cycling in general.

Doping is so embedded that anytime somebody does anything out of the ordinary you label him/her a "doper"???

Writing off pro cyclists as a bunch of dopers damages the sport just as much as the dope itself.

I'm not saying riding is clean - not by a long shot but by rubbishing any victory you're only damaging the sport more.

He won, he was tested, he is clean according to the tests and rules. Appreciate his skill, sacrifice, suffering and dedication to entertaining YOU and everybody else who watched. Don't try and spoil it for those if us that still enjoy the sport.

I take your point. However my point was your point. I was really really enjoying the racing this year. Watching most races 3 or 4 times each. What annoys me is that if Astana start racing with no previous testing & starting winning like this then we might as well all go home. And before anyone says anything the Tour of farking Turkey is not preparation.

I like Kloden; pedals like no one I've ever seen before. So smooth. However he was on the Ulle/Sink/Vino blood programme & if he is now clean & winning Romandie with zero prep well then I give up. Again Bruyneel is destroying cycling. Is this what we want ?

Bottom line is there is no way you or anybody else (including the officials unfortunately) know for sure if Astana/Kloden are doping. Probably doping - yes. Definitiely doping - we just don't know.

You have no idea how many km's Kloden has put in this year - you just assume he does "zero prep", injects a wad and wins without effort. If you've ever raced at any level you'll know nothing happens without serious prep - dope or no dope. Again - you write him off as a doper with no thought.

I'm fairly sure Astana will be the most tested team at the Giro this year and while I have very little faith in the authorities I'm sure Astana will be clean for the Giro (if they were clean during the build up is another story all together BUT nobody knows for sure).

We can to and fro all day but all I'm trying to say it's easy to say "f*ck you - you are dopers" - it's not so easy to say "unf*ck you" once the rumour has been around long enough for people to think it's fact.