Quoted post said:Originally posted by JuneBug
I am wondering if you could also pose a question that better asks: Do you as a cyclist, believe that there are indeed some men who are genetically gifted riders. Talented Riders who could in fact acheive such incredible feats and efforts with just hardwork, intelligent training and 'legal' dietary fuels?
you know......tweaking.
Its not illegal to get a hypoxic trainer. I hear they have payment plans. :o
sorry limerickman. I just want to believe that the seasoned pros are clean. I have to believe that they are clean at least for the most part. If they get caught they get busted and the career is over. It just doesnt seem worth it. If they are doing performance enhancing drugs, it will be revealed one day. But until it is revealed, I just have to keep believing.
Faith in the Human Endeavor.
No problem - please feel free to expand my original question.
Your view is very interesting : I did have the same opinion as you at one time.
In very simplistic terms, I used to believe that all cyclists were just naturally gifted people.
I believed that because these cyclists were gifted anyway, the only thing that separated those who succeed from those who don’t succeed (in a relative terms), was dependent upon the level of hardwork applied by each of them and the level of sacrifice.
(natural talent + X-Hardwork + X-sacrifice = finishing spot in the peleton).
My cycling hero is Sean Kelly.
I knew that Sean was not as talented as Bernard Hinault, for example.
I hoped that if Sean worked really hard and made all the sacrifices, that this just might make up the difference between him and Hinault, if Hinault’s training or sacrifice didn’t match Sean’s.
(I used to think that perhaps Hinault, for whatever reason, may not be as motivated
to succeed in a particular race and that perhaps Sean would have a chance to beat him).
Invariably, Hinault had more success against Sean, than vice versa.
No matter how hard a cyclist appeared to work – it appeared to me at that time, that the more talented one came out on top (I’m sure Hinault trained very hard as well – but you get the point that I am trying to make).
The question is, is what we see from the peleton the product of talent plus hardwork plus sacrifice ?
Or is it talent plus drugs plus hardwork ?
And if drugs are in the equation, how many cyclists do we think are using the stuff ?
My own view is that when I see a cyclist on top of the podium, I do tend to think “is he or isn’t he, doping ?”.
I look at the persons palmares and I then try to evaluate the likelihood of his taking stuff.
Unscientific ? Yes !
When I see a sprinter like Cippo winning a sprint, I know that he has been a top sprinter since he debuted.
When I see Ullrich winning, I know that he was a winner as soon as he turned pro.
An unscientific way to evaluate drug use ? Yes !
But how are else can we try to discern who is and who isn't doing stuff ?
I am sad to say this but I do think that perhaps only a few cyclists
are clean.
I'm convinced that those who have been consistent throughout their careers are least likely to have used stuff - but again it depends on the cyclist (ie Virenque has been a consistent KOM winner but let's face it how many of his jerseys are genuine ?).
I do feel that Ullrich is a genuine talent as you suggest and that his palmares has been consistent throughout.
But like everything else in the sport of cycling - I cannot definitively prove or disprove the fact that he is clean.
