I've been meaning to post this for a while now and although I would prefer to have posted this in the Cycling Discussion forum, I don't see any way around posting it here given that subject of doping is intertwined

That said, I've found it interesting the past three years that how most of Phillipe Gilbert's victories occur early in the season, e.g. Het Volk or late in the year, e.g. Paris-Tours, Lombardia and wonder if his success can be partially or fully attributed to some of the bigger guns not having fully ramped up their "programs" early in the season and coming off of them late?

I have a hard time believing these victories are more the result of Gilbert peaking during these points of the year as it is others coming down from their "highs", if you know what I mean, as his big objectives have always been the spring classics followed by the fall one day races and world's. Granted, Gilbert rode very strong in Flanders, L-B-L and Amstel this year, but failed to win any of them and only podiumed at De Ronde. So he's closer to winning those than he's ever been, but still does not have a spring monument on his palmares to speak of

Of course I am operating under the presumption that Gilbert is a clean rider given his outspokenness against doping and the fact that popular opinion seems to portray him in this light. I guess what I'm trying to get at is would he have a few spring monuments on his resume and perhaps even a World's Championship if his competition was racing clean or is the general consensus that the specialists he's up against are racing clean, but he simply isn't good enough to beat them when it matters most?

bodo, very good point. i believe i came to the same conclusion a while back when he was heralded as the top belgian talent but was unable to do anything apart from early and late in the seasons. i read kimmage's article on him -- how he went to the dauphine a few years back and was asked by a belgian journalist how he felt going into the tour. he responded something to the effect that riding the dauphine had taught him one thing that he would never contend in the tour. he said that riders (at the dauphine already) had come out of nowhere (i.e. he had been dropping them only a few weeks before) and he couldn't keep pace.

then again, i was more willing to believe in his innocence then when he was riding for FDJ than Lotto.

I'd be very hesitant to start equating late-season wins with cleanliness, or just using who wins races when as a kind of yardstick to measure what riders are or are not taking. Remember who won the Worlds and then Lombardia in one year? Classicsmano Luigi. It's more reasonable to think that Gilbert benefited from having great form at a time when most of his serious competitors had hung up their cleats for the season, and also from having a powerful Evans helping him.

camazind also.

And who exactly has made such a claim?



Who dat? Take the bother to look it up if you're not sure about the spelling.



I'd give the blood passport some credit. People are still doping obviously, but it does look like the gap between those who do and those who don't has narrowed quite a bit, allowing a presumably clean rider like Gilbert to really shine.

since you're picky, i'll let you do it for me.

Did you even bother to read the posts before you decided to get all snooty?

I did indeed.

Bodomaniac explicitly spells out why he presumes Gilbert to be clean:

"I am operating under the presumption that Gilbert is a clean rider given his outspokenness against doping and the fact that popular opinion seems to portray him in this light."

Noone is equating late-season wins with cleanliness. That would be stupid.

Correct. I can't unequivocally say or prove that Gilbert is riding clean and I suspect even less so after his move from FdJ to Lotto, as now the pressure and stakes for riding on a Belgian team are increased. The general consensus, however, is in favor of him being a clean rider, thus my operating premise.