Mark Cavendish, the best UK cyclist?

Robert Millar .
A truly great road rider.

Robert Millar .
A truly great road rider.

Yes, yes, yes! I was going to say that. (Looks like Bill said it, too.)

In Search Of Robert Millar is a smashing read, especially if you're Scottish. Eleven quid buys you a book and someone to hero-worship.

You know I bought that book by accident thinking it was about David Millar.
It really was a fascinating story and I'm glad of the mistake. Scots rule!

I think my legs are the Scottish half of me ;)

Actually, I wrote up my 10 best british riders here:

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/sean-yates-garage-sale

steve peat gets my vote

I used to ride the British DS in it's infancy and Steve Peat was always hanging around chatting to young riders and larking about in the paddock. Never spoke to him myself but he seemed to be a pretty decent guy. He'd get my vote.

Special mentions for Martin Ashton and Martin Hawes these 2 were top of their field for years and years.

Graeme Obree. Invented his own training regime, a cornflakes-based dietary regime, and invented a new bike. The Obree bike is true engineering genius, and designs out many of the short-comings of a conventional two-triangles frame. It's a shame that the only thing anyone remembers about it is that he used a washing machine baring.

Actually I remember quite a bit more.. but I've read the book and seen the movie.
He's a fucking legend!

Sam Hill might be faster but he's a dopey feck. Peat does seem like a good bloke.

Surprised no-one has mentioned Tommy Simpson yet.

Surprised no-one has mentioned Tommy Simpson yet.

I'm not.

Simpson won Milan-San Remo, the Tour of Flanders, the Giro di Lombardia and the Worlds. He's a true great.

Even pj could climb Ventoux and Simpson couldn't pfft! ;0)

Simpson won Milan-San Remo, the Tour of Flanders, the Giro di Lombardia and the Worlds. He's a true great.

As Brian Clough said to the team of Championship-holding Leeds United players on his appointment as their manager:
"You lot can throw your medals in the fucking bin, you've only ever won anything by cheating."

Well, as there wasn't any dope-testing until after 1965, I don't see how you can say he was cheating, given that most of his big wins were BEFORE.

As Brian Clough said to the team of Championship-holding Leeds United players on his appointment as their manager:
"You lot can throw your medals in the fucking bin, you've only ever won anything by cheating."
By that yardstick then you'd have to devalue every professional road win ever. Drugs are as much a part of pro cycling as bike frames.

By that yardstick then you'd have to devalue every professional road win ever.

Bien sur, the cheats did the devaluing themselves ...

And are you going to strike Anquetil from your list of great Tour riders too? Henri_Pélissier? Both admitting doping.

And are you going to strike Anquetil from your list of great Tour riders too? Henri_Pélissier? Both admitting doping.

No, you have to judge like with like in context of the times. This started out as thread about Mark Cavendish, one of the brightest hopes in cycling, a young man untainted by the faintest suspicion of drug abuse. Then this guy offers up Simpson in comparison? I mean, come on...

Bien sur, the cheats did the devaluing themselves ...

Right. As long as we have that one straight.

No, you have to judge like with like in context of the times. This started out as thread about Mark Cavendish, one of the brightest hopes in cycling, a young man untainted by the faintest suspicion of drug abuse. Then this guy offers up Simpson in comparison? I mean, come on...

Cavendish rides for High Road that was T-Mobile that was officially the dirtiest team in cycling last season (that'll be three riders sacked for drugs offences then). Allegations are still coming to light about exactly how dirty the team had been throughout it's existence. If he wants to be untainted then he needs to think about the company he keeps.

No, you have to judge like with like in context of the times. This started out as thread about Mark Cavendish, one of the brightest hopes in cycling, a young man untainted by the faintest suspicion of drug abuse. Then this guy offers up Simpson in comparison? I mean, come on...

OK, sure, but doping was not against the rules in 1965. Just like the superman position wasn't against the rules when Obree broke the hour record on it.

It was widely known, and accepted, that pro racers took 'medical help' to get through races. And it wasn't against the rules. That's the context in which Simpson took drugs. You are the one that is taking his performances out of context.

Did Simpson beat the best pros of the time? Yes. Did he win some monuments of the sport. Yes. Did he break the rules. No. Did he take drugs? Yes.

If he wants to be untainted then he needs to think about the company he keeps.

Guilt by association? Bring on the lynch mob...

Cheating in sport's open to philosophical debate, init.

There seems to be this idea that enhancements applied inside the athlete somehow make them less responsible for pulling off amazing feats of strength, speed, power, and endurance. Look at track and field athletics - not so long ago, atheletes didn't have spiked footwear, something that knocks whole seconds off the times produced in sprint events. If you don't wear them, you're not going to win. But this is basically benefitting from technological enhancement, which is exactly what taking a newly synthesized substance is doing.

Biffalo Bull mentioned how the superman position wasn't cheating at one point in history. Equally, having a sub 6.7kg bike wasn't against the rules for a bit, whilst it was possible to build such a machine, and that could easily have been the winning edge in any mountain stage, as much as a dose of testosterone - in fact, externally applied technological enhancements are probably more reliable aids, so are more unequivocally part of 'cheating'.

The argument about doping being bad because it detracts from a level playing field is complete bollocks. There are certainly other issues to consider (health of athletes etc), but I don't really give a fuck, and have enjoyed some seminal moments in sport where all kinds of 'cheating' (worn, applied, imbibed, ridden, injected, whatever) have been in full effect. World-class atheletes are genetically predisposed to pull of some of these mind-blowing acheivements, and it's a natural human urge to want to do everything possible to see people go faster, higher, further, and so on...

Guilt by association? Bring on the lynch mob...

My point was that whichever team he rode for he'd be tainted due to the institutionalised doping that exists in the professional peloton and the fact that every team has skeletons. T-Mobile made a big play last year of their internal testing and controls and yet they had more positives than anyone else which would suggest either a) their internal testing was nothing more than a marketing exercise or b) they had a team full of dopers.

But this is basically benefitting from technological enhancement, which is exactly what taking a newly synthesized substance is doing.

But the latest carbon wheels or whatever won't give you a fatal nocturnal heart attack.
What is so sad about doping is the fact that when it was prevalent the same guys would probably have won without it - they would just have been a little slower