Its the infallibility of Froome (for example, Nibbles last year) No down days, not going bang on one of the big climbs. That's the bit I find incredible.
There has been one big climb where he's shown his hand, and two days in the mountains... 😕
wheres the highlights for tonight on the itv player. I missed them live at 7, theyre usually on the player by 10. No sign of them yet 🙁
Sky performance is certainly well up there but they have been quite active in looking for alternative training and psychology methods that could make a difference across the entire team. Froome appears to have a different physiology and it will be interesting to see how strongly Sky team support his commitment to independent testing more widely in the team.
But at the same stage what seems to have been missed from much scrutiny is that Nibali's and Contador's performance drops markedly when overnight testing starts; both of whom have a lot more tangible doping related questions previously. Quintana was a bit more knackered by the final climb from the efforts Movistar were putting in pre-climb. Naively I believe he is clean too.
Porte looked burst in the hills today which points more to a real rather than chemical effort. Or clever cover story, as an option for the cynics.
Its the infallibility of Froome (for example, Nibbles last year) No down days, not going bang on one of the big climbs. That's the bit I find incredible.
Quoted for OMG'z.
You miss my point, Nibali didn't go bang last year. Like Froome won't this year that's what I find incredible, total dominance whomever that may be. The best man, if your that way inclined or the best 'prepared'
Nibali had a lucky year last year his main rivals crashed out and he was able to control the mountain stages at his pace.
Froom hasn't "gone bang" this year YET, they have only ridden two mountain stages. He did on his last victory and got punished for Porte going back and getting him a gel.
Froome has also been lucky and it is very early days. His main competition is a sick and over tired Contador, out of form and out of favour with his team Nibali, Quintana who won't ever worry anyone outside the climbs and TvG, the only man who believes TvG is a Grand Tour contender. To win a Grand Tour you kind of need the stars to align and so far things have been going in Froome's favour.
Sky performance is certainly well up there but they have been quite active in looking for alternative training and psychology methods that could make a difference across the entire team.
The approach is reminiscent of other historically successful GT riders ( 😉 ) in that you take a strong rider and put them through extreme weight loss. How the weight loss is acheived, how they maintain power and if the power element of the equation receives any help would be the questions. I feel this approach is doable at the whiter shades of grey that exist in the peleton but who knows
And so it continues...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-faces-scrutiny-for-employing-former-us-postal-soigneur
...only posting as my real interest in the doping stuff (as a Media Studies teacher) is in the feeding frenzy around the TdF - no interest in condemning Froome or anyone else.
FWIW, I would like to believe that Sky are clean and until clear evidence arrives have to assume they are working within the rules (whether or not that makes them truly clean is another question...).
[quote=joeydeacon ]For me the most worrying aspect of yesterday's stage is the fact that two Sky domestiques Porte and Thomas were out climbing Quintana, Contador, Nibali, Valverde, Rodriguez, Gesink, Kreuziger, Uran etc - the best climbers in the world, many of whom are or have been under suspicion of doping themselves.
You could of course look at the suspicions of doping the other way. Maybe they were doping when they were the best climbers in the world, and the testing regime is now getting too tight for them to do as much...
For me the most worrying aspect of yesterday's stage is the fact that two Sky domestiques Porte and Thomas were out climbing Quintana, Contador, Nibali, Valverde, Rodriguez, Gesink, Kreuziger, Uran etc
I think it does them no justice to imply they're simple domestiques - Richie's off to lead a pro tour team next year and G's unique breadth of talent is well reported, he's great if not outstanding at everything. In contrast, the Movi guys were on the gas all day, Bertie was fairly busy in Italy earlier in the year and Nibbles - well, Nibbles rides for Astana, make your own conclusions.
...until clear evidence arrives ...
What would you find acceptable?
pondo - Member
...until clear evidence arrives ...What would you find acceptable?
Lets start with a failed test (Even the masked man LA failed tests - and the likes of Merckx)
After that maybe somebody coming forward to say they have seen stuff thats breaking the rules.
You know evidence.
Lets start with a failed test (Even the masked man LA failed tests - and the likes of Merckx)
After that maybe somebody coming forward to say they have seen stuff thats breaking the rules.
You know evidence.
Yeah, I get that - the post I quoted was on about "clear evidence of no foul play", would love to know what would constitute clear evidence of that. Sorry, I could have made that much clearer.
Impossible to prove, proving a negative doesn't work - you could shadow the riders 24/7 and make them sit naked the entire time and people would either suggest you are in on it or that they got doped via special rays beamed through the window.
You know that, I know that... It's why I asked the question in the first place.
you could shadow the riders 24/7 and make them sit naked the entire time and people would either suggest you are in on it or that they got doped via special rays beamed through the window.
This is it, exactly. After umpteen years of doping, we've all become sensitised to the fact that if someone does something a bit special, then they *must* be doping, because everyone who did something good in the past was. And if they aren't then they've invented some new doping system so really they are, it just isn't known about yet.
I realise that there's a lot of trust to be won back, maybe it will take ten years of clean as CB suggested (and every fail in the meantime resets the clock again) but as supporters of the sport i think we've got to lead the way in that. If Froome says he's clean, and in the absence of anything to say otherwise other than the fact he's the best rider by a mile, I'm happy to say he's clean. And if subsequently I'm wrong and he, Wiggins, Brailsford, Hoy, Pendleton, Peters, Thomas, Cavendish, Sutton, etc. are all implicated I'll be handing up the nails for their crucifixions; it'll make US Postal look amateur.
What gets me is I'm incredibly frustrated by all the 'yeah but, it's all drugs again' on here; I'm frustrated that i can't talk to non-cycling mates or colleagues without it being 'yeah, but drugs'; and it's only a hobby to me. If you're Froome, or G, or Richie Porte, and you KNOW you're clean, just that you've prepared incredibly well (and I mean in the proper sense of prepared) and now all those months and years of prep are coming to fruit - I'm surprised a few journalists haven't been ejected through press conference windows already.
He's already pretty well said that once the tour's over he's going to tell us all what the secret is. He can't in advance as that'll tell us all where he's weak and how to beat him. I can't see at this stage what else he can or needs to do?
It used to be the rational, open-minded fans who were cynical about doping, with those on the other side basing their denials on more of an emotional response.
Can't help feeling it's switched around now. There seems to be a huge subtext of "they broke my heart and I can never trust them again, the bastards".
Thoughts?
[b]Cha****ng [/b] Disagree
Some of the same things we heard being trotted out by the doping-deniers, when everyone with any sense knew LA was doping (eg after the Simeoni affair), are being said again here on this thread.
I'd argue that it is more that we know now
1) how rife doping has been
2) how many tarnished support staff are still involved
3) how suspicious some performances are
4) how almost impossible it is to catch people on PEDs
This means that it is rational to suspect doping, and the emotional response is clinging on to an unrealistic belief in the goodness of heroes to make blanket insistances that it [i]cannot [/i]be happening in Sky.
Wish it were different. One day we will know.
I agree. But like being cheated on by your spouse, if you can never forgive them and will always suspect they're doing the dirty again, you'd be better walking away now. Hanging around being jaded and cynical will just destroy the enjoyment of the relationship anyway*.
If you're staying, do so in good faith. If that trust gets abused again, then be out of the door in an instant.
* to extend the analogy a bit further; there are a few that'll hang around despite the suspicions because the racing / sex is mindblowingly good and you can ignore the indiscretions because of that. But if you're one of them, you can't then also decry the racing for not being clean.
[b]theotherjonv[/b] a good analogy, and a reason why I haven't watched more than tiny amounts of the TdF coverage in the last few years 🙁
This means that it is rational to suspect doping, and the emotional response is clinging on to an unrealistic belief in the goodness of heroes to make blanket insistances that it cannot be happening in Sky.Wish it were different. One day we will know.
My hope as you call it from Sky is that coming from the BC track programme and standing up at the front as not being up for any of the doping stuff. Setting out their stand on that etc. In some ways the in the bad old days the bigger problem was ignoring and not testing properly. To have got this far through a tour without a DQ for PED (coke not a PED really) either says the field is cleaner or the testing is pointless.
A few years ago it looked as though the Tour de France in particular was really going after the dopers. We had scandal after scandal and even those thought untouchable were brought down. But all that negative publicity meant that sponsors and broadcasters pulled out and the public in general thought that cycling was uniquely dirty.
So, now (in my opinion) cycling is trying to do what every other big sport does; manage the PR while trying to keep the doping under control. So, those that take the piss still get busted, as an example to others, but the main aim of the "anti-drugs policies" is to reassure the public and certainly not to wash any dirty laundry in public. We tried that and it didn't work.
Yeah, I get that - the post I quoted was on about "clear evidence of no foul play", would love to know what would constitute clear evidence of that. Sorry, I could have made that much clearer.
Clear evidence isn't very clear sometimes. Some people still think Contador is eternally clean and hard done by during his ban
When the riders claim they are 'clean', what are they actually saying though? Clean in a 'i don't take drugs that are banned but do take a concoction of drugs that are not yet on the banned list and improve my performance'? Clean in a 'i only eat chicken, pasta and protein shakes'? Or cynically, clean in a 'we've spent so much time and money on techniques to mask our cheating ways, you'll never twig on'?
My hope as you call it from Sky is that coming from the BC track programme and standing up at the front as not being up for any of the doping stuff. Setting out their stand on that etc.
Why do we assume the trackies don't live in a world of grey too?
One thing I find interesting is that in recent years there have been few sprinters getting popped.
Maybe they routinely went down the EPO etc route because it was just what cyclists did and now they know they can get away without it or maybe they are on other stuff all together from the GC/ climber type guys which is even more poorly tested or understood.... who knows
The only sprinter I can think of who courted controversy (rather than received a ban) is Kittel and the only recent ban is someone like Matt White (who incidentally started on the track) although his indiscretions themselves weren't recent
I know a former Aussie sprinter who was sick of the drugs everywhere but maybe I'm incredibly naive and BC are just a massive pharmacy like everyone else. But they seem to be playing it honestly, the data was given to the french press, Froome is off to be tested independently to satisfy the need to bring it all down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
The UK does seem a little under represented in the list so either they are much better at it or not doing as much.
The UK does seem a little under represented in the list so either they are much better at it or not doing as much.
Given the number of guys who've made it to the Pro-Tour level (hardly any) the percentage caught must be roughly similar to other nations 😕
Millar, Simpson, Yates, Staite, JTL spring to mind. Are the likes of Wegelius and Hammond who just so happened o nothing and know nothing about what went on in teams like Discovery, T-Mobile, Mapei and Liquigas
Considering that would cover the biggest medal haul from the last few Olympics there are a few up there. But I see what you are doing, you have decided, no offer of evidence to back it up, no defense to information that does not agree and nothing will change your mind. You are JHJ and I claim my £5 😉
When the riders claim they are 'clean', what are they actually saying though? Clean in a 'i don't take drugs that are banned but do take a concoction of drugs that are not yet on the banned list and improve my performance'?
I often hear this argument, or variations of it i.e. they are getting round the rules by taking some new drug that hasn't been banned yet. But if you look at the WADA list of banned substances, number one on the list is:
"Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times."
There is also a lot of talk about grey areas, but as far as I'm concerned there are no grey areas. WADA produce a detailed and comprehensive list of all the things you can't do and substances that you can't take. Anything not on that list is fair play. Indeed it is the job of a professional athlete and their support teams to try and get any advantage that they can without doing anything that is explicitly banned. If WADA don't like it they can put it on the list and the athlete has to stop doing it, but it's all pretty black and white as far as I can see.
Grey areas = TUE - it's been and probably still is massively abused.
There is also a lot of talk about grey areas, but as far as I'm concerned there are no grey areas. WADA produce a detailed and comprehensive list of all the things you can't do and substances that you can't take. Anything not on that list is fair play. Indeed it is the job of a professional athlete and their support teams to try and get any advantage that they can without doing anything that is explicitly banned. If WADA don't like it they can put it on the list and the athlete has to stop doing it, but it's all pretty black and white as far as I can see.
You should apply for a job as the director of performance at a Pro team- they'd love you 😀 Read about Kittel as an example of "grey".
Also, as above, TUE. Funny old world when you can take a banned substance with a note from a doctor
Funny old world when you can take a banned substance with [s]a note from a doctor[/s] [b]approval from a committee that “should include at least three (3) physicians with experience in the care and treatment of athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine"[/b]
To be strictly correct.
Considering that would cover the biggest medal haul from the last few Olympics there are a few up there. But I see what you are doing, you have decided, no offer of evidence to back it up, no defense to information that does not agree and nothing will change your mind.
Was that is response to my comment?
Why do we assume the trackies don't live in a world of grey too?
All I was getting at is why do we instantly assume "doping" only happens on the road?
The other thing I was trying to get across is maybe the answer could be "yes, it is mainly on the road" as there don't seem to be too many sprinters (on the road) being naughty nowadays so maybe the risk doesn't outweigh the reward (performance gains) for these shorter efforts
To be strictly correct.
True, but then if you really want to be naively pure about things then you can make the argument that if you are competing with these substances then perhaps you are too unwell to compete.
At the end of the day all of this is about what you want to believe. Froome got in a spot of bother recently but it was ok because he had a TUE. Mr. Mo has a coach who may of arranged some TUE's and he faced no end of media attention. Not the whole story, but at least how it appears in the general public's eyes
Millar, Simpson, Yates, Staite, JTL spring to mind.
Which Simpson? Tommy?
2 in the last 10 years.
How long does it take for the tales of doping to usually emerge?
It is only recently a decent number of Brits have been on the road together at Pro-Tour level
A high percentage of the big name Brits before this boom have been found to have doped.
We like to think of it being the Spanish or the Italian or the Americans or *insert nationality* that are a load of cheaters but we don't have thaaaat great a record either
It's all personal opinion isn't it, but, as I said, as far as I'm concerned, these aren't grey areas. This is professional sport. It's the job of those taking part to try everything they can within the rules to win. It's the job of those who write the rules to make the game fair and to protect the participants. Of course, it's also up to us to decide whether we want to watch the spectacle. But, unless you are doing something on the banned list then, as far as I'm concerned you are not cheating.
TUEs are a classic case of an area where the rules might need tightening, but as long as riders/teams are complying with the current rules then, again, they aren't cheating. They key part of TUEs as far as I can see is the part that states:
"After the UCI Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee has reviewed the application, you may be given authorization to take the needed medicine"
In other words, you have to apply for the TUE before using the substance and a committee has to agree that its use is merited. If you think TUEs are being abused then maybe that committee isn't doing its job properly, but it's still not cheating to take something that a UCI committee has said that you can take.
🙄
So basically everyone is they just haven't been caught yet.
My point with the comparison was that there were large numbers of other nationalities who were being caught each year while there were very few Brits. Analysis would say there was a reason for that.
theotherjonv - Member
I agree. But like being cheated on by your spouse, if you can never forgive them and will always suspect they're doing the dirty again, you'd be better walking away now. Hanging around being jaded and cynical will just destroy the enjoyment of the relationship anyway*.
That makes sense but the suggestion is that it only happened once. Cycling hasn't just done the dirty on us, its slept with the rugby team, bedded our best friends and turned a celibate monastery into sex maniacs. And that's just the stuff we know about. 😉
Or more like it's Dr Who, you still can't get over the shaky sets and charity shop aliens but it's a different set of actors, directors and staff just the names the same. At some point it moves on.
Yes, they have higher numbers of riders competing in the first place. There must be clean Belgians and Dutch and riders from these nations with no positive tests but some guys caught too. The numbers caught must be high but then historically these nations have a bigger participation in Pro cycling than the UK. That was all I was getting at. Rather than look at gross numbers, it would be interesting to know the percentages
That makes sense but the suggestion is that it only happened once. Cycling hasn't just done the dirty on us, its slept with the rugby team, bedded our best friends and turned a celibate monastery into sex maniacs. And that's just the stuff we know about.
Ah, but as a result it's dirty as hell and does stuff that would make gentertainment stars blush. And we can't give that up.
That was all I was getting at. Rather than look at gross numbers, it would be interesting to know the percentages
Sometimes I would do the analysis if I was bored but the cricket is on and the tour, but really I just don't think that you are that interested if it didn't back your thoughts. So if you want to know then off you go. As some additional analytical stuff I'd suggest a measure of "Generation" as a lot of this stuff is a generational thing. So comparing the events of the 90's with now might not be the very useful.
Ah, but as a result it's dirty as hell and does stuff that would make gentertainment stars blush. And we can't give that up.
I may be watching the wrong channel? 😆
Sometimes I would do the analysis if I was bored but the cricket is on and the tour, but really I just don't think that you are that interested if it didn't back your thoughts.
I don't really care either way. This is a discussion thread so people are having a discussion.
As some additional analytical stuff I'd suggest a measure of "Generation" as a lot of this stuff is a generational thing. So comparing the events of the 90's with now might not be the very useful.
To some extent yes, but the previous generation don't magically disappear from the sport. They coach and manage the next generations or have children who continue in the sport. It doesn't necessarily transfer to mistakes from the past but they aren't two distinct entities either.
It's probably something I'd look to the Analysis to tell me rather than assuming it, there could be a couple of shifts over time where things became less acceptable.
I know a former Aussie sprinter who was sick of the drugs everywhere
Is the implication here that the track or road was particularly bad? I'm genuinely interested as it is a good point that you don't hear too much bad news from the track or from sprinters
track into crit, few years back though - Cycling Australia are clearing out anyone who has had any previous involvement in any kind of doping. Another good move that seems to go unnoticed.
Right.
First up all you saying 'I think sky are not doping but are pushing the legal stuff to the limit', deja vu. This is exactly what I thought about Armstrong about tour win #3 or #4. Guess what, it turns out I was wrong. I know, terrible isn't it.
Second: If you have followed the anti-doping story at all then you would know that a) the BP flagged riders need to checked by somebody, and guess what, Armstrong didn't get popped on his comeback. You think he did his comeback [i]clean, really[/i]? So, to me it looks like it fails. Plus, b) periodically you get riders moaning about the [i]lack[/i] of OOC testing. Even Froome on Tiede FFS! And not all samples are tested for EPO.... funny that, not testing for it and they don't find it...??? ETA: they didn't even know about microdosing until Landis spilled to Ashenden...
Third: You need an overseeing organisation that is willing to prosecute dopers. Just look how keen the UCI were when USADA was going after Armstrong... They tried to claim it wasn't USADA's jurisdiction!!! Phat KNEW Lance wasn't a doper, etc. Amazing. Definitely anti-doping at its finest. Just [i]exactly[/i] how much has changed with Cookson?
Fourth: Cookson previous ties to BC and Sky... defintely no conflict of interest there. No not at all... Nothing to see here, carry on please.
So, we've been here before, testing is a joke/IQ test and the UCI aint to be trusted. Yeah, they are obviously all clean... 🙄
Plus, who of you claiming Sky are squeaky but happy to 'sling mud' against anybody else, where's your evidence/proof, etc. If they haven't been popped then they [b]MUST[/b] be clean surely. Or maybe you're blinded by some wierd patriotic fervour?
I don't believe things have changed because I don't see the will for it to change.
I always thought it was crits where doping was truly rife. Tired riders, after all the big tours, being paid to put on a show in some little provincial town and the only way to get through was to be doing it assisted. And little in the way of doping controls to check.
I'll admit, I'm a Johnny-come-lately to all this; I only got interested in road stuff around the time of Lance so I'm regurgitating a bit based on books like Kimmage's. But is that still the case or have blood passports and 'out of competition' tests put a stop to it there too?
No idea about there, same as most people on here 😉
If I was a young cyclist wondering if I was going to make my future in cycling and to see that if you make it or win something then you have failed the internet doping test would you want to carry on?
Proving a negative is nigh on impossible, and asking all athletes to wash their laundry in public so that we all have access to their power data would be like asking all F1 teams to show where all their mechanical advantages come from.
Its a sport, and the idea is that someone wins, subject to the rules. That means that someone has to be better than the next best person. They will do this by being physically, mentally, physiologically better than the guy in second place taking advantage of all of their natural abilities and enhancing them through training, diet, appropriate medical care, nutrional supplementation etc etc.
Personally, I don't think that the top guys in pro cycling are doping today. It would be a suicidal tactic. There is too much sniffing around being done, too many potential weak links with suppliers, doctors, family members, coaches, consultants, teammates, etc etc. Doping worked when everyone knew that everyone was at it. Even if there was doping in the peleton today, I think it would be the exception rather than the rule.
Individuals like Brailsford have so much to lose by being involved in doping, and so much to gain by being seen to be the clean champions, that I don't think a cost / benefit equation would put doping as the right option.
I might be wrong; but I'll continue to watch the Tour and elite athletics (my favourite sport) taking everyone at their word until there is proof to the contrary. And then I'll support calls for dopers to be banned for life.
Tour and elite athletics (my favourite sport) taking everyone at their word until there is proof to the contrary. And then I'll support calls for dopers to be banned for life.
Part of what you say about peer's and weak links should for the basis for the cleaning up too. If you are offered, got involved etc. you have one chance to fess up. If you come forward you get the lighter penalty, you get named your done. Same as the fact that Drink Driving and not wearing your seatbelt is not accepted by the majority (some still do) but people can stop you. If/When clean is the majority the corner has been turned and the peer pressure to get rid of the cheats beats the one to join to win.
Individuals like Brailsford have so much to lose by being involved in doping
Back to beliefs... but I don't think someone like Brailsford is daft enough to get involved, but that doesn't mean to say that an individual and their coach don't have other ideas. Not limited to SKY by any means, but the message now even from credible stand up guys like Vino is all about riders acting on their own initiative. Take that for what it is worth 😉 but the teams do seem to be trying to put distance between them and the riders when things go tits up... which I guess is pragmatic when the teams have so much to lose under the current rules and sponsorship climate.... but their may also be some truth in it too
Right then, time for some speculation.
Nibali, doped last year, clean this, hence he's now struggling? Clean for both, full strength field this year so struggling? Clean but getting pressure from Vino to "properly prepare"?
I;m going for the latter for no logical reason at all!
[i]Its a sport, and the idea is that someone wins, subject to the rules. That means that someone has to be better than the next best person. They will do this by being physically, mentally, physiologically better than the guy in second place taking advantage of all of their natural abilities and enhancing them through training, diet, appropriate medical care, nutrional supplementation etc etc[/i]
In my opinion, and not wishing to give offense, that sounds a little naive. Teams/sports persons, have to look at the rules to their sport as though they were looking through a template. They look for the areas which are not covered.
I read about certain pro cyclists, declaring they have asthma so as to get to use inhalers. I'd of suggested that if you're asthmatic, then pro road racing possibly isn't for you. IANAD.
Loopholes and the ethics of exploiting them, in the context of and under the pressure of competing in top level sport.
So back to my point, when beetroot juice is band, I'd hope the teams who aspire to race "clean" will cancel their supply of beetroot juice. But until then would anyone call a pro cyclist a "doper" for consuming beetroot juice? Yet beetroot juice is widely held as giving an advantage the consumer would not otherwise have had.
It's a strange situation, you see Team Sky, for example, simply ban the use of needles and you get it, you see what they're doing. But that doesn't mean that Mitchell, Kerrison, etc aren't looking for dietary/methodological advancements to use, until, or if, those advancements are banned. Indeed, I believe Sky came under the spotlight recently for use of pain killers, etc.
Rules tell the honest sports person/team, what not to do, but rules simply can't cover what a team or person might do next. Therefore rules will always be reactive, can always be updated and revised, but can only respond to whatever "improvement" teams and people believe they can use.
Clean for both, full strength field this year so struggling? Clean but getting pressure from Vino to "properly prepare"?
"Clean" is a relative term but if it means not doped up to the gills then I feel the latter two comments are probably close to the mark
Or last year the tour imploded, the top guys dropped out and everyone thought they would just sweep Nibbles up as they went so didn't go for the big risks. He wasn't pushed as hard as some and by the time he was being taken seriously the top riders were gone.
Contador - probably a coincidence that nobody has done the Giro and Tour double since the days of doping and it was reported as one of the most brutal Giro's in years.
Second: If you have followed the anti-doping story at all then you would know that a) the BP flagged riders need to checked by somebody, and guess what, Armstrong didn't get popped on his comeback.
What is BP?
b) periodically you get riders moaning about the lack of OOC testing. Even Froome on Tiede FFS!
Why can't froome moan about testing. You lost me
Fourth: Cookson previous ties to BC and Sky... defintely no conflict of interest there. No not at all... Nothing to see here, carry on pleasePlus, who of you claiming Sky are squeaky but happy to 'sling mud' against anybody else, where's your evidence/proof, etc. If they haven't been popped then they MUST be clean surelySo the person running pro cycling has to have no links with any pro team or any national squad. What do you sugest a bike shop owner?
Well Contador served a ban and Nibali is on a team with positive tests. Oh and the fact that they have tightened up on Astana and he is now slower doesn't really undermine the idea that doping control might be having some effect
But that doesn't mean that Mitchell, Kerrison, etc aren't looking for dietary/methodological advancements to use, until, or if, those advancements are banned.
Why would you ban a dietary advance?
Contaminated pork meat is a really good dietary advance, I've heard it be said.
[i] ampthill - Member
Why would you ban a dietary advance? [/i]
Depends on one's interpretation of the "advance" in question, ie, is that advance to promote health, or performance, etc, etc.
Then as a sport's governing body you'd be on the look out for the use of anything which may provide an "advance" in performance, but might also bring with it a risk to health. As we see in modern, top level sport.
Some would appear to be ready to risk their health for reaching the top step.
Why would you ban a dietary advance?
Weight loss, losing weight over very short time frames, maintaining low weight without losing power, etc is a massive advantage. Sometimes chemicals help this delicate balance and sometimes these chemicals are banned. They don't all just eat organic salad every day to look skeletal. Cortisol for example can be obtained under TUE's and can be handy for dropping weight
Cortisol for example can be obtained under TUE's and can be handy for dropping weight
And we went through the TUE process before, you need one before you use it and if they want it cracked down on they can.
Ampthill:
BP - blood passport
Even Froome was moaning about lack of testing I my point therefore not enough testing is being carried out.
Re Cookson point it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that thing will/have changed. No will you see, shit in your own backyard so to speak.
My point about past dopers but now riding: That was then, this now. Why they're all clean now surely I not where is your new evidence for now? Not popped so innocent until proven guilty must apply to them.as well. Its called double standards.
I read about certain pro cyclists, declaring they have asthma so as to get to use inhalers. I'd of suggested that if you're asthmatic, then pro road racing possibly isn't for you. IANAD.
IANAD either but I do get exercise induced asthma. OK, I'll grant you I wasn't a pro roadie but I was competing at an elite level in another sport and asthma wasn't something that stopped that - so long as I could use an inhaler if my lungs were closing up - I didn't use it preventatively though but IME the advantage from the inhaler was in preventing a reduction in my performance rather than actually improving it if not suffering.
Of course, there's a documented advantage to using inhalers if not asthmatic which is where my points about the TUE system being abused come in.
Just a point on an earlier comment
Armstrong didn't get popped on his comeback.
He did. That's a big part of the reason that he got done - If he hadn't been arrogant enough to make his return, he'd almost certainly never have been caught - the bio passport showed up doping. LA is still adamant that he didn't dope on his return but most reckon that's to avoid statue of limitations issues.
There is some self-regulation going on in the peloton, a couple of years ago there were quite a few fingers being pointed at a particular rider on the Giro. I think the rider won a stage so was automatically tested, got caught and subsequently banned.
You could say that if significant numbers of riders are on 'X' then it is in no-one's interest to speak out.
Was it Alan Baxter the freestyle skier who was caught using a banned substance at a recent winter Olympics? His claim was that he'd picked up his usual brand of inhaler stateside but that while the UK version was legit, the American/Canadian one had a steroid constituent.
Nemesis.
Thanks for sharing your experience, useful to know that.
[i]Of course, there's a documented advantage to using inhalers if not asthmatic which is where my points about the TUE system being abused come in. [/i]
Couldn't agree more and was the point I was also trying to make.
🙂
Just a point on an earlier commentArmstrong didn't get popped on his comeback.
He did. That's a big part of the reason that he got done - If he hadn't been arrogant enough to make his return, he'd almost certainly never have been caught - the bio passport showed up doping.
No it wasn't. He was banned because enough people spoke out against him and gave enough evidence. You are correct in that this wouldn't have happened if he hadn't returned but it had little to do with his BP on his return.
Well I don't suppose it really matters but I'd say that the passport gave them the case beyond just testimony from others - eg 'hard' evidence.
I thought that the stone, which precipitated the avalanche was the retrospective testing of a sample, from 1999.
The testing had been carried out on samples that had been anonymised. However, it was, I believe, a French journalist who managed to obtain a UCI document recording the anonymised samples with the names of the riders.
The sample that tested positive belonged to LA and then it all started to unravel.
IIRC the retro testing was being carried out to assess the sensitivity of a new/different test. Not to retrospectively "catch" anyone.
Well I don't suppose it really matters but I'd say that the passport gave them the case beyond just testimony from others - eg 'hard' evidence.
Yeah, but the fact was (and still stands) the BP [b]failed[/b] to flag Armstrong. Despite the fact that USADA used his comeback doping as a way into the past to overcome the SOL issues.
So my point was it's (the BP) not actually much cop is it?
The case against Armstrong is very well documented, on the net and via plenty of books, and of course the actual judgement itself is available. There's no need to make stuff up about it. But, I've just been googling 'Armstrong biological passport' and it seems that his was dodgy in 2009/10 (quelle surprise!) but that the UCI did nothing about it and didn't release the findings.
You would have though Froome and co would have learn't from the cheating Texan who was"on another planet".
If I was a world class athlete, and on the juice, I would make sure my performances were [u]only just[/u] better than my rivals.
For example, If I had already put a couple of minutes into a top climber, I would have finished on his wheel, looking knackered, rather then storming past him.
Regardless of what you believe about today's riders, the obvious solution is to store blood/urine samples for testing in years to come, when the new testing techniques have caught up with doping methods used at the present time. Each team should have to fund this process as part of their participation in the World Tour. Titles should then be removed as necessary based upon positive results, with no appeals based upon flimsy technicalities.
[i] So my point was it's (the BP) not actually much cop is it?[/i]
I thought the biological passport was significant in the JTL case?
If you concentrate a doping argument on Armstrong then you miss the point.
I think it's a mistake to ask the question "is cycling now clean?". People have cheated ever since organised sport was invented, and they will continue to cheat in the future. Tackling doping is an ongoing battle and you will never win that battle outright.
What you can do, however, is ensure that you are fighting that battle as effectively as possible, with independent, rigorous and transparent enforcement. Cycling has conspicuoulsy failed to do that, ever since dope testing was introduced, so you've had a very murky situation where the riders, the team organisation, the authorities, the press and even the fans are all complicit to some degree.
Personally, I think there is probably still plenty of doping going on. Lots of people who were up to their necks in it in recent decades are still involved in the sport, riders are still being caught, and people have recently demonstrated how you can fly under the radar of the Bio Passport if you are clever. We may be seeing the start of a new era in serious anti-doping enforcement (I certainly hope so) but I still retain a healthy scepticism about pro-cycling.