[url= http://www.radioshackleopardtrek.com/news/anti-doping-testers-wrong ]http://www.radioshackleopardtrek.com/news/anti-doping-testers-wrong[/url]
So...if Horner does test positive will the Fantasy leagues recalculate everything?
aracer / ormondroyd - So how do you propose to find a doper? Maybe if someone is trending on Google or Twitter with a hashtag of #doper we ban them?
There are many things that can be done to improve things from where they are now. e.g.:
Decouple testing from bodies with a conflict of interest.
Fund the bio passport programme properly, on a global basis, across multiple sports.
...to name but two.
Tests are fairly pointless it seems when all the experts around here have made up their minds.
We all know that tests aren't 100% though. Regardless, testing is good as they still require an element of luck now it seems to consistently avoid them, not to mention that it limits how much benefit the cheats can get from doping which wouldn't be the case if there wasn't any...
Testing is pointless if it's not properly done.
This tweet was only yesterday:
Helen Wyman ?@CXHelen 22hTry that again! After nearly 30 races finally had a dope control test on american soil, glad to see USA anti doping doing a good job
his interview with Matt Rendell (just seen it on repeat of ITV4 highlights today) depressed me, and Ive been sitting on the fence. MR asked him a pretty direct question finishing with "is this win clean?", CH said something about having never said he'd never seen doping, then spent the rest of the answer waffling about how gee he really loves the sport and he hopes the fans do too. Way too evasive, and echoes of the "believe in miracles" speech of LA. 🙄
He's previously insisted he never saw any doping in his time on Bruyneel teams.
*scratches chin*
The interesting thing is what he's been up to, given the supposedly improved testing programme.
Is it still possible to fool the bio passport with some sort of specialised preparation over the season, is Spain still some sort of doping haven where the testing is unreliable, or is this some new technique?
Try googling 'microdosing EPO'.
They can still dope if they do it carefully but it seems based on the people getting caught that you have to be lucky too to avoid being caught. The benefits available aren't anything like they used to be when EPO use was completely uncontrolled.
Just watched the IVT4 interview.
I didn't think he came across as that bad - certainly not as bad as the post-stage interview I posted the other day.
He mentions being in the grupetto during the bad years for example.
Are there any genetic performance enhancing things on the go yet? If so, are there tests for them?
That would be an interesting angle to it all.
You could argue Nicholas Roche has used the genetic advantage thing all his career. 🙂
Had a little chuckle to myself at the comment on the Leopard Trek page -
Fred Homburg
i can only hope that the press and all cycle fans arround the world wil remember that his vivtory in spain was the best thing that i have seen in years.
D'you know, in all the frenzy, I rather fear the press may have overlooked how much Mr Homburg enjoyed the race - I certainly haven't seen it reported as widely as it should have been. 🙂
Doubtful he'll get caught from a test done during the Vuelta (unless he's been incredibly stupid) but if he's been micro-dosing/doping hopefully the passport will pick something up.
It's just not credible what he did given his past form and the analysis of some of the climbs, he's not just been quicker than the best of the peloton in this year's race, he's been significantly better than some of the best riders going off previous year's times. The whole well-rested thing is bullshit to, it's not like Nibali was at the TdF and you need a certain amount of racing miles in your legs before a Grand Tour, even Sky (the masters of training over racing) do plenty of races before a Grand Tour.
Why do we have cycle races? It's because they entertain the public, like all other sports... some sports charge entry to fund them, cycling depends on sponsors, the public watch, see the 'advertising' and that funds the sport, but we as the public are there to be entertained and that's precisely what this Vuelta did, the best GT in many years as far as entertainment went. So, why not accept it as it was, it's irrelevant who did or didn't dope as we were entertained. Too many people can't accept that or be satisfied with that, instead everyone and his dog have to become detectives and waste their lives delving into whether a, b or c doped. It doesn't affect YOUR lives at all! It's like after-match analysis in football, it's irrelevant as the game has ended! Look forward to the next and enjoy life!
that's precisely what this Vuelta did
There clearly are some/many who think this way. I don't. I just can't get excited/entertained if I'm watching something that may well not be what it appears to be or should be (IMO...).
So the legacy of cheating, for me at least, is that something I used to love just isn't something I can get excited about in the same way at the moment.
That pisses me off.
It doesn't affect YOUR lives at all
Your post makes no sense to me. How can something existing to entertain us have no affect on us?
To be honest, I could easily do a Junkyard and quote every part of your post in little pieces explaining why the do not don't make sense. But I can't be arsed so I'll just stick with the one bit.
Why do we have cycle races? It's because they entertain the public, like all other sports.
so its not to find out who is the best at that sport 😕
That contest may be entertaining or it may be dull See wiggo grind out a tour or LA doing the look
I think there may be something more to the contest that me being entertained
*runs away and hides from Junkyard
It doesn't affect YOUR lives at all
Neither does us discussing it. Why does it matter to you?
his interview with Matt Rendell (just seen it on repeat of ITV4 highlights today) depressed me, and Ive been sitting on the fence. MR asked him a pretty direct question finishing with "is this win clean?", CH said something about having never said he'd never seen doping, then spent the rest of the answer waffling about how gee he really loves the sport and he hopes the fans do too. Way too evasive, and echoes of the "believe in miracles" speech of LA.
Just what I thought. Very mealy mouthed.
Of course it's not proof, but I'll trust my instincts on whether he was telling the truth or not.
Contrast with how clear and even eloquent Froome was on the subject.
And I feel the same chakaping but at the same time, I'm sure that Chris Froome was well coached and they had considered in some detail what would sound best and how to phrase things. I'm not suggesting that it's not true, just that the risk is that we get into a situation (that in some ways I think we're already in) where there becomes a stock set of answers to doping where you have to be energetically anti-doping to be credible.
All that happens is everyone learns the same script.
It's because they entertain the public, like all other sports
Like WWF?
there becomes a stock set of answers to doping where you have to be energetically anti-doping to be credible.
I've wondered why this hasn't become the case to a greater extent already tbh.
But the same instinct that made me think Horner had something to hide also made me think Froome was speaking from personal conviction.
You could argue Nicholas Roche has used the genetic advantage thing all his career.
I've heard his dad be very evasive when asked about doping - but being evasive is no evidence that you've doped only evidence that you know people have but may not want to name names. At Horners age we all know he must have been aware of doping but that's not evidence of having taken part.
Perhaps what Horners win shows is that the competition aren't what we thought they were now everything's clean. 🙂
It matters because the same rules apply at all levels of the sport, not just to pros, and I don't want to compete in a sport where doping is accepted or expected. The pros can't get away with setting the wrong example for non pro racing, because you will end up with more Dan Staites.
Like WWF?
What have pandas got to do with this? 🙂
but being evasive is no evidence that you've doped only evidence that you know people have but may not want to name names. At Horners age we all know he must have been aware of doping but that's not evidence of having taken part
I agree, but Rendell's question was directly about Horner's performance in this tour. Looking someone in the eye and saying you didnt dope might not convince everybody, but completely dodging the question won't convince anybody. Whatever you think of Froome's performance, he stuck his neck out by referencing being clean ("this jersey will stand the test of time") in his winning speech.
Oh **** me. The Clinic Forum must be going mental.
The thing is, not a single one of the STW doping cynics has a clue whether Horner doped or not, you won't until he fails a test or there is overwhelming evidence against him ( he hasn't and there isn't). But you go on and on about how he must have because blah, blah, blah. The same thing over and over again. Give the man credit and if in the future its shown that he was using PED's criticise then. for the moment enjoy pro cycling for what it is or walk away.
just out of interest - no axe to grind either way
This was Monday evening. I'm guessing that any drug that would've benefited him in the GC would have to have been working on or before Sunday dinnertime (unless they were preparing him for a teamTT against Nibali into Madrid)
What drug would have still been detectable by Monday evening ?
Oh, just seen it was Monday morning 😳 - question stands, I guess
re-edit: Duuuuh, I'm a day out. He needed the benefit on Saturday dinnertime and missed a test Monday am
Oh, and IMO the answer to doping is to insist that all samples can be kept and tested indefintely into the future, with known clean controls taken at the same times and stored under the same conditions - or have they adopted this already ? (that x years rule was always kack)
Yep, they're storing samples now. Problem is that Lance has shown that it's more profitable to have doped and been caught than to never have doped.
A great ride from a man in his 40's us old boys still have plenty of juice,if you know how to look after your body! How many of you can still wear the same jeans size you wore 20yrs ago?
Yeah, but LA is a major exception in financial terms and I suspect he really wanted to be sen to win rather than get rich (of course he was seen to win repeatedly but to now be formally recognised as a cheat must really hurt - god, I hope so)Problem is that Lance has shown that it's more profitable to have doped and been caught than to never have doped
UCI should ratify a form of words to be added to the record books when a name is expunged - a separate list just showing "disqualified, DOPER" or "DRUG CHEAT" with no hint of where they finished maybe ? (they can add an asterisk to some small print lower down that says some mealy-mouthed disclaimer but that would be good)
I still wear the jeans I wore 26 years ago. The style is a little dated but the belt is on the same hole.
1936 vertical metres/hour. That says more than a test ever will.
How many of you can still wear the same jeans size you wore 20yrs ago?
30 years for me, in fact I may be a little lighter at 48 than I was at 18.
Problem is that Lance has shown that it's more profitable to have doped and been caught than to never have dopedYeah, but LA is a major exception in financial terms and I suspect he really wanted to be sen to win rather than get rich
I'm not sure any of his doping cohorts, hincapie, leipheimer et al suffered financially from fessing up
Armstrong has over 125 million dollars in assets and about 127 million in law suits to fend off according to a TV programme I saw recently.
How many of you can still wear the same jeans size you wore 20yrs ago?
I can but I cannot ride as fast. I am older and less fit as that is simply what happens with age.
It's just not credible what he did given his past form and the analysis of some of the climbs, he's not just been quicker than the best of the peloton in this year's race, he's been significantly better than some of the best riders going off previous year's times
Here a few thoughts Passed performance
He was 9 th in a grand tour riding for some else
Indurain was 10 th in the 1990 tour. If you watch it really looks like he would have one if he had not been ridding for Delgado. Also Horner needed a Tour with next to no time trialing
What the doubters really saying
Are you saying that Valverde and Rodriguz doped last year and not this year
Are you saying Chris use to dope but now dopes less and got faster. Which would seem odd. Or are you saying he was always clean and just started doping this year? He seems to have been used twice in the past as a bench mark for plausible power out put
Or are you just saying I'll randomly fling mud about as he annoyed me
Annoyed final thought
I suppose the solution is to tell riders to finish in the order of the world rankings or something. That would save shutting all the roads as well.
I'm not sure Big Mig should be used as an example of why someone else didn't dope.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-indurain-and-banesto-were-conconi-clients
And didn't Delgado effectively get caught, then let off for taking a masking agent?
Just to beat that with a completely daft example:I'm not sure Big Mig should be used as an example of why someone else didn't dope.
(granted he had an injury but) The amount of time Horner had to prepare for this single long tour only really compares to a couple of riders, and Lance in particular. Maybe that's what made the difference, assuming a level playing field in the actual race (all on or all off the juice) ?
Who knows whether either or both was off his tits on epo for all that training or if just the length of time was the key, or of course there could be no parallel to draw at all
