2 Dopers come 1st / 2nd in a race in Spain

1246

Comments

  • DeadCalm
    DeadCalm Posts: 4,249
    ShinyHelmut wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    jerry3571 wrote:
    (Riders use EPO to get their blood levels up to the magic 49.99% Hemocrit level; plus steroids for recovery etc).
    Erm, that is what they used to do. They would be caught by the biological passport now.

    So now they know the parameters of the biological passport and the clever ones with the fancy "training plans" stay within those parameters. The BP limits the effectiveness of doping but it it still possible to dope and not get caught.
    Absolutely. There are clearly riders still doping but with longitudinal testing the potential gains are significantly reduced. Plus it's a fair bit more complex ensuring that your blood parameters look 'normal' as opposed to simply ensuring your hematocrit doesn't exceed the threshold.
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    DeadCalm wrote:
    ShinyHelmut wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    jerry3571 wrote:
    (Riders use EPO to get their blood levels up to the magic 49.99% Hemocrit level; plus steroids for recovery etc).
    Erm, that is what they used to do. They would be caught by the biological passport now.

    So now they know the parameters of the biological passport and the clever ones with the fancy "training plans" stay within those parameters. The BP limits the effectiveness of doping but it it still possible to dope and not get caught.
    Absolutely. There are clearly riders still doping but with longitudinal testing the potential gains are significantly reduced. Plus it's a fair bit more complex ensuring that your blood parameters look 'normal' as opposed to simply ensuring your hematocrit doesn't exceed the threshold.

    You'd like to think that the amount of effort and expense involved in tracking your blood parameters so much less effective forms of doping appear like your normal values over a number of years would put people off also.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    ShinyHelmut wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    jerry3571 wrote:
    (Riders use EPO to get their blood levels up to the magic 49.99% Hemocrit level; plus steroids for recovery etc).
    Erm, that is what they used to do. They would be caught by the biological passport now.

    So now they know the parameters of the biological passport and the clever ones with the fancy "training plans" stay within those parameters. The BP limits the effectiveness of doping but it it still possible to dope and not get caught.

    Yes, they can still dope within the parameters, but how much benefit does it give and is it worth the money and hassle? If the doping moves you from 20th to the podium it's probably worth it, but if it only moves you from 20th to 15th, you probably wouldn't bother.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    silverpigeon wrote:
    I'd rather watch a bunch of dopers ride an exciting race than Brad and Ryder win by default


    I'd rather watch clean riders that win thanks to a culmination of dedication, hard work and sacrifice. Failing that, then at least riders that admit to their past and apologise for lying to cycling fans and cheating their fellow riders.

    Froome clean? Really?
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    ThomThom wrote:
    silverpigeon wrote:
    I'd rather watch a bunch of dopers ride an exciting race than Brad and Ryder win by default


    I'd rather watch clean riders that win thanks to a culmination of dedication, hard work and sacrifice. Failing that, then at least riders that admit to their past and apologise for lying to cycling fans and cheating their fellow riders.

    Froome clean? Really?

    Got any actual evidence to the contrary?
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    ThomThom wrote:
    0B4k4.gif

    Was that Contador's legal teams defence at the CAS hearing?
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,556
    ThomThom wrote:
    silverpigeon wrote:
    I'd rather watch a bunch of dopers ride an exciting race than Brad and Ryder win by default


    I'd rather watch clean riders that win thanks to a culmination of dedication, hard work and sacrifice. Failing that, then at least riders that admit to their past and apologise for lying to cycling fans and cheating their fellow riders.

    Froome clean? Really?

    Well he couldn't stay with the two unrepentent dopers at the Vuelta, by some distance, so what does that say about your hero, rose tinted man?
  • bigmat
    bigmat Posts: 5,134
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    silverpigeon wrote:
    I'd rather watch a bunch of dopers ride an exciting race than Brad and Ryder win by default


    I'd rather watch clean riders that win thanks to a culmination of dedication, hard work and sacrifice. Failing that, then at least riders that admit to their past and apologise for lying to cycling fans and cheating their fellow riders.

    Froome clean? Really?

    Got any actual evidence to the contrary?

    Quite. People are welcome to their suspicions, but can we acknowledge that there is a difference between "looking a bit dodgy" and having actually been sanctioned for doping offences? I guess Froome ranks alongside J-Rod for me - I try not to be swayed by the fact that J-Rod is Spanish, rides for Katusha etc etc.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/41991871@N ... otostream/
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    I agree BigMat, I don't mind people mocking, hating or whatever those who have tested positive or have evidence such that any fair minded person could be swayed by against them. Equally, I don't mind people expressing support, admiration for those guys.

    What annoys me is specualtion and insinuation without evidence about riders. Evidence such as "being quite good at bike racing" doesn't cut it.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • lloyd_bower
    lloyd_bower Posts: 664
    Turfle wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-in-my-mind-ive-won-seven-grand-tours

    "Contador believes it’s the memory of seven overall wins that matters and not what the record books show."

    "Mentally, it is the image of the grand tours that I won," said Contador to La Dernière Heure.

    "That other number appears on paper, it is ultimately secondary to me. What matters is my own feeling and the impressions that remain in the retina of the spectators," he said.

    What sort of reality does he live in? Complete idiot!

    He's a prick making those comments, and has no respect (or a very skewed one) for the sport he earns a living from.
    "What matters is my own feeling and the impressions that remain in the retina of the spectators," he said.

    Thats alright then, cos my retinas saw an unrepentent, fairy-story-creating, lying, cheating jerk making a comeback win after a Ban that didn't dish out what he deserved from his repeated doping, bullshitting, and being an all round vanilla personalitied dimwitted tw@t. Apart from that, I like him.

    The amount of cycling fans who say he is still the rightful winner in their eyes is pretty sickening.

    So,so agree.

    It's been a bad couple of months for any chance of a rebirth of cycling, an unrepentant doper winning the Olympic Road with Vinokourav, and now two more in Contador, Valverde 1-2 in the Vuelta.

    The 98' Festina scandal should have been a chance to clean up cycling, instead we had Pantani leading a protest against the drug tests at the start of stage, and Armstrong beginning his run of 7 tour titles the year after despite what we now know was a positive test in his very first win (the backdated medical certificate).

    The Puerto affair the year after Armstrong's last win, should have been another opportunity to clean things up, but no wasted again.

    Now we have Armstrong's wins being removed by his failure contest the USDA charges (FWIW I don't believe it's worth removing them now, a * against each and every one would be better), and yet we have confirmed unrepentant dopers fighting it out at the Vuelta, and yet more than half the posters on the forum are creaming themselves in excitement. If cycling fans are keen to turn a blind eye, who can blame the UCI for the failures in the past?

    I'd much prefer a clean sport, but looking at the Vuelta we're not getting it. It wouldn't be so bad if Contador and Valverde would admit to their doping, but no chance. Contador as all the connections... Puerto affair, the DS's he's ridden for, the failed test, he's very much Lance Mark II, yet some forumites are happy to heap praise on him, and yet on other threads pour scorn on Armstrong.
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    silverpigeon wrote:
    I'd rather watch a bunch of dopers ride an exciting race than Brad and Ryder win by default


    I'd rather watch clean riders that win thanks to a culmination of dedication, hard work and sacrifice. Failing that, then at least riders that admit to their past and apologise for lying to cycling fans and cheating their fellow riders.

    Froome clean? Really?

    Got any actual evidence to the contrary?

    Not more than the thousands of posts I've read in here stating Purito, Valverde and Contador were doping during the Vuelta...
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    Whataboutery eh?

    So it's unacceptable to implicate Contador and Purito but OK to do he same for Froome?

    For me, I'm happier (for reasons detailed above) to see questioning of one of those riders performances than the other two given he's been banned for a positive test, worked for Riis, Bruyneel and Manolo Saiz and never, not once uttered an admission or a condemnation of cheating.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    edited September 2012
    Dorset Boy wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    silverpigeon wrote:
    I'd rather watch a bunch of dopers ride an exciting race than Brad and Ryder win by default


    I'd rather watch clean riders that win thanks to a culmination of dedication, hard work and sacrifice. Failing that, then at least riders that admit to their past and apologise for lying to cycling fans and cheating their fellow riders.

    Froome clean? Really?

    Well he couldn't stay with the two unrepentent dopers at the Vuelta, by some distance, so what does that say about your hero, rose tinted man?

    That he had just been riding the Tour De France - although while sitting down 90% of the time with a pulse 20... Had Froome actually won this Vuelta it would have been an achievement not seen since Hinault. Some in here are way too busy clearing Team Sky and british riders and pointing fingers at others. There is plenty of material to make more than a handful Sky riders and staff dodgy.

    Lying? Was Wiggins lying here as well?

    "If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that.
    Hopefully in 2 years time I might win the Time Trial and be a credible Time Trial winner because I haven't beated someone by 2 minutes."
  • Mad_Malx
    Mad_Malx Posts: 5,182
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    I agree BigMat, I don't mind people mocking, hating or whatever those who have tested positive or have evidence such that any fair minded person could be swayed by against them. Equally, I don't mind people expressing support, admiration for those guys.

    What annoys me is specualtion and insinuation without evidence about riders. Evidence such as "being quite good at bike racing" doesn't cut it.

    +1

    The Vuelta forums were spoiled for me by the relentless doping posts. The following are all apperently proof of doping:
    1. Performing well (because they are doping)
    2. Performing badly (because they are not doping today but obviously did previously to get on their ride)
    3. Being foreign
    4. Being in Team Sky
    5. Being on any team that has ever had a doper on it

    I'm certainly not in denial that there is a problem, but by definition winners are the ones with extraordinary physiological and psychological strength. Just sometimes, it might not involve pharmacology.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,725
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    Whataboutery eh?

    So it's unacceptable to implicate Contador and Purito but OK to do he same for Froome?

    For me, I'm happier (for reasons detailed above) to see questioning of one of those riders performances than the other two given he's been banned for a positive test, worked for Riis, Bruyneel and Manolo Saiz and never, not once uttered an admission or a condemnation of cheating.

    I find it interesting that Sky have now signed two of Valverde's Movistar team mates.
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sky-add ... 013-season

    While this should certainly raise an eyebrow or two from those who think Spain (and fairly obviously Moviestar)
    remains to home of systematic doping, methinks it might also serve to pour some oil onto troubled waters.

    Surely, Sky would stay at least a couple of connections from anyone in Valverde's mob, unless they felt the current climate offers pretty safe signing potential?
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    edited September 2012
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    Whataboutery eh?

    So it's unacceptable to implicate Contador and Purito but OK to do he same for Froome?

    No.
    Again, I've seen countless of posts claiming that Purito, Valverde and Alberto were doping during this Vuelta. Based on as little as my claim against Froome. The stage threads were completely ruined by some ridiculous comments after the most fantastic stages seen for a long long time with tactical textbook stuff and exiting attacks that were not even close as being 'kamikaze attacks', *Floyd Landis-ish' and 'stating the obvious'.

    They funnily enough began after Froome started suffering...
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    edited September 2012
    Blazing Saddles wrote:

    I find it interesting that Sky have now signed two of Valverde's Movistar team mates.
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sky-add ... 013-season

    While this should certainly raise an eyebrow or two from those who think Spain (and fairly obviously Moviestar)
    remains to home of systematic doping, methinks it might also serve to pour some oil onto troubled waters.

    Surely, Sky would stay at least a couple of connections from anyone in Valverde's mob, unless they felt the current climate offers pretty safe signing potential?
    Nicolas Portal gives them some inside knowledge though - an actual portal if you will. He still knows all those guys. It's the same with the fuss about Leinders. I image Sky had a word with Flecha and Hayman before hiring him.

    I would actually suggest that teams where doping is going on would be a decent place for a clean team to recruit. Even on the dirtiest teams there are clean riders and they are the ones that are most likely being underused and undervalued. Give them an opportunity and they may well provide great value for money.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • inkyfingers
    inkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    Whataboutery eh?

    So it's unacceptable to implicate Contador and Purito but OK to do he same for Froome?

    For me, I'm happier (for reasons detailed above) to see questioning of one of those riders performances than the other two given he's been banned for a positive test, worked for Riis, Bruyneel and Manolo Saiz and never, not once uttered an admission or a condemnation of cheating.

    I find it interesting that Sky have now signed two of Valverde's Movistar team mates.
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sky-add ... 013-season

    While this should certainly raise an eyebrow or two from those who think Spain (and fairly obviously Moviestar)
    remains to home of systematic doping, methinks it might also serve to pour some oil onto troubled waters.

    Surely, Sky would stay at least a couple of connections from anyone in Valverde's mob, unless they felt the current climate offers pretty safe signing potential?

    Sky have previously signed Uran and Zandio from Caisse d'Epargne so it's probably a bit late to worry about the negative connotations of this move.
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    ThomThom wrote:
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    Whataboutery eh?

    So it's unacceptable to implicate Contador and Purito but OK to do he same for Froome?

    No.
    Again, I've seen countless of posts claiming that Purito, Valverde and Alberto were doping during this Vuelta. Based on as little as my claim against Froome. The stage threads were completely ruined by some ridiculous comments after the most fantastic stages seen for a long long time with tactical textbook stuff and exiting attacks that were not even close as being 'kamikaze attacks', *Floyd Landis-ish' and 'stating the obvious'.

    They funnily enough began after Froome started suffering...

    So you thought the best way to counter people doing something you didn't like was to do the same?
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • DeadCalm
    DeadCalm Posts: 4,249
    edited September 2012
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    Whataboutery eh?
    I'd never heard this expression before so looked it up. I like it. The expression that is. The use of whataboutery to deflect criticism I find tedious and childish.
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    edited September 2012
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    Whataboutery eh?

    So it's unacceptable to implicate Contador and Purito but OK to do he same for Froome?

    No.
    Again, I've seen countless of posts claiming that Purito, Valverde and Alberto were doping during this Vuelta. Based on as little as my claim against Froome. The stage threads were completely ruined by some ridiculous comments after the most fantastic stages seen for a long long time with tactical textbook stuff and exiting attacks that were not even close as being 'kamikaze attacks', *Floyd Landis-ish' and 'stating the obvious'.

    They funnily enough began after Froome started suffering...

    So you thought the best way to counter people doing something you didn't like was to do the same?

    Just following the stream in what seems to be the normal practice in here. I tried to put some sense into the posters, in the race threads during the Vuelta, who were claiming everyone who did well in the Vuelta were doping - the effect of that tactic soon faded..
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    So do you even believe Froome to be cheating or are you just on the wind up on people who don't like your favourite riders?
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,556
    I don't recall anyone suggesting Purito was doping.

    i do recall many being worried about Valverde's performances from early on.

    The questionning of Contador's performances only started on the day after the rest day, when he rode away from the peleton and the other GC contenders, a classic tactic of the rest day doper, and only the other convicted doper (of the GC riders) nearly caught him. Prior to that there was no questionning of his performance on the Vuelta (other than him not being able to make an attack stick), but there was a regular condemnation of him for not maning up and accepting his ban properly.

    Think rose tinted man, you need to check the sequence of events, and remember the facts about your hero.
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    edited September 2012
    What did Contador do on stage 17 that was so questioning and 'classic rest day doper' ish? Attacking on the last part of a cat2 climb, catching up with 3 teammates and Tiralongo who works on the flat until grilled and then attacking alone using that gap his teammates created on the flat. It's not like he kept an entire peloton away - in fact, he was pretty much caught by the group behind him. Nothing spectacular about it at all.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,695
    In fairness to Thom (and nothing depresses he more), it does appear he is in a massive majority....
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    ddraver wrote:
    In fairness to Thom (and nothing depresses he more), it does appear he is in a massive majority....
    What, a massive majority have a man crush on Bert?
  • jerry3571
    jerry3571 Posts: 1,532
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    jerry3571 wrote:
    I think unless the Anti doping lot are able to get ahead of the curve and be able to have credible tests then we're all fumbling around in the dark. Riders can dope and have realistic wattage figures. Just because it's believable doesn't means it genuine. (Riders use EPO to get their blood levels up to the magic 49.99% Hemocrit level; plus steroids for recovery etc).
    Wanting proper dope tests is a bit like catching a thief before a crime has been committed. A lot of Labs are in the sideline business of developing drugs which give performance without a positive test. I think it has been said about a new EPO and steroid which is undetectable from China so again the testers are behind the curve. At the end of the day, with cycling, we're all on a hiding to nothing.

    Feel sorry for Charly Wegelius as when Contador got busted, Charly lost his job.

    Jerry




    What was the story on Wegelius losing his job through that?

    I read an article in Procycling about Charly when he was about to sign for Saxo Bank at the time AC got banned. After AC's ban, I guess, Saxo Bank's GC plans were on hold to which Charly was to play a key role in the mountains. Charly's since found a job within cycling but still had to retire before he wanted.
    Also, Mr Pisterolo's positive test sent potential sponsors running to the hills stopping Leopard Trek's new sponsors from taking over. This of course ending up in the unhappy marriage of Leopard Trek and Radioshack and so laying off loads more riders and staff. (Procycling article again)

    Jerry

    Sorry for the late reply, I had a Hill Climb to put on tonight. Happy days! :)
    “Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein

    "You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
    -Jacques Anquetil
  • Mikey23
    Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    He's not the messiah, he's just a very naughty boy ... X
  • jerry3571
    jerry3571 Posts: 1,532
    Mikey23 wrote:
    He's not the messiah, he's just a very naughty boy ... X

    I think that just about covers it. Can't trump that. I'm off home, job done. :wink:
    “Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein

    "You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
    -Jacques Anquetil
  • Gavin Cook
    Gavin Cook Posts: 307
    The fact they have served their bans means nothing at all if they don't admit they are guilty.

Categories