Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

rayjay

ddraver wrote:

rayjay wrote:

ddraver wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Everything you have said I could say the exact opposite

The whole tread could be summed up by this next sentence - Rick has evidence for what he says, you do not

He has no evidence. Just a load of figures and an opinion that can be read anyway you want to read it. i.e. you want to believe Sky are clean and some of us have our suspicions. These Same things could have been said when Armstrong was winning and from the fall out there are a lot of upset fans who feel they were duped." Shock pro athlete dopes " of course they do ,they want to win and if you were in that position how do you know you would not dope? Most in cycling do and have , take a look .

Rick does nt need any becasue he's not making any claims (although he's been helped today by l'Equipe), you are claiming that Froome is doping (and please don't do the "i'm only suspicious" rubbish, that's so lame), therefore YOU DO NEED evidence.

A) I don't give the tiniest monekys twhat was said when armstrong was winning, he is irrelevant and C) (sic) That's absoloute rubbish becasue when Armstrong was winning we had the Andreu's, Emma, Backdated TUE's, positive EPO tests etc etc. Stop trying to change history!

Right this has gone round in circles too many times now, I'm out and you re on ze list, be a dear and PM me if you ever find any evidence will you?

No the Andreu stuff came a we bit later. I think when he was ousted from the team and his crazy wife got upset because they missed the Armstrong money train. We never hear Betsy talk about frankys doping issuesonly LAs. Equipe have been given Skys data ,so what, what do you expect it to say ? We have just got the Data from Sky and it confirms that their no 1 rider is doing something naughty . [im laughing ]
I agree it has gone round in circles yet you replied ...Line hook fish etc etc

disgruntledgoat

Armstrong's first Tour win had bags of medical waste being dumped by soigneurs and a backdated TUE. There was actual verifiable evidence against from the start.

rayjay

rob churchill wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

ddraver wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Everything you have said I could say the exact opposite

The whole tread could be summed up by this next sentence - Rick has evidence for what he says, you do not

ddraver you like to present an image of scientific maturity but your seemingly intransigent position that sky is clean is clouding your critical abilities. There was a time "scientists" claimed the world was flat and that the sailors who said otherwise were poorly educated idiots.

the truth is the whole sports been built with PED abuse in its DNA, its everywhere. Its still a magnificent spectacle.

And Contador is definitely the most exciting GT racer of several generations.

PS ROCK ON Buddy

Show me the evidence...Sky have today and it suggests that Froome is clean. 3 years I ve been waiting for some evidence that theyre doping. I can show you evidence that the world is round, see -


Seriously I ve been asked twice this morning to back up what I think. I really cannot understand people who think that its shutting down debate or trolling to ask for evidence! When I write reports at work I state explicitly what the observations are, what they might mean and then say what my interpretation is.

The doping fans are making wild accusations, they need to back them up

As for the fanboi nonsense, I think that's the fourth time this year i ve switched from being called a jealous Sky hater to a blind Sky Fanboi...which says it all really

You're wasting your time. There comes a point when you have to recognise that there is simply no common ground on which to have a discussion with some people, no shared principles that make meaningful communication possible. That point is reached when they come out with something like the 'scientists once said the earth was flat' crap above. If you know that you could present the most solid, research based evidence imaginable and the other person will airily dismiss it with a wave of the hand saying "Oh, science - you can prove anything with science" then what's the point?

Let's see some scientists from an independent source spend some time with Froomy and see if he is Clean . Like I said I don't care if he his or not . But just to dimiss some very good points and stamp your own almost xenophobic views when you don't know for sure. If you were American and a postal fan you would be saying the exact same things about Armstrong. Look how that turned out.

rayjay

disgruntledgoat wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Even if you believe that the non-doping professional athlete is the exception - that virtually all successful sportmen/women are doping - this argument doesnt stand up. How exactly do you make it 'safe'? By limiting what atheletes can take and in what quantities? But wont the really ambitious (and/or stupid) people simply find a way around that and take what they want in whatever quantities they want. Legalising 'doping' - whatever the hell that means anyway - will likely lead to an escalation of doping.

what do you mean escalation of doping . Do you read the sports pages ?
I say lets get control, lets make it safe. If you don't want to take then you don't or leave things as they are and do nothing but make rules that won't stop sh%t. At least if we make it legal and controlled it might stop some of the deaths and near deaths tha occur. If someone wants to go crazy with drugs you are not going to stop them anyway and not catch them . Most athletes don't get caught. FACT.

Can you point me to a death or near death of an athlete thanks to doping since Ricardo Ricco?[/quot

Well then let them dope ,,,that reel is spinning

Jez mon

rayjay wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Even if you believe that the non-doping professional athlete is the exception - that virtually all successful sportmen/women are doping - this argument doesnt stand up. How exactly do you make it 'safe'? By limiting what atheletes can take and in what quantities? But wont the really ambitious (and/or stupid) people simply find a way around that and take what they want in whatever quantities they want. Legalising 'doping' - whatever the hell that means anyway - will likely lead to an escalation of doping.

what do you mean escalation of doping . Do you read the sports pages ?
I say lets get control, lets make it safe. If you don't want to take then you don't or leave things as they are and do nothing but make rules that won't stop sh%t. At least if we make it legal and controlled it might stop some of the deaths and near deaths tha occur. If someone wants to go crazy with drugs you are not going to stop them anyway and not catch them . Most athletes don't get caught. FACT.

But that's just silly :roll: You'd still be using the same tests which are currently used, but putting the limits up a bit to allow a bit of doping. Now those that are currently doping will still push the envelope, and go beyond those limits, but use the current methods they use to get past the tests to allow themselves to pass the tests, or to put it another way, they will be encouraged to go beyond the safe limits. Those currently not doping, will probably be forced to either retire, or dope.

It sounds a wonderful idea, but in practice, it's stupid

nic_77

rayjay (and some others), is there any chance you could proof read your posts before submitting? And perhaps insert some line breaks to separate your various 'points'?

The content is bad enough, but the posts are also very difficult to read.

Much obliged.

Turfle

The twitter/clinic hypocrisy is getting to me today. I'm having a milkshake.

rayjay

rob churchill wrote:

rayjay wrote:

blah blah blah ... As for listing all the possible effects of a drug. There can be horrid side effects from just taking asprin etc etc. If you read the possible effect of any drug and thought that could happen to you, you would not take. blah blah blah.

You said that EPO should be legalised because, unlike steroids, it's safe. The evidence you presented for your assertion that EPO is safer than steroids was that you had never heard of anyone dying from it*

Other posters here immediately pointed out that EPO was put on the banned list following a rash of deaths among athletes which were linked to the drug. I provided evidence from an authoritative source that clinical trials link EPO to excess mortality, particularly when used to push blood values beyond usual levels - which is precisely how athletes use it.

You are therefore shown to be wrong. " So lets ban Smoking . Ban booze . Make Fat people pay for the cost of their health issues . Its a weak argument in the real world of pro sports. "

You cannot counter the evidence with evidence of your own, so instead you dismiss it. You make a silly comment about all drugs having side-effects. I am a healthcare professional with 25 years experience and I can tell the difference between the level of risk associated with aspirin and the level of risk associated with EPO. I know that MHRA/CHM advice is for clinicians to carefully balance the risks and benefits before prescribing this powerful drug, to avoid using it if alternatives such as blood transfusion are available, and not to use it to correct anaemias unless the anaemia is actually causing real problems for the patient. Maybe you can't tell the difference: that's fine, but perhaps you might then refrain from pretending you can and declaring one drug to be safer than another?

You whine about not being allowed your own opinion. You are allowed your own opinion, you're not allowed your own facts.

* this is technically known as the argument from complete, total, and utter ignorance.

I missed this somehow , I dont whine. My wife likes to drink wine. I just call it as I see it. I never said one drug is safer than another. But some are FACT and as you know nothing about me you cannot presume to what I know and don't know. FACTOID. As for evidence Sky are doing something naughty I and many others have been over that. Ignorance is bliss ,a .

rayjay

Jez mon wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Even if you believe that the non-doping professional athlete is the exception - that virtually all successful sportmen/women are doping - this argument doesnt stand up. How exactly do you make it 'safe'? By limiting what atheletes can take and in what quantities? But wont the really ambitious (and/or stupid) people simply find a way around that and take what they want in whatever quantities they want. Legalising 'doping' - whatever the hell that means anyway - will likely lead to an escalation of doping.

what do you mean escalation of doping . Do you read the sports pages ?
I say lets get control, lets make it safe. If you don't want to take then you don't or leave things as they are and do nothing but make rules that won't stop sh%t. At least if we make it legal and controlled it might stop some of the deaths and near deaths tha occur. If someone wants to go crazy with drugs you are not going to stop them anyway and not catch them . Most athletes don't get caught. FACT.

But that's just silly :roll: You'd still be using the same tests which are currently used, but putting the limits up a bit to allow a bit of doping. Now those that are currently doping will still push the envelope, and go beyond those limits, but use the current methods they use to get past the tests to allow themselves to pass the tests, or to put it another way, they will be encouraged to go beyond the safe limits. Those currently not doping, will probably be forced to either retire, or dope.

It sounds a wonderful idea, but in practice, it's stupid[/quote

Why would you need to test for doping, doping would be legal. Money etc etc could be put to a better use. You would not have to keep developing new ways to beat tests . Just develop safer ways for athletes to do what they feel they need to do .
I think you need to look our drugs work. You make nice words but it really lacks any insight. Good try though.
what excatly is pushing the envelope. All athletes reach a limit and it's best they are educated and not left like in Ricos case to nearly kill themsleves. Dopers have and are way ahead of the testers it's as simple as that. We have a spate of athletes busted then the dopers find new ways to beat the tests. In practice it could work just fine IMO
People are so scared to think outside the box .
I mean how can you be shocked when a athlete gets busted for doping . UCI etc etc all these sporting bodies just play the money game . They know whats going on but have to keep a happy balance i.e." we had no idea that athlete was doping " it's gone way beyond sport because the rewards for all are so good and they all want a peice of the pie . Thats why Armstrong never got busted earlier. He made everyone a lot of money . Peace and fish fingers ya all XXX for the ladies out there .

nic_77

nic_77 wrote:

rayjay (and some others), is there any chance you could proof read your posts before submitting? And perhaps insert some line breaks to separate your various 'points'?

The content is bad enough, but the posts are also very difficult to read.

Much obliged.

That'll be a no then. Thanks anyway.

rob churchill

rayjay wrote:

I never said one drug is safer than another.

Oh yes you did...

rayjay wrote:

I have never heard of anyone dying taking EPO , There are loads of old pro cyclists around who doped . Taking steriods and other peds is a different issue and the cause of a lot of deaths .
EPO could be and has been used without any consequences .

Also I notice that when you quoted me, you altered the wording of my post, inserting some rubbish about banning booze and cigarettes and taxing fat people, which I never wrote. Don't do that.

rayjay wrote:

fish fingers ya all XXX for the ladies out there .

Tacky. Get back to the bottom bracket where you belong.

plectrum

Do dopers struggle because they miss a tiny gel feed??? Those gels must be fucking awesome! Muppets.

mfin

I think everyone should just ignore Rayjay. He says he knows Sky are doping, but (1) he doesn't, and (2) he's got absolutely no evidence of it whatsoever, which is the same for anyone who has an opinion that they are.

As for 'letting rider's dope', well (1) that's not going to happen, and (2) if it did, which it won't, it would increase the health risks and danger for a lot of riders, and (3) see point 1 again.

This thread is fuelled by a lot of reaction to a few people who have no evidence at all. Even if anyone for Sky was 'done' for doping, there is nothing said by anyone in this thread that could make them say 'I told you they were doping' as it's based on nothing, it's just guesswork, un-scientific guesswork at that.

I suggest people pop back if and when there is some evidence.

Oh, and comparing guesswork speculation to all that came out about Armstrong over the years is a joke to be honest.

Monty Zoncolan

Do not feed the troll.

above_the_cows

If you ignore the existence of fairies they die. The same can be said here, if you ignore the few believers fueling this thread, they will die, or at the very least be shouting in an empty, echo filled thread of nothing but their own voice.

slim_boy_fat

mfin wrote:

I think everyone should just ignore Rayjay.

Word.

negativelycra

Lol, rayjay is a walking advert for education.

dang100

Does anyone know why only 4 riders are tested each day? Is there anything stopping them testing all the riders every day? Or all riders every 2 days. It seems like, if you don't win a stage and you don't wear the yellow jersey - if for example, you're a domestique - you've got about a 70 per cent chance of getting away with it.

meggiedude

Monty Zoncolan wrote:

Do not feed the troll.

S'true this. The trouble is on pretty much any forum there are those who delight in being said Scandinavian mythical creature, and those who also delight in keeping them nice and plump.
Trolls will be trolls and Troll feeders will be Troll-feeders.
Pretty much guarantee this kind of discussion will self perpetuate.

slim_boy_fat

dang100 wrote:

Does anyone know why only 4 riders are tested each day? Is there anything stopping them testing all the riders every day? Or all riders every 2 days. It seems like, if you don't win a stage and you don't wear the yellow jersey - if for example, you're a domestique - you've got about a 70 per cent chance of getting away with it.

Probably a matter of logistics and cost. Remember though, cyclists are tested way more than other sports. I'm sure I read somewhere that tennis carries out only about 30 out of comp tests per year. For all its bad press about doping I reckon if you started digging in other sports the problem would be much worse.

ddraver

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

mfin wrote:

I think everyone should just ignore Rayjay.

Word.

'ee is on ze list already

disgruntledgoat

meggiedude wrote:

Monty Zoncolan wrote:

Do not feed the troll.

S'true this. The trouble is on pretty much any forum there are those who delight in being said Scandinavian mythical creature, and those who also delight in keeping them nice and plump.
Trolls will be trolls and Troll feeders will be Troll-feeders.
Pretty much guarantee this kind of discussion will self perpetuate.

Disagree, people who diasgree with you aren't trolls. They just disagree with you. Calling them names is a bad way to deal with dissenting opinions

rayjay

rob churchill wrote:

rayjay wrote:

I never said one drug is safer than another.

Oh yes you did... rayjay " no I did not . But some drugs are safer than others"

rayjay wrote:

I have never heard of anyone dying taking EPO , There are loads of old pro cyclists around who doped . Taking steriods and other peds is a different issue and the cause of a lot of deaths .
EPO could be and has been used without any consequences .

Also I notice that when you quoted me, you altered the wording of my post, inserting some rubbish about banning booze and cigarettes and taxing fat people, which I never wrote. Don't do that.
rayjay " I was not altering your post ,just making a point of my own"

rayjay wrote:

fish fingers ya all XXX for the ladies out there .

Tacky. Get back to the bottom bracket where you belong.

rayjay "Thats your opinon I think it is just a bit of fun , why has it made you so angry . I have made my points but have not insulted you or any other poster yet you feel it's ok to insult me . "

rayjay

mfin wrote:

I think everyone should just ignore Rayjay. He says he knows Sky are doping, but (1) he doesn't, and (2) he's got absolutely no evidence of it whatsoever, which is the same for anyone who has an opinion that they are.

rayjay. "I have my suspicions. They maybe doing something new. As for evidence. Leinders and levels of performance go hand in hand. Riders who have got to levels they could never get to before. 4 or 5 riders from 1 team dropping climbers. Some of the fastest times recorded beating times set by known dopers . I think that is enough to raise suspicion .If you choose to ignore it that is your choice.

As for 'letting rider's dope', well (1) that's not going to happen, and (2) if it did, which it won't, it would increase the health risks and danger for a lot of riders, and (3) see point 1 again.
rayjay" again that is your opinion . But with Drs making sure riders are looking after the health if they are going to dope then health risks will be less not more. Their will be no need to take risks.

This thread is fuelled by a lot of reaction to a few people who have no evidence at all. Even if anyone for Sky was 'done' for doping, there is nothing said by anyone in this thread that could make them say 'I told you they were doping' as it's based on nothing, it's just guesswork, un-scientific guesswork at that.
rayjay " See above"

I suggest people pop back if and when there is some evidence.

Oh, and comparing guesswork speculation to all that came out about Armstrong over the years is a joke to be honest.

rayjay" No it is not. The same questions that Froome and WIggins have been asked were the same asked about Armstrong.

iainf72

WADA confirm they're not the folks for this analysis work

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/ ... ata_295907

In other news, bears poop in the Vatican hat shops

Jez mon

rayjay wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

But that's just silly :roll: You'd still be using the same tests which are currently used, but putting the limits up a bit to allow a bit of doping. Now those that are currently doping will still push the envelope, and go beyond those limits, but use the current methods they use to get past the tests to allow themselves to pass the tests, or to put it another way, they will be encouraged to go beyond the safe limits. Those currently not doping, will probably be forced to either retire, or dope.

It sounds a wonderful idea, but in practice, it's stupid

Why would you need to test for doping, doping would be legal. Money etc etc could be put to a better use. You would not have to keep developing new ways to beat tests . Just develop safer ways for athletes to do what they feel they need to do .
I think you need to look our drugs work. You make nice words but it really lacks any insight. Good try though.
what excatly is pushing the envelope. All athletes reach a limit and it's best they are educated and not left like in Ricos case to nearly kill themsleves. Dopers have and are way ahead of the testers it's as simple as that. We have a spate of athletes busted then the dopers find new ways to beat the tests. In practice it could work just fine IMO
People are so scared to think outside the box .
I mean how can you be shocked when a athlete gets busted for doping . UCI etc etc all these sporting bodies just play the money game . They know whats going on but have to keep a happy balance i.e." we had no idea that athlete was doping " it's gone way beyond sport because the rewards for all are so good and they all want a peice of the pie . Thats why Armstrong never got busted earlier. He made everyone a lot of money . Peace and fish fingers ya all XXX for the ladies out there .

You'd need testing, because as I read it, your idea is to try and make doping legal and safe, the way to do that is to get safe limits, and ensure that they are kept to. Having a doping free for all, is not safe, that's because an incredibly efficient way to perform better as a cyclist is to get more oxygen into your muscles. How do you do that, by carrying more red blood cells. What's the trade off with more red blood cells? Thicker blood, what does thicker blood mean? Potential heart attacks when you're sleeping.

Athletes aren't going to find their own safe limits, well some are, but they aren't going to win. You're dealing with young men who throw themselves down mountains at ~50mph wearing crash lids made of polystyrene and very little else...and you trust them to make good decisions with regards to their own health?

dang100

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

dang100 wrote:

Does anyone know why only 4 riders are tested each day? Is there anything stopping them testing all the riders every day? Or all riders every 2 days. It seems like, if you don't win a stage and you don't wear the yellow jersey - if for example, you're a domestique - you've got about a 70 per cent chance of getting away with it.

Probably a matter of logistics and cost. Remember though, cyclists are tested way more than other sports. I'm sure I read somewhere that tennis carries out only about 30 out of comp tests per year. For all its bad press about doping I reckon if you started digging in other sports the problem would be much worse.

It just seems a bit half-hearted to only test 4 people after each stage. Why not 10 or 20? The Tour de France could pass the cost onto the teams

rayjay

Jez mon wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

But that's just silly :roll: You'd still be using the same tests which are currently used, but putting the limits up a bit to allow a bit of doping. Now those that are currently doping will still push the envelope, and go beyond those limits, but use the current methods they use to get past the tests to allow themselves to pass the tests, or to put it another way, they will be encouraged to go beyond the safe limits. Those currently not doping, will probably be forced to either retire, or dope.

It sounds a wonderful idea, but in practice, it's stupid

Why would you need to test for doping, doping would be legal. Money etc etc could be put to a better use. You would not have to keep developing new ways to beat tests . Just develop safer ways for athletes to do what they feel they need to do .
I think you need to look our drugs work. You make nice words but it really lacks any insight. Good try though.
what excatly is pushing the envelope. All athletes reach a limit and it's best they are educated and not left like in Ricos case to nearly kill themsleves. Dopers have and are way ahead of the testers it's as simple as that. We have a spate of athletes busted then the dopers find new ways to beat the tests. In practice it could work just fine IMO
People are so scared to think outside the box .
I mean how can you be shocked when a athlete gets busted for doping . UCI etc etc all these sporting bodies just play the money game . They know whats going on but have to keep a happy balance i.e." we had no idea that athlete was doping " it's gone way beyond sport because the rewards for all are so good and they all want a peice of the pie . Thats why Armstrong never got busted earlier. He made everyone a lot of money . Peace and fish fingers ya all XXX for the ladies out there .

You'd need testing, because as I read it, your idea is to try and make doping legal and safe, the way to do that is to get safe limits, and ensure that they are kept to. Having a doping free for all, is not safe, that's because an incredibly efficient way to perform better as a cyclist is to get more oxygen into your muscles. How do you do that, by carrying more red blood cells. What's the trade off with more red blood cells? Thicker blood, what does thicker blood mean? Potential heart attacks when you're sleeping.

Athletes aren't going to find their own safe limits, well some are, but they aren't going to win. You're dealing with young men who throw themselves down mountains at ~50mph wearing crash lids made of polystyrene and very little else...and you trust them to make good decisions with regards to their own health?

No athletes are going to adminster drugs it would be done by a Dr to make sure they are safe. That is part of my point. Sporting bodies can stop wasting their money on trying to catch dopers and invest it in finding safe ways to give pro athletes the performances they desire in a more even playing field and a safer one. Dopers have always been a step ahead of the testers and if you are smart you will not get caught. Ulrich,Basso, Rasmusen,Hincapie, DZ. etc etc never got a positive test. Time to try something new IMO . By the way I am one of those who zoom down mountains at 50mph and that has no bearing on weather I would choose to dope or not. What a silly thing to write.

Daz555

rayjay wrote:

No athletes are going to adminster drugs it would be done by a Dr to make sure they are safe. That is part of my point. Sporting bodies can stop wasting their money on trying to catch dopers and invest it safe ways to give pro athletes the performances they desire in a more even playing field and a safer one.

Are there safe ways to administer dangerous drugs?

All we'd get is a new 2 tier system - there would be no level playing field. We'd just see the guys who are "safe" dopers getting smashed up by the guys who take massive risks for victory.

Nothing would change at a competive level and the sport would be dead to newcomers. Children would NOT be encouraged to be competetive cyclists. No kids. No sport. Dead.

frisbee

rayjay wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

But that's just silly :roll: You'd still be using the same tests which are currently used, but putting the limits up a bit to allow a bit of doping. Now those that are currently doping will still push the envelope, and go beyond those limits, but use the current methods they use to get past the tests to allow themselves to pass the tests, or to put it another way, they will be encouraged to go beyond the safe limits. Those currently not doping, will probably be forced to either retire, or dope.

It sounds a wonderful idea, but in practice, it's stupid

Why would you need to test for doping, doping would be legal. Money etc etc could be put to a better use. You would not have to keep developing new ways to beat tests . Just develop safer ways for athletes to do what they feel they need to do .
I think you need to look our drugs work. You make nice words but it really lacks any insight. Good try though.
what excatly is pushing the envelope. All athletes reach a limit and it's best they are educated and not left like in Ricos case to nearly kill themsleves. Dopers have and are way ahead of the testers it's as simple as that. We have a spate of athletes busted then the dopers find new ways to beat the tests. In practice it could work just fine IMO
People are so scared to think outside the box .
I mean how can you be shocked when a athlete gets busted for doping . UCI etc etc all these sporting bodies just play the money game . They know whats going on but have to keep a happy balance i.e." we had no idea that athlete was doping " it's gone way beyond sport because the rewards for all are so good and they all want a peice of the pie . Thats why Armstrong never got busted earlier. He made everyone a lot of money . Peace and fish fingers ya all XXX for the ladies out there .

You'd need testing, because as I read it, your idea is to try and make doping legal and safe, the way to do that is to get safe limits, and ensure that they are kept to. Having a doping free for all, is not safe, that's because an incredibly efficient way to perform better as a cyclist is to get more oxygen into your muscles. How do you do that, by carrying more red blood cells. What's the trade off with more red blood cells? Thicker blood, what does thicker blood mean? Potential heart attacks when you're sleeping.

Athletes aren't going to find their own safe limits, well some are, but they aren't going to win. You're dealing with young men who throw themselves down mountains at ~50mph wearing crash lids made of polystyrene and very little else...and you trust them to make good decisions with regards to their own health?

No athletes are going to adminster drugs it would be done by a Dr to make sure they are safe. That is part of my point. Sporting bodies can stop wasting their money on trying to catch dopers and invest it in finding safe ways to give pro athletes the performances they desire in a more even playing field and a safer one. Dopers have always been a step ahead of the testers and if you are smart you will not get caught. Ulrich,Basso, Rasmusen,Hincapie, DZ. etc etc never got a positive test. Time to try something new IMO . By the way I am one of those who zoom down mountains at 50mph and that has no bearing on weather I would choose to dope or not. What a silly thing to write.

Yawn. Biological doping is for horse racing. :roll:

Mechanical doping for cyclists, motorbikes. Rossi, Lorenzo etc. should be racing around France.

Not Cal Crutchlow though, he claims to ride with Cavendish, which is clearly impossible for an amateur!