Michael Rogers Positive for Clenbuterol
Comments
-
whiteboytrash wrote:I reported this post as you've modified my posting.
Curiously apt typo in it as well. Agreed?
What I object to most is your reflex ridiculing, from a position of insouciant ignorance, of posters who freely give of their expertise in a constructive manner which enhances my enjoyment of this forum enormously. If you are allowed to keep this up, fewer will post in this manner. You will have directly harmed me. You'll be banned sooner or later. I hope it's sooner....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Joelism so what riders do you think are clean (if any) and what riders do you consider out and out dopers
Come on - put your money where your mouth is and name names0 -
Joelsim wrote:To be honest fellas (and lasses), WBT has many thoughts that are completely valid. If you want to be ostriches then fair enough, but I really feel you are being a tad unfair and naive.
Judging how I'm personally attacked again and again means their might be something in what I'm presenting.
What I do find odd is that people here on this forum just make up anything to give a rider a pass because they ride or rode for Sky.
I also find it odd is that most here chase me down rather than just discuss the topic. There's so much intensity to make me wrong, why?
Maybe that will validate their own views on Sky and doping? Not sure.0 -
Stop spouting rubbish and give us the Freiburg link - that might shut a few of us up0
-
whiteboytrash wrote:Joelsim wrote:To be honest fellas (and lasses), WBT has many thoughts that are completely valid. If you want to be ostriches then fair enough, but I really feel you are being a tad unfair and naive.
Judging how I'm personally attacked again and again means their might be something in what I'm presenting.
What I do find odd is that people here on this forum just make up anything to give a rider a pass because they ride or rode for Sky.
I also find it odd is that most here chase me down rather than just discuss the topic. There's so much intensity to make me wrong, why?
Maybe that will validate their own views on Sky and doping? Not sure.
Most excellent0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Joelsim wrote:To be honest fellas (and lasses), WBT has many thoughts that are completely valid. If you want to be ostriches then fair enough, but I really feel you are being a tad unfair and naive.
Judging how I'm personally attacked again and again means their might be something in what I'm presenting.
What I do find odd is that people here on this forum just make up anything to give a rider a pass because they ride or rode for Sky.
I also find it odd is that most here chase me down rather than just discuss the topic. There's so much intensity to make me wrong, why?
Maybe that will validate their own views on Sky and doping? Not sure.
Some of the people that have "chased you down" hate Sky with a vengeance. Plenty of others are fairly indifferent to them.
Perhaps that might give you pause for thought?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Joelsim wrote:To be honest fellas (and lasses), WBT has many thoughts that are completely valid. If you want to be ostriches then fair enough, but I really feel you are being a tad unfair and naive.
There are doping problems in every sport, some more than others. ATM it appears that it is rayjay, WBT, me and WADA vs all of you. If you honestly think that doping isn't still a major factor in cycling then I really don't know what to suggest. Maybe a reality check.
Are you seriously suggesting that there are only two positions: WBT's reductive cycling=doping, or Ostrich? Why bother posting amongst such a bunch of loser morons?...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
dsoutar wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:He was a 6 and suspicious. Period.
On a list that made Armstrong a 4
Get a life
Edit: And I almost forgot - big George a 1 !!!
Fair question.
Hincapie wasn't winning mountain stages or half the rider in 2010 than 2005.
I think that explains that he gave the game away. He said as much in his affidavit.
Armstrong claims he didn't dope also by 2010 - not sure I believe that or if anyone does bar him.
He was being Investigated by Federal agents in 2010 and raced little and was sick. Alas his 2009 Giro/Tour was highly suspicious and probably got him to 4.
I'd also add that the UCI appeared to be his friend. No evidence of such but wouldn't surprise me if he was "curved" down in the passport system unbeknown to others. That's speculation. But plausible given McQuaid's behaviour to the USADA charges and closing down T&R etc.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Joelsim wrote:To be honest fellas (and lasses), WBT has many thoughts that are completely valid. If you want to be ostriches then fair enough, but I really feel you are being a tad unfair and naive.
Judging how I'm personally attacked again and again means their might be something in what I'm presenting.
I attack you because you are trying to turn this place into The Clinic 2, because nobody bothers posting to The Clinic if they disagree with 'thehog' any more: life is too short. Do you know 'thehog'?...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
chrisday wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Pays to research first before posting and set aside bias. .
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
*falls off chair*
That is priceless.
0 -
Macaloon wrote:Joelsim wrote:To be honest fellas (and lasses), WBT has many thoughts that are completely valid. If you want to be ostriches then fair enough, but I really feel you are being a tad unfair and naive.
There are doping problems in every sport, some more than others. ATM it appears that it is rayjay, WBT, me and WADA vs all of you. If you honestly think that doping isn't still a major factor in cycling then I really don't know what to suggest. Maybe a reality check.
Are you seriously suggesting that there are only two positions: WBT's reductive cycling=doping, or Ostrich? Why bother posting amongst such a bunch of loser morons?
Macaloon, are you really serious in that you feel that there isn't a doping issue in cycling? Still? I think we are all aware that it isn't at the level that it was, but if there isn't one then it will be just about the only sport. The dopers will always be one step ahead of the testers.
I personally think that the majority are doing something, not necessarily to give them a competitive advantage, but to keep them in the race. Witness the number of cyclists with asthma?
Just get real. It is a massively gruelling and intensive sport, one in which the smallest enhancement can mean everything...0 -
Joelsim: Everybody knows that the sport still has it's problems with doping.
All acknowledge this and the likelihood that Rogers is guilty.
However, most recognise that because of the circumstances, he might be innocent.
Therefore, they question negative speculation, when stated as FACT.
Your Fab 4 are convinced of his guilty, hold no possibility of innocence and accept speculation as FACT.
Who are the ostriches?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Macaloon wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Joelsim wrote:To be honest fellas (and lasses), WBT has many thoughts that are completely valid. If you want to be ostriches then fair enough, but I really feel you are being a tad unfair and naive.
Judging how I'm personally attacked again and again means their might be something in what I'm presenting.
I attack you because you are trying to turn this place into The Clinic 2, because nobody bothers posting to The Clinic if they disagree with 'thehog' any more: life is too short. Do you know 'thehog'?
You are attacked because you post again and again and again about the same old thing, Sky are doping. Never see your name on any thread that is not concerned with doping, however peripherally. You state your personal views as facts rather than opinions.
I have no love of Sky, but I believe there much publicised anti doping stance is part of the way forward for pro cycling.
When you start talking sense and connect with ordinary sensible conversation I will look at your posts. If you continue trolling I will not. 0 -
mike6 wrote:Macaloon wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Joelsim wrote:To be honest fellas (and lasses), WBT has many thoughts that are completely valid. If you want to be ostriches then fair enough, but I really feel you are being a tad unfair and naive.
Judging how I'm personally attacked again and again means their might be something in what I'm presenting.
I attack you because you are trying to turn this place into The Clinic 2, because nobody bothers posting to The Clinic if they disagree with 'thehog' any more: life is too short. Do you know 'thehog'?
You are attacked because you post again and again and again about the same old thing, Sky are doping. Never see your name on any thread that is not concerned with doping, however peripherally. You state your personal views as facts rather than opinions.
I have no love of Sky, but I believe there much publicised anti doping stance is part of the way forward for pro cycling.
When you start talking sense and connect with ordinary sensible conversation I will look at your posts. If you continue trolling I will not.
Fair points.
Just a question then; what is Sky's "publicised" anti doping stance you reference? What does this stance entail?
And why is it a way forward?
I'd be interested to know.0 -
Maybe it would be a good idea to wait until more information comes out about THIS SPECIFIC CASE before posting in this thread again as it seems to be devolving into a petty squabble over stuff that has nothing to do with the actual topic of the thread.
Just saying'.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Joelsim: Everybody knows that the sport still has it's problems with doping.
All acknowledge this and the likelihood that Rogers is guilty.
However, most recognise that because of the circumstances, he might be innocent.
Therefore, they question negative speculation, when stated as FACT.
Your Fab 4 are convinced of his guilty, hold no possibility of innocence and accept speculation as FACT.
Who are the ostriches?
Very very unlikely that he is innocent for sure, you can never say for definite as only he and a select few others know for sure. It does surprise me, however, with the vitriol directed towards WBT when he is simply being realistic. I suspect that there is much more to come out in the near future from Mr Cookson's enquiries and I also suspect that it will only be the tip of the iceberg.
There are many sports where doping provides a far bigger advantage, cycling is one of those, and doping de facto will be more prevalent. As stated many times before, I don't begrudge any of the riders for doing it, it is just the way it is, and in the same position given the choice between keeping up with the Jones's or falling by the wayside I know exactly what I would do.0 -
mike6 wrote:much publicised anti doping stance is part of the way forward for pro cycling.
I don't believe that Brailsford would risk his reputation on doping en masse.
But their lack of care taken in hiring many riders and staff needs to support the emboldened phrase you proffered.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:
What I do find odd is that people here on this forum just make up anything to give a rider a pass because they ride or rode for Sky.
Can you name 3?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Joelsim wrote:mike6 wrote:much publicised anti doping stance is part of the way forward for pro cycling.
I don't believe that Brailsford would risk his reputation on doping en masse.
But their lack of care taken in hiring many riders and staff needs to support the emboldened phrase you proffered.
Here's the rub, though.
Sky say they won't hire ex dopers.
But how do you actually determine that, if they don't have a conviction? Short of paying exorbitant consultancy fees to rayjay to watch them ride... According to you most of the peloton is still doping, so can they even put together a team if a rider has to be 100% above suspicion?
Personally I don't hold any rider completely above suspicion, and I acknowledge there are riders who are far more suspicious than others (yes, I'd put Rogers on that list, and Horner), but where to draw the line when there isn't any proof?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Joelsim wrote:mike6 wrote:much publicised anti doping stance is part of the way forward for pro cycling.
I don't believe that Brailsford would risk his reputation on doping en masse.
But their lack of care taken in hiring many riders and staff needs to support the emboldened phrase you proffered.
Here's the rub, though.
Sky say they won't hire ex dopers.
But how do you actually determine that, if they don't have a conviction? Short of paying exorbitant consultancy fees to rayjay to watch them ride... According to you most of the peloton is still doping, so can they even put together a team if a rider has to be 100% above suspicion?
Personally I don't hold any rider completely above suspicion, and I acknowledge there are riders who are far more suspicious than others (yes, I'd put Rogers on that list, and Horner), but where to draw the line when there isn't any proof?
Therein the difficulty lies. They probably pretty much know that they have a very very small pool to choose from. And he has retired.0 -
For what it is worth I'll re-iterate my position. I have no desire to either blindly condemn or defend any rider or team with respect to their stance of doping.
As it happens I have a great deal of suspicion in a number of specific riders (and indeed teams or at least team management)... this is my opinion. However, naming those names achieves nothing until individuals are convicted. I bet you can't guess how I'd vote on this poll?
However, if we are going to divert a discussion to the incorrect assessment of Bilharzia on a person's haematocrit or a misguided understanding of the spleen in haematopoietic function or a poor grasp of the licensing of beta2 agonists... please don't be offended if I correct the fundamental errors or aim to fill the gaps in knowledge. That isn't me giving you an opinion, just me providing accepted scientific fact.
Of course if any poster wishes to take that information and try to strap it to their own ill-conceived agenda then be my guest - we will be back into the world of opinions and I am unlikely to engage. Until such time as a truth serum becomes available we may never know whether any given opinion can be promoted to fact.
Many onlookers to this thread seem unable to grasp that a difference of opinion is absolutely laudable. Fabrication, inaccuracy and poor logic is not. Dopers will be caught by accurate, compelling evidence not offhand opinion.
And now for some (further off-topic) trolling of my own...
Charly Wegelius had his spleen removed in his younger days as did Alessandro Ballan in 2012. I reckon we could find some more examples too. I'm afraid I can't say whether any of these individuals had a subtotal splenectomy, embolisation or complete removal (and before you ask, yes this can have a significant impact on the later hormonal impact on the blood profile). Interestingly when Wegelius failed the haematocrit test in 2003 he was angry that this fact used as an 'excuse' by his team - even though his lack of spleen might have an effect on his blood profile he wanted to focus on his naturally high haematocrit (and the flawed nature of the 50% test) which would have been a potential problem for him with or without a spleen. I wonder what our opinion is of Wegelius? and Ballan?0 -
Joelsim wrote:
Therein the difficulty lies. They probably pretty much know that they have a very very small pool to choose from. And he has retired.
See, that's not actually realism, that's cynicism.
Sky is actually chock full of British track riders who Brailsford had worked with, knew the power data etc. and had a reasonable assumption that they were clean.
Other than Rogers, Yates and Leinders, is there anyone else Sky shouldn't have signed as they were a bit too suspicious?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Joelsim wrote:
Therein the difficulty lies. They probably pretty much know that they have a very very small pool to choose from. And he has retired.
See, that's not actually realism, that's cynicism.
Sky is actually chock full of British track riders who Brailsford had worked with, knew the power data etc. and had a reasonable assumption that they were clean.
Other than Rogers, Yates and Leinders, is there anyone else Sky shouldn't have signed as they were a bit too suspicious?
Yep, understand that. He should have looked more closely at JTL. Then there is Barry.
Many of the Sky riders are young which is good as most of the older ones are obviously a no-no.
Funnily enough I think he had a purge recently, tricky of course without the hard evidence.
The main problem now for him is that he has been so ultra successful, he really can't afford to take a chance on anyone, being successful has its PR downsides. This cuts down his options more than ever.0 -
Joelsim wrote:mike6 wrote:much publicised anti doping stance is part of the way forward for pro cycling.
I don't believe that Brailsford would risk his reputation on doping en masse.
But their lack of care taken in hiring many riders and staff needs to support the emboldened phrase you proffered.
That he may not.
You'd only have to look at the recent promotion of Cioni to DS to know nothing has changed on the hiring of suspicious characters.
Be that as it may its almost impossible to hire non-dopers or non-associated dopers in this day and age for staff.
The point being made the "self publicity" for anti-doping is only trotted out when a problem occurs - ref: JTL, Leinders.
Truth be told there is no anti-doping policy at Sky. None.0 -
To their credit, Team Sky can admit when they've made a mistake.
I'm still keen to see those Freiburg links when you get a second.0 -
nic_77 wrote:
And now for some (further off-topic) trolling of my own...
Charly Wegelius had his spleen removed in his younger days as did Alessandro Ballan in 2012. I reckon we could find some more examples too. I'm afraid I can't say whether any of these individuals had a subtotal splenectomy, embolisation or complete removal (and before you ask, yes this can have a significant impact on the later hormonal impact on the blood profile). Interestingly when Wegelius failed the haematocrit test in 2003 he was angry that this fact used as an 'excuse' by his team - even though his lack of spleen might have an effect on his blood profile he wanted to focus on his naturally high haematocrit (and the flawed nature of the 50% test) which would have been a potential problem for him with or without a spleen. I wonder what our opinion is of Wegelius? and Ballan?
I don't disagree with you. Thomas was "perplexed" with his 6. He didn't know why he would be a 6.
If it was due to the removal of his spleen and it caused his blood profile to "change" not due to doping then you'd think he'd know this. Yes?
Because in the day of bio-passports he has to know it. Because the UCI will have sent him a letter and he'd have to explain his profile. And Sky are leaders in this field and would know also, yes?
Its not an excuse. Its a very valid reason he has if its the cause of a variable profile. Its not something he'd hide if it was the cause of a changing profile and the reason he became a 6.
Wegelius issue was not when there was a passport and Ballen is still under investigation (oddly enough one of the drugs used is clem) and we don't know the full extent of his doping.
You're a smart guy. I don't doubt your knowledge. Just how you apply it is what I question.0 -
How did Barry go on the ol' suspicious list then?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
nic_77 wrote:To their credit, Team Sky can admit when they've made a mistake.
.
In some circles thats's called "damage control" or a "cover up" 0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Joelsim wrote:mike6 wrote:much publicised anti doping stance is part of the way forward for pro cycling.
I don't believe that Brailsford would risk his reputation on doping en masse.
But their lack of care taken in hiring many riders and staff needs to support the emboldened phrase you proffered.
That he may not.
You'd only have to look at the recent promotion of Cioni to DS to know nothing has changed on the hiring of suspicious characters.
Be that as it may its almost impossible to hire non-dopers or non-associated dopers in this day and age for staff.
The point being made the "self publicity" for anti-doping is only trotted out when a problem occurs - ref: JTL, Leinders.
Truth be told there is no anti-doping policy at Sky. None.
I agree on the lack of choice for sure.
Logically, given we now know what it was like a few years ago, it is pretty much odds-on that all hirings will have something to hide. You simply don't flourish against a peloton so full of dopers.
But he is in a very tricky position. He needs to make the sponsorship pay to the powers that be at Sky, when he started the team we didn't know as much as we know now, he has a history of success and a CBE for good reason (I hope as he has too much to lose), and of course the upshot of this is that he is accountable.
I'd love to chat to him honestly about the problems he has faced over the years.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:How did Barry go on the ol' suspicious list then?
He didn't. He admitted it.0
