J T-L
Comments
-
iainf72 wrote:
I've just been reading through that thread.
All a bit depressing, innit? (Not the thread, the whole thing).0 -
NorvernRob wrote:DB a doping mastermind? I don't get why anyone would waste so much of their life making up conspiracy theories.
Brailsford is best friends with convicted doper David Millar, so why would that be such a stretch?*
* - Although factually accurate, I am in fact being sarcastic. Don't moan at me.0 -
ContrelaMontre wrote:andyp wrote:Presumably all the forumites who got all uppity when some suggested his sudden improvement was worthy of scrutiny will be apologising shortly?
No, because one positive does not mean that we can decipher doping from performances.
But it does mean that every significant performance from that rider needs to be viewed with a degree of suspicion.0 -
The higher the standards, the greater the likelihood of failure. No-one's asking Katusha if they did due diligence on Ekimov, or Tinkoff on Kreuziger, because they made it clear they don't give a toss. I'd rather people tried and fell short, rather than not try at all.Joelsim wrote:Jez mon wrote:
Can we actually pin sky for not doing due diligence...I thought JTL s values only became visibly dodgy after a year of blood passport values allowing for baselines to be established etc.
Sky have failed to do due diligence on many staff so far. Not surprising really, trying to find someone who has been clean over the last decade or two must cut the candidate list down by about 99%.Twitter: @RichN950 -
That thread made me wonder where Afx is again. SighFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
Turfle wrote:iainf72 wrote:
I've just been reading through that thread.
All a bit depressing, innit? (Not the thread, the whole thing).
A healthy dose of realism is required sometimes - even if it's painful. We all want to believe the sport we love is clean, the reality is that it isn't and never will be (human nature being what it is).
I share your sentiments though, I was really pleased for him when he got a SKY contract. Goodness only knows where he goes from here. Will anyone touch him with a barge pole after this? I know convicted dopers have come back and had a career, but I am not sure if that'll be the case for JTL.0 -
From that thread:
David Millar @millarmind
I think @J_T_Locke may be my favourite new cyclist, proper character, old school. The way cyclists should be.0 -
Turfle wrote:From that thread:
David Millar @millarmind
I think @J_T_Locke may be my favourite new cyclist, proper character, old school. The way cyclists should be.
When did he post that?0 -
OPQS wrote:Turfle wrote:iainf72 wrote:
I've just been reading through that thread.
All a bit depressing, innit? (Not the thread, the whole thing).
A healthy dose of realism is required sometimes - even if it's painful. We all want to believe the sport we love is clean, the reality is that it isn't and never will be (human nature being what it is).
I share your sentiments though, I was really pleased for him when he got a SKY contract. Goodness only knows where he goes from here. Will anyone touch him with a barge pole after this? I know convicted dopers have come back and had a career, but I am not sure if that'll be the case for JTL.
To be fair, the most vociferous defences of him were along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty". There wasn't a whole lot of doping talk at all, as there generally isn't on this forum outside of the specific doping threads.
(The unfortunate Millar tweet was Oct 2012.)0 -
Best get over to eBay, there's sure to be some more rare Rapha Team Sky kit listed soon.0
-
RichN95 wrote:
The higher the standards, the greater the likelihood of failure. No-one's asking Katusha if they did due diligence on Ekimov, or Tinkoff on Kreuziger, because they made it clear they don't give a toss. I'd rather people tried and fell short, rather than not try at all.Joelsim wrote:Jez mon wrote:
Can we actually pin sky for not doing due diligence...I thought JTL s values only became visibly dodgy after a year of blood passport values allowing for baselines to be established etc.
Sky have failed to do due diligence on many staff so far. Not surprising really, trying to find someone who has been clean over the last decade or two must cut the candidate list down by about 99%.
I agree funnily enough. But whilst the chances of catching someone at it remain at almost zero (i.e. a mistake by the rider and the authorities being in the right place at that exact moment), and the attitude you described still prevails it is going to happen.0 -
But I don't agree with you of catching someone as close to zero. I've seen many, many big names caught. And if the testing increases the risk & cost to reward ratio then fewer people will bother.Joelsim wrote:I agree funnily enough. But whilst the chances of catching someone at it remain at almost zero (i.e. a mistake by the rider and the authorities being in the right place at that exact moment), and the attitude you described still prevails it is going to happen.Twitter: @RichN950 -
OPQS wrote:Turfle wrote:From that thread:
David Millar @millarmind
I think @J_T_Locke may be my favourite new cyclist, proper character, old school. The way cyclists should be.
When did he post that?
this afternoon
"Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0 -
Rich, I wish I had as much faith as you, but I don't think it's a cycling-specific issue. I just feel that the way things can be manipulated to keep the passport looking within limits leaves an awful lot of space to dope. There are also some doping products that last longer in the blood but the top guys all have access to the best doctors and know how to get round things on the whole.
I hope I'm wrong.
Could you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that if you had to put your mortgage on any one of Bertie, Nibs or Froome not doping then you would?0 -
Back in the day, riders could boost there HCT from a natural 40% to 60% and they did. All it took was an injection.Joelsim wrote:Rich, I wish I had as much faith as you, but I don't think it's a cycling-specific issue. I just feel that the way things can be manipulated to keep the passport looking within limits leaves an awful lot of space to dope. There are also some doping products that last longer in the blood but the top guys all have access to the best doctors and know how to get round things on the whole.
I hope I'm wrong.
Then they did it up to 49.9%. It took an injection or transfusion and monitoring.
Now they would be lucky to go past 44%. And that comes with complicated and expensive routines.
The juice has to be worth the squeeze.
And the doping doctors. Why would they want to work under these conditions when football and tennis, to name two, offer great money and poor testing?
If I had to, I'd bet it on Froome first, Nibali second, not on Contador.Joelsim wrote:Could you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that if you had to put your mortgage on any one of Bertie, Nibs or Froome not doping then you would?
But if I didn't have to, I wouldn't even bet my mortgage on Kittel beating Cheng on a flat stage.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Joelsim wrote:Rich, I wish I had as much faith as you, but I don't think it's a cycling-specific issue. I just feel that the way things can be manipulated to keep the passport looking within limits leaves an awful lot of space to dope. There are also some doping products that last longer in the blood but the top guys all have access to the best doctors and know how to get round things on the whole.
I hope I'm wrong.
Could you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that if you had to put your mortgage on any one of Bertie, Nibs or Froome not doping then you would?
I love the "I hope I'm wrong" disclaimer people use. Cast suspicion on a the whole peloton and then pass it off with I hope I'm wrong. No you don't, you are a cynic that likes to stir up and argument. If you have well founded and quantifiable suspicions regarding an individual rider then lets hear it.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Back in the day, riders could boost there HCT from a natural 40% to 60% and they did. All it took was an injection.Joelsim wrote:Rich, I wish I had as much faith as you, but I don't think it's a cycling-specific issue. I just feel that the way things can be manipulated to keep the passport looking within limits leaves an awful lot of space to dope. There are also some doping products that last longer in the blood but the top guys all have access to the best doctors and know how to get round things on the whole.
I hope I'm wrong.
Then they did it up to 49.9%. It took an injection or transfusion and monitoring.
Now they would be lucky to go past 44%. And that comes with complicated and expensive routines.
The juice has to be worth the squeeze.
And the doping doctors. Why would they want to work under these conditions when football and tennis, to name two, offer great money and poor testing?
If I had to, I'd bet it on Froome and Nibali, not on Contador.Joelsim wrote:Could you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that if you had to put your mortgage on any one of Bertie, Nibs or Froome not doping then you would?
But if I didn't have to, I wouldn't even bet my mortgage on Kittel beating Cheng on a flat stage.
I agree completely that the ability to take the piss has reduced dramatically, so it is no longer a totally 'deux vitesses' situation. But to my mind the probability of being caught is minimal, don't forget the authorities have to prove beyond any doubt that there has been an infringement, in the face of natural values altering over time by a significant percentage anyway. I honestly think the chances of catching someone at it, be it a cyclist, a runner, a tennis player or whoever are absolutely tiny. So many factors have to work together in order to do it.
Anyway it doesn't matter for racing's sake, it's the same for everyone (especially those with most money
) 0 -
mike6 wrote:Joelsim wrote:Rich, I wish I had as much faith as you, but I don't think it's a cycling-specific issue. I just feel that the way things can be manipulated to keep the passport looking within limits leaves an awful lot of space to dope. There are also some doping products that last longer in the blood but the top guys all have access to the best doctors and know how to get round things on the whole.
I hope I'm wrong.
Could you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that if you had to put your mortgage on any one of Bertie, Nibs or Froome not doping then you would?
I love the "I hope I'm wrong" disclaimer people use. Cast suspicion on a the whole peloton and then pass it off with I hope I'm wrong. No you don't, you are a cynic that likes to stir up and argument. If you have well founded and quantifiable suspicions regarding an individual rider then lets hear it.
Believe it or not, I do hope I'm wrong Mike.
I don't have any particular suspicions about individuals. My mind says they are mostly all still at it.
Anyway, it's a pointless conversation. No-one knows for sure except for the protagonists et al.0 -
Joelsim wrote:
But judging from your posts on this subject you wouldn't do that for anyone in the pro peloton0 -
Joelsim wrote:mike6 wrote:Joelsim wrote:Rich, I wish I had as much faith as you, but I don't think it's a cycling-specific issue. I just feel that the way things can be manipulated to keep the passport looking within limits leaves an awful lot of space to dope. There are also some doping products that last longer in the blood but the top guys all have access to the best doctors and know how to get round things on the whole.
I hope I'm wrong.
Could you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that if you had to put your mortgage on any one of Bertie, Nibs or Froome not doping then you would?
I love the "I hope I'm wrong" disclaimer people use. Cast suspicion on a the whole peloton and then pass it off with I hope I'm wrong. No you don't, you are a cynic that likes to stir up and argument. If you have well founded and quantifiable suspicions regarding an individual rider then lets hear it.
Believe it or not, I do hope I'm wrong Mike.
I don't have any particular suspicions about individuals. My mind says they are mostly all still at it.
Anyway, it's a pointless conversation. No-one knows for sure except for the protagonists et al.
I reckon you're one of those people who've read Tyler Hamilton's book, maybe one or two others and then have decided 'they're probably all on it' and like to think that's an informed opinion. I only say this as you seem to post a lot of generalisations on the topic and never any detail to back it up. You've got a perfect right to have a gut feeling, but that's all it really is.0 -
Doping still exists, but now, to borrow a phrase, it is just another marginal gain.Joelsim wrote:I agree completely that the ability to take the wee-wee has reduced dramatically, so it is no longer a totally 'deux vitesses' situation. But to my mind the probability of being caught is minimal, don't forget the authorities have to prove beyond any doubt that there has been an infringement, in the face of natural values altering over time by a significant percentage anyway. I honestly think the chances of catching someone at it, be it a cyclist, a runner, a tennis player or whoever are absolutely tiny. So many factors have to work together in order to do it.
Anyway it doesn't matter for racing's sake, it's the same for everyone (especially those with most money)
In the 90s doping was the difference between being a top pro and working in Tesco
In the early 2000s it was the difference between being a top pro and not making the Tour team
In the late 2000s it was the difference between being a top pro and being a key domestique
Now it's the difference between being a top pro coming top three and a top pro coming top ten.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Doping still exists, but now, to borrow a phrase, it is just another marginal gain.Joelsim wrote:I agree completely that the ability to take the wee-wee has reduced dramatically, so it is no longer a totally 'deux vitesses' situation. But to my mind the probability of being caught is minimal, don't forget the authorities have to prove beyond any doubt that there has been an infringement, in the face of natural values altering over time by a significant percentage anyway. I honestly think the chances of catching someone at it, be it a cyclist, a runner, a tennis player or whoever are absolutely tiny. So many factors have to work together in order to do it.
Anyway it doesn't matter for racing's sake, it's the same for everyone (especially those with most money)
In the 90s doping was the difference between being a top pro and working in Tesco
In the early 2000s it was the difference between being a top pro and not making the Tour team
In the late 2000s it was the difference between being a top pro and being a key domestique
Now it's the difference between being a top pro coming top three and a top pro coming top ten.
I think you're right.0 -
If retweeting something is a sign of support it looks like Brian Smith is refuting the UKAD findings - retweeted this:
Colleague of JTL, Zak Dempster also:@RoseLake Dear cycling world there has been huge injustice today. I know @J_T_Locke is innocent. @UCI_cycling, your systems have failed a good man.
@ZakDempster 3h@matpennell @IanBibby86 no doubt. He won that race and he won it clean. I am gutted.0 -
RichN95 wrote:Doping still exists, but now, to borrow a phrase, it is just another marginal gain.
This.
With the passport, I suspect that the possible gains of doping are no greater or smaller than dozen of other things, all of which cost money, time, and also the opportunity cost of something else that you could have been doing instead. The time spent honing a doping regime that can fool the passport could have been equally well spent sitting in a windtunnel, or the money and effort invested in training at altitude for similar physiological gains and more time spent training as a team.
In fact, what the passport has probably done is tilt the table away from doping and towards money - specifically, in hiring the best support riders. Hence the much derided Sky train (which every GC contender now has their own version of - nobody is freelancing their way up the GC by simply following other people's coat-tails).0 -
Oleg getting stuck in:
@olegtinkovI am very high opinion on Sir.Brailsword as a manager, but this zero tolerance hestiria makes him really shallow in my eyes. Sorry, SIR.
I am AGAINST doping in any sports, would never support or encourage it, but would never pretend that I can change it, pure PR and propaganda
That is why i never bs about doping, simply because it is impossible to guarantee anything, Anglo-Saxon typical hypocrisy and PR only
Now #SKY and their manager look very stupid, after screening at every corner about "zero-tolerance stance to doping".They'd better be whist0 -
mfin wrote:Joelsim wrote:mike6 wrote:Joelsim wrote:Rich, I wish I had as much faith as you, but I don't think it's a cycling-specific issue. I just feel that the way things can be manipulated to keep the passport looking within limits leaves an awful lot of space to dope. There are also some doping products that last longer in the blood but the top guys all have access to the best doctors and know how to get round things on the whole.
I hope I'm wrong.
Could you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that if you had to put your mortgage on any one of Bertie, Nibs or Froome not doping then you would?
I love the "I hope I'm wrong" disclaimer people use. Cast suspicion on a the whole peloton and then pass it off with I hope I'm wrong. No you don't, you are a cynic that likes to stir up and argument. If you have well founded and quantifiable suspicions regarding an individual rider then lets hear it.
Believe it or not, I do hope I'm wrong Mike.
I don't have any particular suspicions about individuals. My mind says they are mostly all still at it.
Anyway, it's a pointless conversation. No-one knows for sure except for the protagonists et al.
I reckon you're one of those people who've read Tyler Hamilton's book, maybe one or two others and then have decided 'they're probably all on it' and like to think that's an informed opinion. I only say this as you seem to post a lot of generalisations on the topic and never any detail to back it up. You've got a perfect right to have a gut feeling, but that's all it really is.
It's a gut feeling, yes. Will be chuffed to bits if I'm proved wrong. Same with Usain, same with Mo, same with Nadal...0
