Anti Doping Denmark report
Comments
-
How would you know? You weren't watching cycling in 2004.Not far off, just smaller quantities and reduced benefits. That is all the passport has done.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Aaaaand here we go..
Cyclingnews.com @Cyclingnewsfeed 36m36 minutes ago
Sastre denies Riis tried to persuade him to dope http://bit.ly/1TKETO00 -
Aaaaand here we go..
Cyclingnews.com @Cyclingnewsfeed 36m36 minutes ago
Sastre denies Riis tried to persuade him to dope http://bit.ly/1TKETO0
No, if you read it properly Riis did not persuade him to dope.Contador is the Greatest0 -
How would you know? You weren't watching cycling in 2004.Not far off, just smaller quantities and reduced benefits. That is all the passport has done.
As stated a multitude of times, I was, but nowhere near as avidly.
It also doesn't take a genius to work out that when there is pretty much 0% chance of being caught, as there is at the moment, then there will be a whole host of riders who will push as far as they can. History tells us that. And I'm pretty sure the future will prove me correct.0 -
Aaaaand here we go..
Cyclingnews.com @Cyclingnewsfeed 36m36 minutes ago
Sastre denies Riis tried to persuade him to dope http://bit.ly/1TKETO0
No, if you read it properly Riis did not persuade him to dope.
He's also stated that he didn't see any doping activity at CSC. :shock:0 -
How would you know? You weren't watching cycling in 2004.Not far off, just smaller quantities and reduced benefits. That is all the passport has done.
As stated a multitude of times, I was, but nowhere near as avidly.
It also doesn't take a genius to work out that when there is pretty much 0% chance of being caught, as there is at the moment, then there will be a whole host of riders who will push as far as they can. History tells us that. And I'm pretty sure the future will prove me correct.
...I mean I'm assuming you have these things in a Word document and you just copy/paste them now yes?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Aaaaand here we go..
Cyclingnews.com @Cyclingnewsfeed 36m36 minutes ago
Sastre denies Riis tried to persuade him to dope http://bit.ly/1TKETO0
No, if you read it properly Riis did not persuade him to dope.
Of the two of us - who reads Danish the best?
Bjarne calls it a 'misunderstandment' between Sastre and him. But Bjarne also still denies claims that a backed by Alex Petersen, Rasmussen, Jaksche and Hamilton. The press release they held a couple of hours ago, and the report, stated that Bjarne is still not telling the truth on all maters despite admitting to organise doping on his team.0 -
How would you know? You weren't watching cycling in 2004.Not far off, just smaller quantities and reduced benefits. That is all the passport has done.
As stated a multitude of times, I was, but nowhere near as avidly.
It also doesn't take a genius to work out that when there is pretty much 0% chance of being caught, as there is at the moment, then there will be a whole host of riders who will push as far as they can. History tells us that. And I'm pretty sure the future will prove me correct.
...I mean I'm assuming you have these things in a Word document and you just copy/paste them now yes?
Well I don't really know what you expect me to write when you are all denying that much doping is happening and putting those who think there is down all the time. We are all entitled to an opinion, and when the balance of probability is so obviously weighted in the favour of there being plenty if doping still going on, it's pretty offensive.0 -
How would you know? You weren't watching cycling in 2004.Not far off, just smaller quantities and reduced benefits. That is all the passport has done.
As stated a multitude of times, I was, but nowhere near as avidly.
It also doesn't take a genius to work out that when there is pretty much 0% chance of being caught, as there is at the moment, then there will be a whole host of riders who will push as far as they can. History tells us that. And I'm pretty sure the future will prove me correct.
You're obviously wrong about the percentage chance of failing a test. Riders are going positive all the time. And I think you're equally mistaken in feeling that future offenders will have the same soft landings as these more historical figures. Were one of the top riders to go pop now, I doubt there would be any way back. And rightly so....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
How would you know? You weren't watching cycling in 2004.Not far off, just smaller quantities and reduced benefits. That is all the passport has done.
As stated a multitude of times, I was, but nowhere near as avidly.
It also doesn't take a genius to work out that when there is pretty much 0% chance of being caught, as there is at the moment, then there will be a whole host of riders who will push as far as they can. History tells us that. And I'm pretty sure the future will prove me correct.
You're obviously wrong about the percentage chance of failing a test. Riders are going positive all the time. And I think you're equally mistaken in feeling that future offenders will have the same soft landings as these more historical figures. Were one of the top riders to go pop now, I doubt there would be any way back. And rightly so.
Those that get caught are those who push it too far, or are very unlucky with a random, out-of-competition test. For those that don't push the boundaries, the chance of being popped is zero.
It's for this reason that it's very unlikely a top rider will go pop now. Retrospective testing is the only chance.0 -
This is something that is never said by someone with worthwhile opinionsWe are all entitled to an opinion
Could you please show the mathematics and statistics that you are using to support this?and when the balance of probability is so obviously weighted in the favour of there being plenty if doping still going onTwitter: @RichN950 -
This is something that is never said by someone with worthwhile opinionsWe are all entitled to an opinion
Could you please show the mathematics and statistics that you are using to support this?and when the balance of probability is so obviously weighted in the favour of there being plenty if doping still going on
No Rich, I can't be arsed to say it all again and post 100 links that support this.0 -
Aaaaand here we go..
Cyclingnews.com @Cyclingnewsfeed 36m36 minutes ago
Sastre denies Riis tried to persuade him to dope http://bit.ly/1TKETO0
No, if you read it properly Riis did not persuade him to dope.
Of the two of us - who reads Danish the best?
Bjarne calls it a 'misunderstandment' between Sastre and him. But Bjarne also still denies claims that a backed by Alex Petersen, Rasmussen, Jaksche and Hamilton. The press release they held a couple of hours ago, and the report, stated that Bjarne is still not telling the truth on all maters despite admitting to organise doping on his team.
It's irrelevant as there are other people who can read and translate Danish.
As far as it is understood, he discussed doping with Sastre. Discussing is not a synonym for persuading.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Could you please show the mathematics and statistics that you are using to support this?[/quote]and when the balance of probability is so obviously weighted in the favour of there being plenty if doping still going on
There are none and he has never posted them. His mind operates in a parallel reality.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Could you please show the mathematics and statistics that you are using to support this?and when the balance of probability is so obviously weighted in the favour of there being plenty if doping still going on
His mind operates in reality.[/quote]
FTFY0 -
Good thing about this is that Riis won't enter the sport again. I'd be very surprised at least. While he has internationally been disgraced for a long time now on the level of a Bruyneel, he's had the backing of all the Danish July-viewers, mainstream biased Danish media (TV2) and quite a margin of the more hardcore fans. The enlightened people knew most of the stuff released today: that he knew about the doping and that he sent riders to dope. But everytime these claims were presented previously, people would use the lack of credibility (which makes no sense) of Rasmussen, Hamilton and Jaksche. We now got the admission from the man himself.
He still can't stop lying, though.0 -
Aaaaand here we go..
Cyclingnews.com @Cyclingnewsfeed 36m36 minutes ago
Sastre denies Riis tried to persuade him to dope http://bit.ly/1TKETO0
No, if you read it properly Riis did not persuade him to dope.
Of the two of us - who reads Danish the best?
Bjarne calls it a 'misunderstandment' between Sastre and him. But Bjarne also still denies claims that a backed by Alex Petersen, Rasmussen, Jaksche and Hamilton. The press release they held a couple of hours ago, and the report, stated that Bjarne is still not telling the truth on all maters despite admitting to organise doping on his team.
It's irrelevant as there are other people who can read and translate Danish.
As far as it is understood, he discussed doping with Sastre. Discussing is not a synonym for persuading.
Anonymous source in the report:
" It still looks like you could use little bags of blood. The other use it. We know for certain that Discovery use it".
That is discussing doping, I'll give you that...
(I'm not implying whether Sastre doped or not).
When can we expect Contador to distance himself from today's news btw? Working so close with him for so long and all that..0 -
The problem with some people when assessing doping is that they believe that a doper will dope regardless of circumstance. If it can be done it will be done.
In reality there are several factors that dictate whether someone dopes:
Potential gains (or more usually prevention of potential loss)
Cost (not just financially, but also in terms of logistics)
Risk (which incorporates not just the chances of being caught, but also the consequences)
It comes down to a simple equation:
A rider will dope if:
P/(C * R) > M
(where M is the rider's own personal morality).
The value of all four of those variables have changed since 2004 for better, so to say that nothing has changed is just nonsense.Twitter: @RichN950 -
How would you know? You weren't watching cycling in 2004.Not far off, just smaller quantities and reduced benefits. That is all the passport has done.
As stated a multitude of times, I was, but nowhere near as avidly.
It also doesn't take a genius to work out that when there is pretty much 0% chance of being caught, as there is at the moment, then there will be a whole host of riders who will push as far as they can. History tells us that. And I'm pretty sure the future will prove me correct.
You're obviously wrong about the percentage chance of failing a test. Riders are going positive all the time. And I think you're equally mistaken in feeling that future offenders will have the same soft landings as these more historical figures. Were one of the top riders to go pop now, I doubt there would be any way back. And rightly so.
Those that get caught are those who push it too far, or are very unlucky with a random, out-of-competition test. For those that don't push the boundaries, the chance of being popped is zero.
It's for this reason that it's very unlikely a top rider will go pop now. Retrospective testing is the only chance.
That's a considerable risk if you're a top rider. Also you're relying on avoiding being collateral damage in another doper's confession or plea bargain etc. I think the environment is so different now that the reduced benefit of the cheating, as you acknowledge, is outweighed by the risk of exposure now, and the certainty of it later....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
The problem with some people when assessing doping is that they believe that a doper will dope regardless of circumstance. If it can be done it will be done.
In reality there are several factors that dictate whether someone dopes:
Potential gains (or more usually prevention of potential loss)
Cost (not just financially, but also in terms of logistics)
Risk (which incorporates not just the chances of being caught, but also the consequences)
It comes down to a simple equation:
A rider will dope if:
P/(C * R) > M
(where M is the rider's own personal morality).
The value of all four of those variables have changed since 2004 for better, so to say that nothing has changed is just nonsense.
I agree. And what I am saying is that R is pretty much zero currently unless he makes a mistake on the dosage.0 -
The problem with some people when assessing doping is that they believe that a doper will dope regardless of circumstance. If it can be done it will be done.
In reality there are several factors that dictate whether someone dopes:
Potential gains (or more usually prevention of potential loss)
Cost (not just financially, but also in terms of logistics)
Risk (which incorporates not just the chances of being caught, but also the consequences)
It comes down to a simple equation:
A rider will dope if:
P/(C * R) > M
(where M is the rider's own personal morality).
The value of all four of those variables have changed since 2004 for better, so to say that nothing has changed is just nonsense.
I agree. And what I am saying is that R is pretty much zero currently unless he makes a mistake on the dosage.
Surely the risk of a mistake being made along makes the risk considerably higher than zero. Or are you arguing in a sandbox where humans/scientists/doctors don't make mistakes...0 -
How would you know? You weren't watching cycling in 2004.Not far off, just smaller quantities and reduced benefits. That is all the passport has done.
As stated a multitude of times, I was, but nowhere near as avidly.
It also doesn't take a genius to work out that when there is pretty much 0% chance of being caught, as there is at the moment, then there will be a whole host of riders who will push as far as they can. History tells us that. And I'm pretty sure the future will prove me correct.
You're obviously wrong about the percentage chance of failing a test. Riders are going positive all the time. And I think you're equally mistaken in feeling that future offenders will have the same soft landings as these more historical figures. Were one of the top riders to go pop now, I doubt there would be any way back. And rightly so.
Those that get caught are those who push it too far, or are very unlucky with a random, out-of-competition test. For those that don't push the boundaries, the chance of being popped is zero.
It's for this reason that it's very unlikely a top rider will go pop now. Retrospective testing is the only chance.
That's a considerable risk if you're a top rider. Also you're relying on avoiding being collateral damage in another doper's confession or plea bargain etc. I think the environment is so different now that the reduced benefit of the cheating, as you acknowledge, is outweighed by the risk of exposure now, and the certainty of it later.
It's not. Because as a top rider you know you are going to be tested frequently (unlike in other sports), and you stay between the boundaries. And it's very well documented that you can microdose at 11pm and pass a test first thing the next morning, yet still gain a benefit. It's also pretty apparent that the passport won't pick this up too.
So, you stay within the limits.
Regarding the collateral damage, it's also pretty apparent that the organised doping in teams is not the usual thing any more.0 -
The problem with some people when assessing doping is that they believe that a doper will dope regardless of circumstance. If it can be done it will be done.
In reality there are several factors that dictate whether someone dopes:
Potential gains (or more usually prevention of potential loss)
Cost (not just financially, but also in terms of logistics)
Risk (which incorporates not just the chances of being caught, but also the consequences)
It comes down to a simple equation:
A rider will dope if:
P/(C * R) > M
(where M is the rider's own personal morality).
The value of all four of those variables have changed since 2004 for better, so to say that nothing has changed is just nonsense.
I agree. And what I am saying is that R is pretty much zero currently unless he makes a mistake on the dosage.
Surely the risk of a mistake being made along makes the risk considerably higher than zero. Or are you arguing in a sandbox where humans/scientists/doctors don't make mistakes...
Can it be that difficult to inject yourself with a specific dose of something regularly? I inject a cat with insulin, do I sometimes decide to put twice as much in? No.0 -
It's not. Because as a top rider you know you are going to be tested frequently (unlike in other sports), and you stay between the boundaries. And it's very well documented that you can microdose at 11pm and pass a test first thing the next morning, yet still gain a benefit. It's also pretty apparent that the passport won't pick this up too.
Evidence please... And God help you if it's that TV documentary"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'"
@gietvangent0 -
Ok. I am trolling a little here but:- Sastre said Bjarne pressured him to dope in 2008, Sastre refused causing them to eventually split.
Well from Clinic this is what I see:
A source, who was part of Team CSC in 2008 and who wish to remain anonymous, have told the study group ... Riis should have said to Sastre: "I guess you kan still use small blood bags. The others are Using it. We know for sure that Discovery are Using it. "The source also believe that Riis had this knowledge of Discovery from Ivan Basso, who rode for Discovery in 2007.
What does this mean for Contador, who won the Tour for Discovery that year?It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Ok. I am trolling a little here but:- Sastre said Bjarne pressured him to dope in 2008, Sastre refused causing them to eventually split.
Well from Clinic this is what I see:
A source, who was part of Team CSC in 2008 and who wish to remain anonymous, have told the study group ... Riis should have said to Sastre: "I guess you kan still use small blood bags. The others are Using it. We know for sure that Discovery are Using it. "The source also believe that Riis had this knowledge of Discovery from Ivan Basso, who rode for Discovery in 2007.
What does this mean for Contador, who won the Tour for Discovery that year?
That he's a poor naif who keeps getting exploited by the likes of Saiz, Bruyneel, Riis... who just wont tell the best GT rider of the last 10 years about their nefarious secrets?"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'"
@gietvangent0 -
The problem with some people when assessing doping is that they believe that a doper will dope regardless of circumstance. If it can be done it will be done.
In reality there are several factors that dictate whether someone dopes:
Potential gains (or more usually prevention of potential loss)
Cost (not just financially, but also in terms of logistics)
Risk (which incorporates not just the chances of being caught, but also the consequences)
It comes down to a simple equation:
A rider will dope if:
P/(C * R) > M
(where M is the rider's own personal morality).
The value of all four of those variables have changed since 2004 for better, so to say that nothing has changed is just nonsense.
The top riders these days aren't exactly supermen either. They all have off-days and nobody looks invincible anymore.
What I don't understand about people who insist that everyone is doping (a certain forum) is what exactly they expect to see in a race. If every athlete is 100% clean, someone will still be better than the rest on any given day. Somebody will always win, and sometimes by a huge margin. Yet someone rides away from the others and not only are they cheating, but all the rest are cheating too, just not as much....it baffles me.
And if it's so easy to avoid a positive test, why are plenty still being caught? Some people just can't let go of the days when loads of them were on the juice and can't accept its not the same anymore. Of course some people still cheat, they always will, but not to the extent of the past.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19632372#p19632372]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:
It's not. Because as a top rider you know you are going to be tested frequently (unlike in other sports), and you stay between the boundaries. And it's very well documented that you can microdose at 11pm and pass a test first thing the next morning, yet still gain a benefit. It's also pretty apparent that the passport won't pick this up too.
Evidence please... And God help you if it's that TV documentary
Wow. Have you been living in a cave? There's a thing called Google and it is very well documented and also appears in the CIRC amongst other reports and documentaries and pieces on the subject. Surprise, surprise the findings are always the same.0 -
Joelsim, when you have a moment please could you post a brief summary (on a haematological level if possible) of your understanding of how the bio passport works. It would help me gauge whether you know what you are talking about or not.
I suspect you believe that every rider is assigned a number. If they post a result above this number they are now doping. If they post one below it, they were doping before but aren't now.
Even if that were how it worked, I venture that you'd argue that if the rider posts the same number then they were doping before and still are now.0 -
It's not. Because as a top rider you know you are going to be tested frequently (unlike in other sports), and you stay between the boundaries. And it's very well documented that you can microdose at 11pm and pass a test first thing the next morning, yet still gain a benefit. It's also pretty apparent that the passport won't pick this up too.
So, you stay within the limits.
Regarding the collateral damage, it's also pretty apparent that the organised doping in teams is not the usual thing any more.
I can accept that it's possible to trick the passport by adjusting your parameters with an altitude camp, and that EPO becomes undetectable too fast for the current testing window. But I think it's ambitious to keep all of this drug smuggling and paraphenalia from the team. Especially at a camp. I mean, imagine relying on Richie not to foul-up....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
