Who do you think is doping in the '09 tour? - Page 3

Given that they're all probably doping I think better names are required.

We have

Lance Pharmstrong aka uniballer
Alberto Contador there must be somethign else to call him also.
and for the rest....... takers anyone. These hold the line but the rest haven't yet been christened.

What about the Shrek bros. Any chemistry related naming shennanigans that could be applied

Cadel Evans.
Carlos Sastre
Bradley Wiggins
Asterloser the Spanish guy who won a stage the other day. C'mon folks that a challenge.
Mark Cavendish

Dennis don't Menchov drugs in his presence.

Alberto ****adope?
Pants Pharmstrong?
Mark Petri dish?
Serguei Ivanov-his head?
Yuri Pot-ovich?
Nicholas Roach?
Martijn Maaskant-agent?
Daniele Bong-atti?

Alberto Conta dope
Lance Drugstrong
Andreas Dopen
Yaroslav Dopovych
Levi Dopeheimer (even though he is out)
Sergio Paulindope
Dopemitry Murayev
Fabian Candopellara
Bradopely Wiggins

Not doping!

Evans
Menchov
Sastre

christophe morEPO?

What's with all the Wiggins is doping stuff? He's a good time triallist (so he has good sustainable power) and he's lost over a stone in weight since he last raced the tour. My maths says that will make him pretty quick uphill. He's still a notch behind Contador/Schlecks bro's when it comes to going uphill. Those are the three I would pick as the major suspects for being on the gear.

__________________
"Hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment."

There's no truth to it. There are a few here who choose to believe by default that anyone who puts in a good performance must be doping.

__________________
Originally Posted by Flyer:
It is a matter of reading comprehension that you challenged by.

im not 100% sure he's doping. but more than likely. pity his name doesnt lend itself to a doping pun. i cant think of anything....

oh, how about Luis Leon Dity Sanchez..

Rinaldo Nochintini-bit-more-dope-please?

Based on the fact that a few of us ultimately decided that as its no longer possible to determine who isn't doping (none can be believed) thats what started this. Its not just the ones who do well but all of them.

Lets have some fun with names on the basis of the presupposition that they're all on the juice. They're all brilliant on drugs. They'd all be equally brilliant without them.

EPO and blood doping provides a such advantage than a continental riders would beat all clean pro-tour riders !
It's a fact that athletes performance are very close, around 5%!
With blood doping giving a 20 to 30% advantages, there is a clear response: the top riders are doped if one of them is caught using blood doping.
EPO was used by peloton in 1993, and performance increased drastically !

__________________
6 +2 (according Ashenden) samples with EPO should have banned Lance Armstrong to start next TDF !

Yeah but it gets better because if we assume that all Continental tour riders as also doping we get a natural reordering. Frankly I don't hold with this idea that some riders are good and some bad. I think what separates them is the fact that they are either less focussed and determined than others and less willing to take the risks. That said given an even playing field the likelihood is that they'd still be beaten simply because of the lack of detemrination and willingness to take risks.

If you've got two guys of equal athletic ability, equal tactical ability, equal access to top equipment and coaching and one of them is a psycho whos prepared to die to win and who wont give up for anything. The one whos prepared to die to win and who can focus to transcend all else will win. I have a partial belief that this tends to manifest itself in a willingness to do anything to win including take drugs.

Finally if one can't separate the good from the bad apart form saying hey you performed badly so you must be clean oh you won so you must be dirty we're wasting time. Either the tests, the process and the adminstration is of sufficient quality to fairly test and trap cheaters or its not. Right now its not. Until that happens dopers will continue to compete and we might as well stop whingeing about it. We all know that a guy on juice will out perform a guy who isn't.

A dragster using regular unleaded will be beaten by a alcohol fuelled dragster...

Can't we switch to trying to argue about ways of trapping the cheats a little better than they're being trapped now rather than casting aspersions on riders who lets face it for the most part none of us know are doping or not. The one thing we do know is we can't beleive them when they say they're clean.

The test that generated that graph is so full of potential problems that it isn't of scientific quality. It's entertainment value only.

__________________
Originally Posted by Flyer:
It is a matter of reading comprehension that you challenged by.

After the ITT (really, after the prologue), I think we can at least begin building an argument for Contador getting extra help.

So we've decided, using anecdotal evidence, first-hand accounts and in some cases non-negative tests, that some riders are doping.

You, on the other hand, are certain that Armstrong is not doping because he hasn't yet turned up a positive.

Here's the thing: athletes dope without testing positive. It's one of the central reasons they choose to cheat: because they're playing the odds that they won't get caught, and the potential upside is rationalized to be more important than the potential downside.