Kloden farked again

[Bro Deal]

The commission investigating the T-Mobile-Freiburg doping has linked Kloden to doping, including a shipment of medical "supplies" to his girlfriend.

 

[TheDarkLord]

The commission investigating the T-Mobile-Freiburg doping has linked Kloden to doping, including a shipment of medical "supplies" to his girlfriend.

So, he was sitting quiet with the hope that the storm would blow over and he would weather it with the sacrifice of a few riders? Then again, he has already gotten some punishment with the departure of Astana during the last Tour, and the non-invitation for the coming Tour. But he can probably start thinking about retiring.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Hey guys... guess what... Kloden is a doper.... Hee hee... he could get caught.

How does Lance keep getting off scot-free? The ******* was the biggest doper of all and is living a decadent life of luxury with pretty little celeb girlfriends...

I think we have to find out which clinic Ferrari used... we have to get someone to talk... who has some recorded evidence.

 

[Rolfrae]

Hey guys... guess what... Kloden is a doper.... Hee hee... he could get caught.

How does Lance keep getting off scot-free? The ******* was the biggest doper of all and is living a decadent life of luxury with pretty little celeb girlfriends...

I think we have to find out which clinic Ferrari used... we have to get someone to talk... who has some recorded evidence.

It may be this knowledge that gets someone to own up, finally. So Heras, Hamilton, Sevilla, Kloden, Ulle, Ffloyd, Basso, Botero, Ras, Mayo etc etc were all doping but Lance could beat them all because of weighing his food and revving faster? Doesn't one of them want to speak out? If not then they don't deserve our sympathy.

 

[limerickman]

If all these guys were all doping.........................and given the performing enhancing benefits of EPO/HGH etc..............you'd think that that lot would have had better results/times.

It's interesting to review the amount of racers this doping generation have won and compare their palmares to their predecessors.
Given that the performance enhancing benefits of EPO are incrementally far higher and longer lasting than say, amphetamines, you'd think this lot would be totally outstripping the palmares of their predecessors???

This lot don't even come close to the palmares of the likes of Kelly/Hinault/Indurain..................and they're an eternity away from the likes of Merckx in terms of wins.

 

[thunder]

If all these guys were all doping.........................and given the performing enhancing benefits of EPO/HGH etc..............you'd think that that lot would have had better results/times.

It's interesting to review the amount of racers this doping generation have won and compare their palmares to their predecessors.
Given that the performance enhancing benefits of EPO are incrementally far higher and longer lasting than say, amphetamines, you'd think this lot would be totally outstripping the palmares of their predecessors???

This lot don't even come close to the palmares of the likes of Kelly/Hinault/Indurain..................and they're an eternity away from the likes of Merckx in terms of wins.

how you come to that Lim? There is only a set amount of wins, if the majority of the peloton is doping, it nullifies any potential hegemony of one individual from the dope.

Also, I'd argue, it is difficult to go a full season on dope. You have to cycle your form and dope. So others can be on a differnt form-dope curve, so if you are on the down cycle, no chance winning.

 

[limerickman]

how you come to that Lim? There is only a set amount of wins, if the majority of the peloton is doping, it nullifies any potential hegemony of one individual from the dope.
.

The argument put forward by the apologists is that doping has occurred since day 1 of professional cycling.
Therefore, according to the apologists, EPO is the latest in a long line of performance enhancers.

On that basis, we know that EPO, for example, derives greater and longer performance enhancing benefits than say, amphetamines or Pot Belge.

So why, when you compare the palmares of an EPO user to perhaps and amphetamine user, does the records of their predecessors dwarf the records of the modern cyclists?

If they were all doping throughout cycling history : amphetamine usage in the 1960's throughout the peloton would nullify the benefits of amphetamine usage in that respective peloton.

Intra generational comaprisons would suggest that riders benefiting from a great enchancer (EPO) should derive better results compared to their predecessors results.

 

[thunder]

The argument put forward by the apologists is that doping has occurred since day 1 of professional cycling.
Therefore, according to the apologists, EPO is the latest in a long line of performance enhancers.

On that basis, we know that EPO, for example, derives greater and longer performance enhancing benefits than say, amphetamines or Pot Belge.

So why, when you compare the palmares of an EPO user to perhaps and amphetamine user, does the records of their predecessors dwarf the records of the modern cyclists?

If they were all doping throughout cycling history : amphetamine usage in the 1960's throughout the peloton would nullify the benefits of amphetamine usage in that respective peloton.

Intra generational comaprisons would suggest that riders benefiting from a great enchancer (EPO) should derive better results compared to their predecessors results.

yeah, but your assumption is christian vandevelde or middle tier riders, do not dose up.

I say most do.

 

[Cobblestones]

The argument put forward by the apologists is that doping has occurred since day 1 of professional cycling.
Therefore, according to the apologists, EPO is the latest in a long line of performance enhancers.

On that basis, we know that EPO, for example, derives greater and longer performance enhancing benefits than say, amphetamines or Pot Belge.

So why, when you compare the palmares of an EPO user to perhaps and amphetamine user, does the records of their predecessors dwarf the records of the modern cyclists?

If they were all doping throughout cycling history : amphetamine usage in the 1960's throughout the peloton would nullify the benefits of amphetamine usage in that respective peloton.

Intra generational comaprisons would suggest that riders benefiting from a great enchancer (EPO) should derive better results compared to their predecessors results.

Like 7 wins in a row compared to, say, 5 wins spread around?

Sorry, I had to say it. I know I know what you'll answer: number of stage wins, winning the green & polka dotted maillots, winning the classic one day races, winning races throughout the season, etc. But face it, for a US rider, with the kind of publicity races got in the US the past ten years, it made much more sense to focus entirely on the TdF, at which LA excelled.

 

[thoughtforfood]

Like 7 wins in a row compared to, say, 5 wins spread around?

Sorry, I had to say it. I know I know what you'll answer: number of stage wins, winning the green & polka dotted maillots, winning the classic one day races, winning races throughout the season, etc. But face it, for a US rider, with the kind of publicity races got in the US the past ten years, it made much more sense to focus entirely on paying the best doctors to dope him to the gills, at which LA excelled.

There, fixed that for you.

 

[Rolfrae]

Intra generational comaprisons would suggest that riders benefiting from a great enchancer (EPO) should derive better results compared to their predecessors results.

Not better results (more wins) but faster times.

 

[plectrum]

Maybe the older generation just tried and trained harder, possibly because the dope now is cracked up to be a cycling panacea so the new age cyclists just thinks after he's pricked that's that and the race is won.

 

[jimmypop]

Maybe the older generation just tried and trained harder, possibly because the dope now is cracked up to be a cycling panacea so the new age cyclists just thinks after he's pricked that's that and the race is won.

These guys still train insanely hard, which is why they rationalize the PED use. Also, some guys dope just to stay with the pack.

 

[hawkeye87]

These guys still train insanely hard, which is why they rationalize the PED use. Also, some guys dope just to stay with the pack.

That was my understanding with the domestiques. I was under the impression that they were doped in order to deliver the pounding necessary to deliver their GC guy to the front. Hence, the Blue Train always leading the pelaton in the TDF during LA's stint.

 

[Cobblestones]

There, fixed that for you.

Uhm, wasn't doping the premise of Lim's comment anyway?

 

[thoughtforfood]

Uhm, wasn't doping the premise of Lim's comment anyway?

Either way, suggesting that Lance's "focus" on the TdF was responsible for him winning 7 in a row is somewhat true. He focused all of his doping, training, and team on that one goal. I was just trying to be funny....and it appears I failed..

 

[Crankyfeet]

The argument put forward by the apologists is that doping has occurred since day 1 of professional cycling.
Therefore, according to the apologists, EPO is the latest in a long line of performance enhancers.

On that basis, we know that EPO, for example, derives greater and longer performance enhancing benefits than say, amphetamines or Pot Belge.

So why, when you compare the palmares of an EPO user to perhaps and amphetamine user, does the records of their predecessors dwarf the records of the modern cyclists?

If they were all doping throughout cycling history : amphetamine usage in the 1960's throughout the peloton would nullify the benefits of amphetamine usage in that respective peloton.

Intra generational comaprisons would suggest that riders benefiting from a great enchancer (EPO) should derive better results compared to their predecessors results.

As in just about all other sports, the number of people devoting their lives to the sport (true professionals) has increased many times over since the sixties. In golf for example... there were only about 15 guys who were true professionals during the sixties, devoting their lives to it. Nearly all the major championship winners were shared within this small group. Even then, the greatest golfer, Jack Nicklaus, usually took about 4-5 months off golf completely over winter. Nowadays there are probably a thousand golfers globally who are full-time on their game. The competition is that much harder. Though this may be a bad analogy as the model is disturbed at present by a freak called Tiger Woods.

Also... in yesteryear on the cycling circuit... cyclists were more likely to race in the full program of events (as I understand). Nowadays... teams have different guys focussing on different events. If the tour forced everyone to race in every event... the best cyclists would have many more victories. But at present if the best cyclist raced every event... he would be disadvantaged against a guy who was only specifically targetting the event of that weekend.

Just my 2c.

 

[limerickman]

Uhm, wasn't doping the premise of Lim's comment anyway?

The premise of my point was - if the benefits of EPO are so much more significant than older forms of dope - I would have thought that the current bunch of riders would have been, at least, as successful as their predecessors (if they all used amphetamines in the 60's, for example, the 60's field would be nullified......ditto the late 1990's field with EPO : but compare the palmares of the greatest rider of the 1960's to the greatest rider of the 1990's : the 1960's rider is way way ahead in terms of wins throughout the season/career, despite having used a less powerful enhancer).

I go with Plectrum on this...................my guess is that the likes of Merckx/Hinault/Kelly were simply more talented, hardworking, better riders
than the guys today.

 

[limerickman]

As in just about all other sports, the number of people devoting their lives to the sport (true professionals) has increased many times over since the sixties. In golf for example... there were only about 15 guys who were true professionals during the sixties, devoting their lives to it. Nearly all the major championship winners were shared within this small group. Even then, the greatest golfer, Jack Nicklaus, usually took about 4-5 months off golf completely over winter. Nowadays there are probably a thousand golfers globally who are full-time on their game. The competition is that much harder. Though this may be a bad analogy as the model is disturbed at present by a freak called Tiger Woods.
.

That is a fair analogy and a very astute point that you make.

Also... in yesteryear on the cycling circuit... cyclists were more likely to race in the full program of events (as I understand). Nowadays... teams have different guys focussing on different events. If the tour forced everyone to race in every event... the best cyclists would have many more victories. But at present if the best cyclist raced every event... he would be disadvantaged against a guy who was only specifically targetting the event of that weekend.

Just my 2c.

For sure the sport has changed dramatically : Hinault for one reckons that it's a lot easier to make a great living today as a cyclist than it was in his day.
(in his day, only the top rider got a salary - his domestiques received minimum wage and, if their leader won, a share of the leaders spoils).
These days riders get a guaranteed wage - and not have to win to earn that wage.

 

[mortimer99]

The premise of my point was - if the benefits of EPO are so much more significant than older forms of dope - I would have thought that the current bunch of riders would have been, at least, as successful as their predecessors (if they all used amphetamines in the 60's, for example, the 60's field would be nullified......ditto the late 1990's field with EPO : but compare the palmares of the greatest rider of the 1960's to the greatest rider of the 1990's : the 1960's rider is way way ahead in terms of wins throughout the season/career, despite having used a less powerful enhancer).

I go with Plectrum on this...................my guess is that the likes of Merckx/Hinault/Kelly were simply more talented, hardworking, better riders
than the guys today.

The problem is that different people get different benefits from EPO, some it may enhance 2% some it may enhance 10%.