Schumacher positive

He cracked in the Alps when big Jens put the hammer down.

 

They don't use the same vitamines!

 

Which Alpine stage was that? Voigt put the hammer down on the Tourmalet/Hautacam stage dropping Valverde but they are in the Pyrenees.

In the Alps Valverde finished with the main contenders everyday

One possible podium contender surprised me during the tour as he had a miserable tour - a case of hero to zero? Then again there's always someone who disappoints. Time will tell.

 

Good points, EL.

I'm not surprised at how Kirchen rode at Plumelec and Super Basse.
Both stages as you say, suit Kichen (based on his performances in races with similar profiles to Plumelec and Super Basse).

It was his climbing at the TDF which stood out for me on the more mountainous stages.

But I also recall him clmbing well at Flanders this year.
of course Flanders isn't the high mountains of the TDF but he was climbing well at the end of a very tough one day race earlier in the season.

 

Kirchen didn't race Flanders. He was in the Basque Country. He was able to grind away consistently in the mountains, nothing spectacular, nothing mediocre. I can think of many more riders who'd return a positive before Kirchen.

 

This migt be of interest.


The main media station here did a radio feature this morning on the IOC decision to re-test 5,000 samples from the Beijing Games using the CERA dope test.
David Walsh was asked by one of the radio commentators about his view.
DW went in to background of how the test was developed and how the positive results were detected at Chatanay Malabry and how several TDF
riders were found to have doped.

DW was asked if the IOC retests would uncover a huge amount of doping at the Beijing Olympics - using the new CERA tests.
DW's view was there might be some doping uncovered but there wouldn't be an avalanche of positives from Beijing resulting from the CERA tests.

Asked why not, DW replied that the TDF announced that a CERA test had been developed and would be used to test samples taken at the TDF.
He said "after that worldwide announcement (TDF announcement) of this test, only a moron would have continued to take this type of dope at Beijing".

DW did go on to say that the French authorities - and especially Chatanay Malabry, had been at the vanguard of the anti-doping war and that the testers were slowly starting to close the gap between the dopers and the testers.
He said that this was a good outcome.

 

Shit you are spot on. WTF was I thinking?

 

Maybe it was the Basque Country that I had in mind.

Although I could swear it was one of the Classics that I saw Kichen race.

I take your overall point though about Kirchen.
In the very high mountains in the TDF, he wasn't destroying the rest of the field.

 

Why not, if everyone is on a level playing field the best still wins and Armstrong was always good doped or not.

 

Where have you seen Lance racing without dope?
It's like looking for an intelligent blonde or Santa Claus!

 

It doesn't matter as I believe all the top riders of the last era doped. I don't think he doped better than the rest. I think he doped as did others and he won.
If all had been clean I believe ,although not certain, that he would still have won.
All clean riders= The best wins.
All doped riders= The best still wins.

 

that´s are not true.. some bodys responds better to doping than others..

 

I hear what you're saying.


But it is the futility of doping.

No sporting achievement can be objectively assessed because, if all riders are doping, then the discussion degenerates in to "well, if rider B had access to the same dope/type of dope/medical sport/another, as rider A, B would beat A".

So not only does doping corrode the credibility of a sport - even when widespread doping is acknowledged in the sport, the argument changes to the merits of respective doping systems, in order to validate who wins.

 

Which ones respond better?

 

Mauro Gianetti springs to mind.

 

It is all argumentative as some people respond better in different climates, training,etc. etc. Too many variables to make a generalized statement without data to support it. The point I was trying to make is that if the conditions are assumed to be the same for all then there is no reason Armstrong would not assume he had a chance.
Basso may enter the picture also. This could turn out to be a real reunion.

 

Jerry is wrong, Jan Ulrich needed drugs.

 

Don't necessarily agree. The doping regimen certainly has much to do with success. Armstrong had (supposedly) the best doctor. Conconi and his understudy, Ferrari, were performing experiments and acquiring data in areas other doctors would not explore (perhaps for ethical reasons?) with the exception of the well known East German system. Their knowledge has to be more than others, although I think T-Mob's system likely was as good or at least close. The other's, in my mind, didn't stand a real chance.

I think it's fair to say that LA used all aspects of racing, to include MD assistance, better than his competitors, but one method of doping is not at all equivalent to other methods.

I do agree with your other statement that all the recent top riders doped. And in a system such as this, doping in a proper and successful way is really part of the winning equation.

 

If we are playing bingo, then an italian springs to mind who was shithouse. Cunego. Or as this year a few spanish riders have been busted, what about sam sanchez or zubeldia? disappointing tours by their standards.

 

bump