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



poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
Ted B said:
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.
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 !
evolution_20060711180734.jpg
 

nonns

New Member
Jul 10, 2006
223
4
0
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.
 

Ted B

New Member
Sep 12, 2003
625
0
0
poulidor said:
EPO was used by peloton in 1993, and performance increased drastically !

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

jimmypop

New Member
Feb 20, 2008
439
0
0
After the ITT (really, after the prologue), I think we can at least begin building an argument for Contador getting extra help.
 

jimmypop

New Member
Feb 20, 2008
439
0
0
Ted B said:
There's no truth to it.

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.
 

jimmypop

New Member
Feb 20, 2008
439
0
0
nonns said:
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.

That's a pretty long post when all you needed was this:

"I'm a gullible fool who loves to have heroes."
 

Ted B

New Member
Sep 12, 2003
625
0
0
jimmypop said:
You, on the other hand, are certain that Armstrong is not doping because he hasn't yet turned up a positive.

I never said that.

Neither you nor I can be certain of anything with respect to who did or didn't do what, when, or how except when a test is concluded as positive. Anything else is speculation, and that holds little currency.
 

jimmypop

New Member
Feb 20, 2008
439
0
0
Ted B said:
I never said that.

Neither you nor I can be certain of anything with respect to who did or didn't do what, when, or how except when a test is concluded as positive. Anything else is speculation, and that holds little currency.

Yeah, like teammates or team employees who saw doping firsthand. That's just made-up stuff. Blood bags, receipts, faxes with names, faxes sent to wives, testimony from other riders, gynecologists who offer services to dozens of male professional athletes - yeah, that's all ****.

How about we ask the guys who ended up in the gutter over the past 20 years whether or not doping exists in cycling?

Again, this is professional sport. It's not life-or-death. This isn't a criminal trial, or a trial of any sort. Are you of the opinion that we're unfairly singling out utterly clean riders in our desire for a more level playing field? I love the presumption of innocence, but by my standards for Armstrong (and a few select others!) as having doped have been met. And you know what? I can still sleep at night.

I suppose you believe that Landis simply drank too much beer?

I find it ironic that those who have right-wing, conservative tendencies tend to get all liberal in support of riders' rights when the issue of doping comes up. Conversely, those who have more liberal leanings tend to think that most GT contenders are doped. My conclusion? Right-wingers love fantasies.
 

Ted B

New Member
Sep 12, 2003
625
0
0
jimmypop said:
Yeah, like teammates or team employees who saw doping firsthand. That's just made-up stuff.

It's circumstantial, nothing more, nothing less. You can't convict someone of littering despite finding a piece of trash with their name on it.

jimmypop said:
How about we ask the guys who ended up in the gutter over the past 20 years whether or not doping exists in cycling?

We don't need to.

jimmypop said:
Are you of the opinion that we're unfairly singling out utterly clean riders in our desire for a more level playing field?

I'm of the opinion that one is innocent until/unless proven guilty within the agreed framework.

jimmypop said:
I suppose you believe that Landis simply drank too much beer?

A shot of Jack Daniels does not affect one's testosterone/epitestosterone ratio. Landis was found positive for anabolics, fair and square.

jimmypop said:
My conclusion? Right-wingers love fantasies.

I'm here to discuss cycling, not political affiliations.
 

jimmypop

New Member
Feb 20, 2008
439
0
0
Ted B said:
It's circumstantial, nothing more, nothing less.

At this point in my posting career, I'm ready to roll out the big guns. Here's the biggest:

How come Armstrong never sued Walsh or any of Walsh's named sources? A former team employee sees Armstrong's doping firsthand, Walsh reports it in a widely publicized book, yet Armstrong's handlers don't pursue the matter in European courts? More specifically, why not in UK courts, where the book was certainly for sale and which has some of the most antagonistic libel laws in the world?

It's not like the UCI actually has a vested interest in Armstrong testing positive.

Has Armstrong ever tested positive? Yes, twice: once in 1999, which a $500k donation to the UCI helped earn him a backdated TUE, and once again when 1999 samples were retested. Has he ever been sanctioned? No. Do I still strongly believe that he rides dirty? Yes.

Save your human rights crusades for individuals who are truly deserving of such protection.
 

nonns

New Member
Jul 10, 2006
223
4
0
Yeah yeah heard it all before. How come they never decided in spite of their much vaunted doping programs to ream LA. Thats just as big a gun.

He's probably dirty. Thye all are. Live with it. He's no dirtier than the rest. He's just better at it than the rest and he's won the race 7 times. He's also loaded has shed loads of fans. Is lauded and honoured. He has the French president fawning over him and is thus managing to stick it to the French press.

Its all a bit upsetting for those who hate success.

If you don't like it watch something else. I like it. I think LA is probably dirty but probably no dirtier than Greg Le Mond. Eddy Mercx, Anquetil, Hinault et al. He's done a shed load more for the sport than most of them.
 

cynic

New Member
Aug 5, 2006
102
0
0
As LA continues to slide in the GC standings it is becoming clear that he should have spent far more time in tour preparation riding a bike rather than riding Matthew McConaughey and Ashley Olsen.
 

guncha

New Member
Jun 20, 2005
286
0
0
AC looks overdoped. Pantani looked like a human in comparison to AC because he lost significant amount of time in ITTs even in 1998, the year he how the Tour.
A.Schelck and F.Schleck look much more realistic. The only thing to wonder about is what will press write about their improvements in ITT next July.
 

zander1983

New Member
Jul 22, 2009
50
0
0
spot on. the list of dopers who never failed a test in their entire life is endless - marion jones, carl lewis, michelle smith, michael rasmussen, bjarne riis, ivan basso, davey miller etc etc. negative dope test means less and less these days
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
nonns said:
Its all a bit upsetting for those who hate success.

If you don't like it watch something else. I like it. I think LA is probably dirty but probably no dirtier than Greg Le Mond. Eddy Mercx, Anquetil, Hinault et al. He's done a shed load more for the sport than most of them.
No one hate success but we can see that some people who loved doped Armstrong hate doped Contador. We know who are the real haters now!

Armstrong is disliked not because he doped but because he had stupid behaviour and lied when it was obvious that he lied. He should have learnt from Contador who refused to answer to doping question.
How he treated the press in 1999 didn't help his case. Then Bassons, Simoni, and all drugs scandal wasn't a favor. The last straw was his speech on his last podium.

Big mouth are never welcomed.
 

zander1983

New Member
Jul 22, 2009
50
0
0
ok lets discuss cycling. why did armstrong employ michele "EPO's no different to orange juice" ferrari as his doctor for all those years? can you explain, assuming armstrongs clean (lol), his treatment of the magnificent christophe bassons and fillipo simeoni? im fascinated to hear this response....
 

Ted B

New Member
Sep 12, 2003
625
0
0
jimmypop said:
How come Armstrong never sued Walsh or any of Walsh's named sources?

How come the National Enquirer can publish heaps of false rubbish about celebrities week after week and yet most elect not to sue? Does that make it true? Think about it.

zander1983 said:
ok lets discuss cycling. why did armstrong employ michele "EPO's no different to orange juice" ...

Actually, he said the use of EPO is not dangerous, but the abuse is, just as is drinking ten liters of orange juice. If you're going to quote someone, you may as well get it right.
 

zander1983

New Member
Jul 22, 2009
50
0
0
keep on digging....hows it going down there? still no explanation of ferrari, bassons or simeoni
 

Similar threads