The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get - Page 66 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #651  
Old 12-26-12, 18:12
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hitch View Post
Bailsford explaining marginal gains as working because cycling was entirely doping based and everyone was too.focused with doping to.think.about actually training before 2010...
That argument of Sky's was always a huge laugh. Armstrong was an a-hole and a doper, but he trained hard with the best training information available. Landis was legend for his work ethic. When Landis had to attend the TdF route announcement in Paris, instead of driving from Spain, he cycled it in one long day. To get back in shape after his arbitration so he could race Leadville, he did 150 miles a day in Colorado.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #652  
Old 12-26-12, 18:30
thehog's Avatar
thehog thehog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hrotha View Post
That wouldn't prove he's clean. It would increase the transparency and the chances of him being clean, but it wouldn't be proof.

Unless you're suggesting the passport can't be beaten?
You need to take it up with Bradley. It was his suggestion not mine.

Sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #653  
Old 12-26-12, 21:24
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

I think some of the misunderstood science that I've read on this forum these past months are a good indication as to why Wiggins is unlikely to release his blood profile data.

Besides, why on earth do a bunch of people on an Internet forum think they will spot something that the bio-passport panel have missed?
Reply With Quote
  #654  
Old 12-26-12, 21:40
Fearless Greg Lemond's Avatar
Fearless Greg Lemond Fearless Greg Lemond is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
I think some of the misunderstood science that I've read on this forum these past months are a good indication as to why Wiggins is unlikely to release his blood profile data.

Besides, why on earth do a bunch of people on an Internet forum think they will spot something that the bio-passport panel have missed?
Why did someone like Ashenden quit that panel?

Next try.
Reply With Quote
  #655  
Old 12-26-12, 21:52
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Because he didn't like the confidentiality clause that required him to check before speaking to the media.

There are several ways you can look at that. One of which is that you'd be crazy not to have some sort of control over what gets released and by whom. If you look at what they do and how judgements are made you can see why. These things are rarely black and white. They are something that is open to interpretation.

Its much the same as the common misconception over drugs testing. You don't just feed a sample into a machine and get a yes/no answer.

Like everyone else, I understand the need for transparency in the light of the alleged corruption at the UCI, but these are not straightforward issues.
Reply With Quote
  #656  
Old 12-26-12, 22:10
Fearless Greg Lemond's Avatar
Fearless Greg Lemond Fearless Greg Lemond is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
Because he didn't like the confidentiality clause that required him to check before speaking to the media.

There are several ways you can look at that. One of which is that you'd be crazy not to have some sort of control over what gets released and by whom. If you look at what they do and how judgements are made you can see why. These things are rarely black and white. They are something that is open to interpretation.

Its much the same as the common misconception over drugs testing. You don't just feed a sample into a machine and get a yes/no answer.

Like everyone else, I understand the need for transparency in the light of the alleged corruption at the UCI, but these are not straightforward issues.
Nice try, but, if it wasn't for a German journalist that same UCI panel would have rubbed Contadope's positive under the carpet. So?
Reply With Quote
  #657  
Old 12-26-12, 22:13
Gregga Gregga is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
Try these two propositions:

Wiggins rode the tour clean

Wiggins didn't ride the tour clean.

Only one of these can ever be proved. That is why pointing the finger is the easy win-win position, it can never be gainsaid.
From Wiggins' book :
- average power at threshold 450w
- weight 69,5 kg

6,5W/kg

Not normal.

Last edited by Gregga; 12-26-12 at 22:25.
Reply With Quote
  #658  
Old 12-26-12, 22:23
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
That argument of Sky's was always a huge laugh. Armstrong was an a-hole and a doper, but he trained hard with the best training information available. Landis was legend for his work ethic. When Landis had to attend the TdF route announcement in Paris, instead of driving from Spain, he cycled it in one long day. To get back in shape after his arbitration so he could race Leadville, he did 150 miles a day in Colorado.
I entirely agree about Armstrong/Landis - but that was, in a way, the point.

i know I labour the comparison, but it bears multiple telling -there's a very strong similarity between the LA/Bruyneel doping and the '80s East Germans. Cutting edge dope - allied to cutting edge legit science - anything for the edge. A lot of country's doped in the 70's and 80's - But NONE like GDR, not even the soviets.

Hell, GDR AVERAGED 30+ golds in every summer games it took part in.

Now, looking at Armstrong et al, They saw a sport already choc full of dopers (Roche 87, Delgado 88 are good examples) - but what they brought to it was an amazing, alarming machine-like system - hire the 'best', pay the best, do the 'best' - and I don't think that an 'american' team doing that was an accident - compare with the example of Ullrich, who was a wunderkind, and also did serious dope - and then regularly f*cked it all up by partying and putting on weight. Result : Utter, utter domination by Arsmtrong and allies for best part of a decade. And the other teams never seemed to be able to ally the work with the dope...

Reading Hamilton's book, one thing struck me in his conversation with Riis - There was no doubt Riis was happily running a doping programme when he spoke to TH - but the odd thing was he asked TH , in a friendly and relaxed manner, what he and his former teammates were on/doing.

Can you imagine Bruyneel or Armstrong ever not already knowing that? Every scintilla of it? Can you imagine them letting anyone get one step ahead on the science. But Riis - certainly a serious customer - clearly did.

Entirely leaving aside whether Sky dope or not, i don't find it at all difficult to believe that they throw sports science at their team like evangelicals. the whole track programme was based on it.

now it could all be PR bull, but the new american on Sky has noted in an interview that other, more experienced, new arrivals with him this year at sky are very surprised at the sheer volume and 'science' in the training

exact quote -

Quote:
“Talking to the older GC guys that are new to the team, like Dario Cataldo [from Omega Pharma-Quick Step] and David López [Movistar], they seemed really surprised about the training load in volume and structure at this point in the year,” Dombrowski said.

“They said almost all the other teams are not working this hard this early. There’s such a focus on details in training, which is perhaps different because the coaches and training plans come from within the team.”
Now, I repeat two things -

1. It makes no difference to whether Sky, or parts of Sky, dope or not.
2. It could very well just be PR bull.

But I do think the possiblity is worth noting that non-traditional teams, or riders, (not from the 'classic' road nations) can sometimes have non-traditional ideas. Sometimes, these ideas are just stupid. And occasionally, some of these can be effective.

Hell, I remember when Lemond's tri-bars were considered bonkers. Of course, that ended on the Champs elysee, but you get my point.
Reply With Quote
  #659  
Old 12-26-12, 22:24
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fearless Greg Lemond View Post
Nice try, but, if it wasn't for a German journalist that same UCI panel would have rubbed Contadope's positive under the carpet. So?
So go after Contador (the cheat) and UCI (the enablers).

Simple, surely?
Reply With Quote
  #660  
Old 12-26-12, 22:26
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fearless Greg Lemond View Post
Nice try, but, if it wasn't for a German journalist that same UCI panel would have rubbed Contadope's positive under the carpet. So?
Correct me if I'm wrong. Contador tested positive for Clen. This was not a bio passport panel issue.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:02.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.