Log in:  

Register

Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

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

Moderators: Irondan, peloton, Eshnar, Red Rick, King Boonen, Tonton, Pricey_sky

Re:

17 Apr 2017 12:14

frisenfruitig wrote:Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.


It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,545
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Re:

17 Apr 2017 12:29

ToreBear wrote:
frisenfruitig wrote:Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.


It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.


It might just be that they have stopped doping riders? Are you for real dude? There are thousands of doctors to choose from yet these teams go for the fishy types but not for doping?

Also just look up Valverde's palmares after his return, it's insane. He's still performing at a ridiculously high level despite his age. You'd almost think he never needed dope to begin with going by your logic.

I would love it if cycling were clean now but I just don't see any indications this is true. It's you that is seeing what he wants to see.

We're still seeing ridiculous performances; people beating Armstrong's/Pantani's times on climbs etc. I'm not one to fall for fairy tales personally.
frisenfruitig
Junior Member
 
Posts: 232
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 12:00
Location: Belgium

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

17 Apr 2017 13:28

veganrob wrote:
wheresmybrakes wrote:It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

Can we assume that you have never been in a race or even ride a bike?

Please stop the petty insults, both of you.
Darryl Webster wrote:
"Nothing seems to blind peeps as much as patriotism does it!"
User avatar Irondan
Administrator
 
Posts: 5,845
Joined: 30 Apr 2014 02:13
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Re:

17 Apr 2017 13:35

frisenfruitig wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
frisenfruitig wrote:Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.


It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.


It might just be that they have stopped doping riders? Are you for real dude? There are thousands of doctors to choose from yet these teams go for the fishy types but not for doping?

Also just look up Valverde's palmares after his return, it's insane. He's still performing at a ridiculously high level despite his age. You'd almost think he never needed dope to begin with going by your logic.

I would love it if cycling were clean now but I just don't see any indications this is true. It's you that is seeing what he wants to see.

We're still seeing ridiculous performances; people beating Armstrong's/Pantani's times on climbs etc. I'm not one to fall for fairy tales personally.


What is a fishy doctor? One mans fish may be another mans dolphin.

Did Valverde dope in the period up to his ban? I doubt it since that would leave him in hot water with his Puerto case still ongoing. Or could it be that it was dirty when he was banned, then everyone including him got clean, and we are only now seeing their real capabilities?

When you use performance relating to his previous self, or previous others/current others, the variables become to complex. Hence performance is not a good measure of doping.

I'm not really that into "seeing" since what I see that I find outside the norm can have many different explanations unrelated to doping.

I can't say ive noticed many "ridiculous performances". There are just too many variables to count that could explain why a time is so good: Wind strength/direction, drafting or not. Day climb occurs in tour. When climb is on the stage. What the stage was like the previous day. I'm sure there are more.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,545
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Re:

17 Apr 2017 13:38

ToreBear wrote:
frisenfruitig wrote:Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.


It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.

I would say that this year Valverde has done precisely that, crushed everyone. Not as much in the previous four years but still he's been a man among boys on occasion.

The biggest indicator for Valverde (doping) has to be that he defies physiology by getting stronger and more capable of producing otherworldly performances the older he gets when the laws of human physiology say he should be losing some of his capabilities. Perhaps it's because he's always been a freak of human nature along with less doping of others in the peloton, which would allow his attributes to really shine, or something else. It may be years before we know for sure or we may never know.

He's fun to watch all the same.

It seems that Phillipe Gilbert suffers from the same condition as Valverde in that he's getting better as he gets past the so-called cutoff of pro cyclists "prime" years. PG and AV seem to be extending this "prime" past the age of 33 to an age that we don't quite know yet. :eek:

Both are freaks of nature.
Darryl Webster wrote:
"Nothing seems to blind peeps as much as patriotism does it!"
User avatar Irondan
Administrator
 
Posts: 5,845
Joined: 30 Apr 2014 02:13
Location: Seattle, WA

17 Apr 2017 14:01

The Bio passport is indeed not foolproof. Ashenden et al got this published in a peer reviewed journal. Ten percent boost to haemoglobin mass is not peanuts.

Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping.

The Athlete Blood Passport is the most recent tool adopted by anti-doping authorities to detect athletes using performance-enhancing drugs such as recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). This strategy relies on detecting abnormal variations in haematological variables caused by doping, against a background of biological and analytical variability. Ten subjects were given twice weekly intravenous injections of rhEPO for up to 12 weeks. Full blood counts were measured using a Sysmex XE-2100 automated haematology analyser, and total haemoglobin mass via a carbon monoxide rebreathing test. The sensitivity of the passport to flag abnormal deviations in blood values was evaluated using dedicated Athlete Blood Passport software.Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. We conclude that it is possible for athletes to use rhEPO without eliciting abnormal changes in the blood variables currently monitored by the Athlete Blood Passport.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951
User avatar meat puppet
Member
 
Posts: 1,724
Joined: 29 May 2011 06:57

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

17 Apr 2017 14:54

ToreBear wrote:
frisenfruitig wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
wheresmybrakes wrote:It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:


Winning a race was a great way to catch dopers 15-20 years ago. Since this was so easy that everyone could spot a doper, this method has remained popular. The problem is it's accuracy has gone from 90% to 2% in the time since. The clinic alas seems still stuck in the days of Lance Armstrong and Tyler Hamilton. :o


What does that even mean?

It means that winning before was a good indicator of doping. Now it's a bad indicator. Some in the clinic seem to still think it's a good indicator. It hasn't been a good indicator since the 2000-2005 period.


Winning a bad indicator of doping. That's very good stuff, kudos for imagination and daring to go the opposite direction from all logic and experience .

Eager to hear the rationalization for this one. Might not make the all-time list––I mean it's no Vandenbroucke's dog or Rumsas' mother, but outstanding stuff all the same.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,498
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

17 Apr 2017 15:12

Irondan wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
frisenfruitig wrote:Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.


It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.

I would say that this year Valverde has done precisely that, crushed everyone. Not as much in the previous four years but still he's been a man among boys on occasion.

The biggest indicator for Valverde (doping) has to be that he defies physiology by getting stronger and more capable of producing otherworldly performances the older he gets when the laws of human physiology say he should be losing some of his capabilities. Perhaps it's because he's always been a freak of human nature along with less doping of others in the peloton, which would allow his attributes to really shine, or something else. It may be years before we know for sure or we may never know.

He's fun to watch all the same.

It seems that Phillipe Gilbert suffers from the same condition as Valverde in that he's getting better as he gets past the so-called cutoff of pro cyclists "prime" years. PG and AV seem to be extending this "prime" past the age of 33 to an age that we don't quite know yet. :eek:

Both are freaks of nature.


I'm a little skeptical about putting the prime years too early for cyclists. There is more of a peak relating to explosiveness. I don't think stamina is reduced that much so early. Other factors might be more important like children, other interests, being fed up etc. The body may still have the juice but the will does not.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,545
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Re:

17 Apr 2017 15:21

ToreBear wrote:
Irondan wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
frisenfruitig wrote:Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.


It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.

I would say that this year Valverde has done precisely that, crushed everyone. Not as much in the previous four years but still he's been a man among boys on occasion.

The biggest indicator for Valverde (doping) has to be that he defies physiology by getting stronger and more capable of producing otherworldly performances the older he gets when the laws of human physiology say he should be losing some of his capabilities. Perhaps it's because he's always been a freak of human nature along with less doping of others in the peloton, which would allow his attributes to really shine, or something else. It may be years before we know for sure or we may never know.

He's fun to watch all the same.

It seems that Phillipe Gilbert suffers from the same condition as Valverde in that he's getting better as he gets past the so-called cutoff of pro cyclists "prime" years. PG and AV seem to be extending this "prime" past the age of 33 to an age that we don't quite know yet. :eek:

Both are freaks of nature.


I'm a little skeptical about putting the prime years too early for cyclists. There is more of a peak relating to explosiveness. I don't think stamina is reduced that much so early. Other factors might be more important like children, other interests, being fed up etc. The body may still have the juice but the will does not.

I'm talking about measurable physiological attributes such as heart rate. It's a proven physiological fact that the older you get after the age of 32 or 33, your heartbeat slows little by little year after year. The 34 y.o. Gilbert and Valverde are supposed to have less oxygen rich blood flowing into their muscles. It may not be a significant drop but it drops nonetheless.
Darryl Webster wrote:
"Nothing seems to blind peeps as much as patriotism does it!"
User avatar Irondan
Administrator
 
Posts: 5,845
Joined: 30 Apr 2014 02:13
Location: Seattle, WA

Re:

17 Apr 2017 15:21

meat puppet wrote:The Bio passport is indeed not foolproof. Ashenden et al got this published in a peer reviewed journal. Ten percent boost to haemoglobin mass is not peanuts.

Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping.

The Athlete Blood Passport is the most recent tool adopted by anti-doping authorities to detect athletes using performance-enhancing drugs such as recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). This strategy relies on detecting abnormal variations in haematological variables caused by doping, against a background of biological and analytical variability. Ten subjects were given twice weekly intravenous injections of rhEPO for up to 12 weeks. Full blood counts were measured using a Sysmex XE-2100 automated haematology analyser, and total haemoglobin mass via a carbon monoxide rebreathing test. The sensitivity of the passport to flag abnormal deviations in blood values was evaluated using dedicated Athlete Blood Passport software.Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. We conclude that it is possible for athletes to use rhEPO without eliciting abnormal changes in the blood variables currently monitored by the Athlete Blood Passport.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951


That paper is from 2011. Methods and tests have IMHO improved. The bio pass combined with out of comp testing makes it even more difficult to follow such a program now.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,545
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

17 Apr 2017 15:25

red_flanders wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
frisenfruitig wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
wheresmybrakes wrote:It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:


Winning a race was a great way to catch dopers 15-20 years ago. Since this was so easy that everyone could spot a doper, this method has remained popular. The problem is it's accuracy has gone from 90% to 2% in the time since. The clinic alas seems still stuck in the days of Lance Armstrong and Tyler Hamilton. :o


What does that even mean?

It means that winning before was a good indicator of doping. Now it's a bad indicator. Some in the clinic seem to still think it's a good indicator. It hasn't been a good indicator since the 2000-2005 period.


Winning a bad indicator of doping. That's very good stuff, kudos for imagination and daring to go the opposite direction from all logic and experience .

Eager to hear the rationalization for this one. Might not make the all-time list––I mean it's no Vandenbroucke's dog or Rumsas' mother, but outstanding stuff all the same.


Who was the last doper that won something of any significance?
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,545
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

17 Apr 2017 15:26

Torebear: based on what?

Please quote a source that states that the BP parameters have been substantially altered since the study. My understanding is they have not been at least wrt blood parameters. But maybe i have missed something.
User avatar meat puppet
Member
 
Posts: 1,724
Joined: 29 May 2011 06:57

Re: Re:

17 Apr 2017 15:31

Irondan wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
Irondan wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
frisenfruitig wrote:Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.


It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.

I would say that this year Valverde has done precisely that, crushed everyone. Not as much in the previous four years but still he's been a man among boys on occasion.

The biggest indicator for Valverde (doping) has to be that he defies physiology by getting stronger and more capable of producing otherworldly performances the older he gets when the laws of human physiology say he should be losing some of his capabilities. Perhaps it's because he's always been a freak of human nature along with less doping of others in the peloton, which would allow his attributes to really shine, or something else. It may be years before we know for sure or we may never know.

He's fun to watch all the same.

It seems that Phillipe Gilbert suffers from the same condition as Valverde in that he's getting better as he gets past the so-called cutoff of pro cyclists "prime" years. PG and AV seem to be extending this "prime" past the age of 33 to an age that we don't quite know yet. :eek:

Both are freaks of nature.


I'm a little skeptical about putting the prime years too early for cyclists. There is more of a peak relating to explosiveness. I don't think stamina is reduced that much so early. Other factors might be more important like children, other interests, being fed up etc. The body may still have the juice but the will does not.

I'm talking about measurable physiological attributes such as heart rate. It's a proven physiological fact that the older you get after the age of 32 or 33, your heartbeat slows little by little year after year. The 34 y.o. Gilbert and Valverde are supposed to have less oxygen rich blood flowing into their muscles. It may not be a significant drop but it drops nonetheless.


I'm no expert, but what if there is compensation involved of some kind? Say experiences allows one to be more rational about oxygen use. Or the muscles get better at tolerating lactate. Or the muscles in some way improve their use of the available oxygen. Also I would think there are large individual differences in the year of peak heart beat.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,545
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re:

17 Apr 2017 15:41

meat puppet wrote:Torebear: based on what?

Please quote a source that states that the BP parameters have been substantially altered since the study. My understanding is they have not been at least wrt blood parameters. But maybe i have missed something.


I'm not sure I get what your thinking about in regards to parameters. The bio passport is evolving continuously. More modules are added and the knowlegebase of the system has grown. Additionally more and more athletes have been subject to this for most of their career. The blood history is much longer.

Mind you my original contention was not that the Biopassport itself was the only reason doping is harder. There are also extensions of the glowtimes for substances with the urine tests. Wada cooperates with big pharma to insert markers of some kind in new drugs under development. Also AD efforts are better at timing their out of competition tests.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,545
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

17 Apr 2017 16:01

Irondan wrote:
veganrob wrote:
wheresmybrakes wrote:It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

Can we assume that you have never been in a race or even ride a bike?

Please stop the petty insults, both of you.


My intentions are not to insult, it just seems that as soon as someone wins a race/numerous races having been off the radar for a while, has to be taking something extra. Can't a rider just come into some sort of form for a period of time before fading for a while before coming back again without being accused of cheating?

I ride my bike for pleasure, I don't do races, I ain't good enough/enjoy riding on my own (billy no mates :D ) I can do the same route on different occasions and the times could be quite different, does that mean I've been on the wacky stuff? Nah, just a bit better form. (or a tail wind :) )
wheresmybrakes
Junior Member
 
Posts: 89
Joined: 11 Sep 2016 17:29

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

17 Apr 2017 16:04

Re: torebear

Dude! Puhleeese!? Why aren't more "old guys" kickin' it. My guess is Valverde, GVA and Gilbert are doing something we've never heard of. Also, the biological passport is like a lock on your door, makes the honest, stay honest.

Why are you on this forum? Morbid curiosity or masochism?
climb4fun
New Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 16:59

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

17 Apr 2017 16:14

As has been mentioned numerous times, the question isn't whether he's doping but on what program is he on?

Look, I don't discount the possibility of crushing the field every now and then without some kind of illegal performance aids. But to do it repeatedly -- i.e. Gilbert in 2011 (23 victories!), LA in the TdF, just about any Cancellara performance -- doesn't add up. Given the number of participants in bike racing and the technical advances in training (available to anyone via the Web the likelihood of a series of clean, freakish performances is infinitesimal. I seriously doubt that PG is the kind of guy who said sometime in the past few years: "Hey, you know what? I think I'll do it all on bread and water."
Bolder
Junior Member
 
Posts: 98
Joined: 25 Jun 2015 07:29

Re: Re:

17 Apr 2017 16:25

ToreBear wrote:
frisenfruitig wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
frisenfruitig wrote:Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Also just look up Valverde's palmares after his return, it's insane. He's still performing at a ridiculously high level despite his age. You'd almost think he never needed dope to begin with going by your logic.

I would love it if cycling were clean now but I just don't see any indications this is true. It's you that is seeing what he wants to see.

We're still seeing ridiculous performances; people beating Armstrong's/Pantani's times on climbs etc. I'm not one to fall for fairy tales personally.


What is a fishy doctor? One mans fish may be another mans dolphin.

Did Valverde dope in the period up to his ban? I doubt it since that would leave him in hot water with his Puerto case still ongoing. Or could it be that it was dirty when he was banned, then everyone including him got clean, and we are only now seeing their real capabilities?

When you use performance relating to his previous self, or previous others/current others, the variables become to complex. Hence performance is not a good measure of doping.

I'm not really that into "seeing" since what I see that I find outside the norm can have many different explanations unrelated to doping.

I can't say ive noticed many "ridiculous performances". There are just too many variables to count that could explain why a time is so good: Wind strength/direction, drafting or not. Day climb occurs in tour. When climb is on the stage. What the stage was like the previous day. I'm sure there are more.


Well, that settles it. Utterly delusional
frisenfruitig
Junior Member
 
Posts: 232
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 12:00
Location: Belgium

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

17 Apr 2017 16:40

ToreBear wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
ToreBear wrote:It means that winning before was a good indicator of doping. Now it's a bad indicator. Some in the clinic seem to still think it's a good indicator. It hasn't been a good indicator since the 2000-2005 period.


Winning a bad indicator of doping. That's very good stuff, kudos for imagination and daring to go the opposite direction from all logic and experience .

Eager to hear the rationalization for this one. Might not make the all-time list––I mean it's no Vandenbroucke's dog or Rumsas' mother, but outstanding stuff all the same.


Who was the last doper that won something of any significance?


I'll just assume you're pulling our collective leg at this point.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,498
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

17 Apr 2017 20:23

Dan2016 wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:Quickstep have 5 team doctors. 5!!!!


And then you realize that a staff of five doctors could service 200 clinical patients or a small hospital...

John Swanson


Jaysus! I would never have thought of it like that. Leaving aside the obvious clinic stuff for a moment, do all teams not have several doctors simply for the various schedules, different riders at different races and suchly?


i always remember Bassons saying he never saw the team doctor. When he needed medical attention he went to his GP.

Team doctors = doping.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,376
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Back to top