Log in:  

Register

QS 2018

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

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

QS 2018

04 Apr 2018 22:02

The level of domination is extraordinary. I'm finding it increasingly unbelievable. They're literally winning every classic....
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 819
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

Re: QS 2018

04 Apr 2018 23:09

The Hegelian wrote:The level of domination is extraordinary. I'm finding it increasingly unbelievable. They're literally winning every classic....


MK is a knoggin, he has only raced 2 one day races pre-Flanders. He is going the Geriant Thomas route of 2014 which ended in disaster. Tiede doesn’t equal success in the Classics. GVA and Sagan have been equally disappointing but they don’t have the might of QS team.
Last edited by thehog on 04 Apr 2018 23:41, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 21,370
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

04 Apr 2018 23:12

QS has a whole bunch of really good classics riders, whom this year are actually riding as a team and using tactics to perfection. They have that for the cobbled races. The Ardennes will be another matter entirely, although they are better suited to Amstel than Fleche or LBL.
User avatar Koronin
Member
 
Posts: 1,820
Joined: 14 Oct 2017 01:42
Location: North Carolina, USA

05 Apr 2018 00:03

Of course I think they’re all juiced, but right now I just attribute their success to riding as a team. Koronin mentioned it already - this is expected in the cobbleded classics. If they do this in the Ardennes then I’d start being more suspicious.
Skyline Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPjM6rZ4pN0
_____________________________________________________________________________
Canton Ave Climb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C90ZPlbEfmU
User avatar Jspear
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,510
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 03:50
Location: N. VA, USA

05 Apr 2018 02:03

I tend to agree. But nonetheless, given what they've done this season I really think some clinic attention is warranted.

Sure they have a very good classics roster. But in the same breath, Gilbert was basically finished before joining QS last year, Stybar hasn't really won much, Boonen retired, Trentin has left, Kittel has left, Lampart is good but no champion.

That leaves - Terpstra, who has always had loads of class, but I'm not sure anyone had in the superstar classics rider category.
Alaphillipe, well, let's see what he does in a few weeks.
And Gaviria, probably the only one on the books who you look at and think 'multiple monuments.' And he's been out all classics season.

Point is, before the last month, you could look at QS on paper and say they are weaker than previous years.
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 819
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

05 Apr 2018 02:34

Weaker, but still a classics team that's full focus is on the classics. Also when no one wants to chase when one of your riders attacks, it does help the cause. Also when we get to the Ardennes if Alaphilippe continues to finish 2nd to Valverde there, it won't exactly surprise anyone as he's the only one who's shown he has anything for Valverde to start with. He's also one of the very few riders in the peloton not asking if they can just hand Valverde the trophy and not bother with the race. My expectation is Alaphilippe continues to finish 2nd to Valverde. They've raced in the same race once so far this year, at Abu Dhabi and Alaphilippe did not show anything there that says he can do anything with Valverde in the Ardennes.

With Gilbert, I'm of the opinion that BMC didn't understand how to use him properly.

Don't believe they are any more juiced than any of the other teams out there are.
User avatar Koronin
Member
 
Posts: 1,820
Joined: 14 Oct 2017 01:42
Location: North Carolina, USA

05 Apr 2018 05:35

They've had the numbers in seasons before. But this year, however, they just don't f*ck up tactically...
Shut up, Jens!
glassmoon
Member
 
Posts: 1,286
Joined: 19 May 2012 08:56

05 Apr 2018 09:08

Competitive sport = determining that one person/team can outperform others.

Competitive cycling = denouncing one person/team for outperforming others.
User avatar Armchair cyclist
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,829
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 17:28
Location: East of England, West of Ireland

05 Apr 2018 11:45

Their success in the monuments outside the cobbled races is not that remarkable. You'll have to go back to Pozzatto and Bettini which is over ten years ago. If you add Amstel they had Kwiatkowski and Gilbert, but he is a shoe-in at Amstel. They never win GC's or come close in GT's.

They are by far the best team in the cobbled races and are great in stage-hunting in every race they enter, but we shouldn't overrate them. They are not better than Sky or Movistar, they just have different goals.
The sadness of the world has different ways of getting to people, but it seems to succeed almost every time
User avatar Bardamu
Member
 
Posts: 547
Joined: 13 Jul 2016 20:36
Location: Paris

Re:

05 Apr 2018 14:34

Koronin wrote:With Gilbert, I'm of the opinion that BMC didn't understand how to use him properly.
.


As incompetent as I believe BMC are, I think there was some level of Gilbert (and Hushovd for that matter) getting a huge contract and getting way too comfortable.
therhodeo
Member
 
Posts: 1,222
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 14:31

05 Apr 2018 15:01

Boonen retiring has helped them ride together rather than as 7/8 individuals. Terpstra settling for second and pulling Kristoff to the line is more unlikely today.
Brullnux
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,296
Joined: 31 Mar 2015 14:41

05 Apr 2018 17:00

Do teams still use riders as guinea pigs for PED use? My guess is it's not like 15+ years ago where riders would let the team doctors inject them with God-knows-what without asking questions. Riders are all a lot more informed about what they're ingesting, or at least a lot more likely to ask questions about it to their team, and find answers online and from other sources.

So IF teams can't dope their riders without the rider knowing a lot of detail about the doping programme they're given, wouldn't it be a big risk to be giving out a good doping program to all their riders? Riders switch teams frequently. Soon enough, every team will know the same doping tricks they have, so they lose any doping advantage they have.

I think that it's a close circle that are given the best doping practices rather than a whole team, youngsters and all. Making it unlikely that doping is the reason why every random young rider for QS potentially gets great results.

I don't know though. It could be that the veterans in the team have the same private doping doctor who isn't employed by the team, and these riders introduce some of the doping methods to their young teammates, if not the doctor as well.

What do you all think about whether there are team wide doping practices today? Especially compared to the days when Manzano was used as a human guinea pig?

(for those that don't remember, my poor memory is that Jesus Manzano nearly died racing for Kelme while given a doping cocktail that he was not informed about)
spiritualride
Junior Member
 
Posts: 186
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 22:19

05 Apr 2018 18:38

User avatar Alexandre B.
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,329
Joined: 10 Feb 2015 20:04
Location: Paris, France

Re:

05 Apr 2018 18:45

spiritualride wrote:Do teams still use riders as guinea pigs for PED use? My guess is it's not like 15+ years ago where riders would let the team doctors inject them with God-knows-what without asking questions. Riders are all a lot more informed about what they're ingesting, or at least a lot more likely to ask questions about it to their team, and find answers online and from other sources.

So IF teams can't dope their riders without the rider knowing a lot of detail about the doping programme they're given, wouldn't it be a big risk to be giving out a good doping program to all their riders? Riders switch teams frequently. Soon enough, every team will know the same doping tricks they have, so they lose any doping advantage they have.

I think that it's a close circle that are given the best doping practices rather than a whole team, youngsters and all. Making it unlikely that doping is the reason why every random young rider for QS potentially gets great results.

I don't know though. It could be that the veterans in the team have the same private doping doctor who isn't employed by the team, and these riders introduce some of the doping methods to their young teammates, if not the doctor as well.

What do you all think about whether there are team wide doping practices today? Especially compared to the days when Manzano was used as a human guinea pig?

(for those that don't remember, my poor memory is that Jesus Manzano nearly died racing for Kelme while given a doping cocktail that he was not informed about)



I'm under the impression that Kelme was by far one of the absolute worst teams for doping their riders with who knows what along with the whole if you don't dope and don't allow us to do whatever we want you aren't racing for us. I would certainly HOPE we've come a long ways from that idea to where the riders are asking questions and doing research and not being injected with who knows what.
User avatar Koronin
Member
 
Posts: 1,820
Joined: 14 Oct 2017 01:42
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Re:

05 Apr 2018 19:53

Koronin wrote:
spiritualride wrote:Do teams still use riders as guinea pigs for PED use? My guess is it's not like 15+ years ago where riders would let the team doctors inject them with God-knows-what without asking questions. Riders are all a lot more informed about what they're ingesting, or at least a lot more likely to ask questions about it to their team, and find answers online and from other sources.

So IF teams can't dope their riders without the rider knowing a lot of detail about the doping programme they're given, wouldn't it be a big risk to be giving out a good doping program to all their riders? Riders switch teams frequently. Soon enough, every team will know the same doping tricks they have, so they lose any doping advantage they have.

I think that it's a close circle that are given the best doping practices rather than a whole team, youngsters and all. Making it unlikely that doping is the reason why every random young rider for QS potentially gets great results.

I don't know though. It could be that the veterans in the team have the same private doping doctor who isn't employed by the team, and these riders introduce some of the doping methods to their young teammates, if not the doctor as well.

What do you all think about whether there are team wide doping practices today? Especially compared to the days when Manzano was used as a human guinea pig?

(for those that don't remember, my poor memory is that Jesus Manzano nearly died racing for Kelme while given a doping cocktail that he was not informed about)



I'm under the impression that Kelme was by far one of the absolute worst teams for doping their riders with who knows what along with the whole if you don't dope and don't allow us to do whatever we want you aren't racing for us. I would certainly HOPE we've come a long ways from that idea to where the riders are asking questions and doing research and not being injected with who knows what.

Yeah i remember Manzano following Virenque and then blacking out and falling on the side of the road, he was given oxyglobin, a veterinary medicine, that day. The worst thing is that the story doesn't stop here, the team doctor botched a blood transfusion later and he had to be hospitalised for two days, he was finally laid off and the end of the Vuelta that year because he was complaining about the team doping practices.
ColonelKidneyBeans
Junior Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: 15 Sep 2016 13:18

Re: Re:

05 Apr 2018 20:00

ColonelKidneyBeans wrote:
Koronin wrote:
spiritualride wrote:Do teams still use riders as guinea pigs for PED use? My guess is it's not like 15+ years ago where riders would let the team doctors inject them with God-knows-what without asking questions. Riders are all a lot more informed about what they're ingesting, or at least a lot more likely to ask questions about it to their team, and find answers online and from other sources.

So IF teams can't dope their riders without the rider knowing a lot of detail about the doping programme they're given, wouldn't it be a big risk to be giving out a good doping program to all their riders? Riders switch teams frequently. Soon enough, every team will know the same doping tricks they have, so they lose any doping advantage they have.

I think that it's a close circle that are given the best doping practices rather than a whole team, youngsters and all. Making it unlikely that doping is the reason why every random young rider for QS potentially gets great results.

I don't know though. It could be that the veterans in the team have the same private doping doctor who isn't employed by the team, and these riders introduce some of the doping methods to their young teammates, if not the doctor as well.

What do you all think about whether there are team wide doping practices today? Especially compared to the days when Manzano was used as a human guinea pig?

(for those that don't remember, my poor memory is that Jesus Manzano nearly died racing for Kelme while given a doping cocktail that he was not informed about)



I'm under the impression that Kelme was by far one of the absolute worst teams for doping their riders with who knows what along with the whole if you don't dope and don't allow us to do whatever we want you aren't racing for us. I would certainly HOPE we've come a long ways from that idea to where the riders are asking questions and doing research and not being injected with who knows what.

Yeah i remember Manzano following Virenque and then blacking out and falling on the side of the road, he was given oxyglobin, a veterinary medicine, that day. The worst thing is that the story doesn't stop here, the team doctor botched a blood transfusion later and he had to be hospitalised for two days, he was finally laid off and the end of the Vuelta that year because he was complaining about the team doping practices.



I don't remember that particular case other than more of an after the fact type of thing. For as much flak as US Postal gets, they at least seemed to be on a higher level and not exactly experimenting on riders with who knows what the way Kelme did. IMO, Kelme should get a lot more grief than US Postal over what they were doing, but I guess because they were a Pro Conti team (and a Spanish team), and Lance didn't ride for them, they get more of a pass. I can't imagine the situation in that team being good for any of the riders, stars or domestiques.
User avatar Koronin
Member
 
Posts: 1,820
Joined: 14 Oct 2017 01:42
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Re:

05 Apr 2018 22:06

Koronin wrote:
ColonelKidneyBeans wrote:
Koronin wrote:
spiritualride wrote:Do teams still use riders as guinea pigs for PED use? My guess is it's not like 15+ years ago where riders would let the team doctors inject them with God-knows-what without asking questions. Riders are all a lot more informed about what they're ingesting, or at least a lot more likely to ask questions about it to their team, and find answers online and from other sources.

So IF teams can't dope their riders without the rider knowing a lot of detail about the doping programme they're given, wouldn't it be a big risk to be giving out a good doping program to all their riders? Riders switch teams frequently. Soon enough, every team will know the same doping tricks they have, so they lose any doping advantage they have.

I think that it's a close circle that are given the best doping practices rather than a whole team, youngsters and all. Making it unlikely that doping is the reason why every random young rider for QS potentially gets great results.

I don't know though. It could be that the veterans in the team have the same private doping doctor who isn't employed by the team, and these riders introduce some of the doping methods to their young teammates, if not the doctor as well.

What do you all think about whether there are team wide doping practices today? Especially compared to the days when Manzano was used as a human guinea pig?

(for those that don't remember, my poor memory is that Jesus Manzano nearly died racing for Kelme while given a doping cocktail that he was not informed about)



I'm under the impression that Kelme was by far one of the absolute worst teams for doping their riders with who knows what along with the whole if you don't dope and don't allow us to do whatever we want you aren't racing for us. I would certainly HOPE we've come a long ways from that idea to where the riders are asking questions and doing research and not being injected with who knows what.

Yeah i remember Manzano following Virenque and then blacking out and falling on the side of the road, he was given oxyglobin, a veterinary medicine, that day. The worst thing is that the story doesn't stop here, the team doctor botched a blood transfusion later and he had to be hospitalised for two days, he was finally laid off and the end of the Vuelta that year because he was complaining about the team doping practices.



I don't remember that particular case other than more of an after the fact type of thing. For as much flak as US Postal gets, they at least seemed to be on a higher level and not exactly experimenting on riders with who knows what the way Kelme did. IMO, Kelme should get a lot more grief than US Postal over what they were doing, but I guess because they were a Pro Conti team (and a Spanish team), and Lance didn't ride for them, they get more of a pass. I can't imagine the situation in that team being good for any of the riders, stars or domestiques.

Probably because Kelme wasn’t involved in fraudulent use of government funds or money laundering and Manzano wasn’t intimidating witnesses or destroying people’s livelihood.
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,767
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

Re: Re:

05 Apr 2018 22:48

42x16ss wrote:
Koronin wrote:
ColonelKidneyBeans wrote:
Koronin wrote:
spiritualride wrote:Do teams still use riders as guinea pigs for PED use? My guess is it's not like 15+ years ago where riders would let the team doctors inject them with God-knows-what without asking questions. Riders are all a lot more informed about what they're ingesting, or at least a lot more likely to ask questions about it to their team, and find answers online and from other sources.

So IF teams can't dope their riders without the rider knowing a lot of detail about the doping programme they're given, wouldn't it be a big risk to be giving out a good doping program to all their riders? Riders switch teams frequently. Soon enough, every team will know the same doping tricks they have, so they lose any doping advantage they have.

I think that it's a close circle that are given the best doping practices rather than a whole team, youngsters and all. Making it unlikely that doping is the reason why every random young rider for QS potentially gets great results.

I don't know though. It could be that the veterans in the team have the same private doping doctor who isn't employed by the team, and these riders introduce some of the doping methods to their young teammates, if not the doctor as well.

What do you all think about whether there are team wide doping practices today? Especially compared to the days when Manzano was used as a human guinea pig?

(for those that don't remember, my poor memory is that Jesus Manzano nearly died racing for Kelme while given a doping cocktail that he was not informed about)



I'm under the impression that Kelme was by far one of the absolute worst teams for doping their riders with who knows what along with the whole if you don't dope and don't allow us to do whatever we want you aren't racing for us. I would certainly HOPE we've come a long ways from that idea to where the riders are asking questions and doing research and not being injected with who knows what.

Yeah i remember Manzano following Virenque and then blacking out and falling on the side of the road, he was given oxyglobin, a veterinary medicine, that day. The worst thing is that the story doesn't stop here, the team doctor botched a blood transfusion later and he had to be hospitalised for two days, he was finally laid off and the end of the Vuelta that year because he was complaining about the team doping practices.



I don't remember that particular case other than more of an after the fact type of thing. For as much flak as US Postal gets, they at least seemed to be on a higher level and not exactly experimenting on riders with who knows what the way Kelme did. IMO, Kelme should get a lot more grief than US Postal over what they were doing, but I guess because they were a Pro Conti team (and a Spanish team), and Lance didn't ride for them, they get more of a pass. I can't imagine the situation in that team being good for any of the riders, stars or domestiques.

Probably because Kelme wasn’t involved in fraudulent use of government funds or money laundering and Manzano wasn’t intimidating witnesses or destroying people’s livelihood.


True, but their doping level was on par with US Postal in someways, although much more dangerous. However, I'm sure that's the big difference between the two (aside from US Postal being WT and Kelme being Pro Conti.
User avatar Koronin
Member
 
Posts: 1,820
Joined: 14 Oct 2017 01:42
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re:

06 Apr 2018 14:48



That's actually a rather refreshing take on weight loss, as it was a fairly mild amount of weight to jettison (2kg) and the coach dude acknowledges that weight loss can be a slippery slope. It's hard to argue that losing 2kg would not play some role.

That said, I wonder if there's some estimate of the time saved (during solo break) or power savings (all the race up till that point). You can estimate the impact of weight on a rider's climbing times or on rolling resistance. Cobbles would make it more difficult but they aren't actually a large percentage of the course.
proffate
Member
 
Posts: 416
Joined: 10 Jul 2012 01:35

Re:

07 Apr 2018 03:55

Armchair cyclist wrote:Competitive sport = determining that one person/team can outperform others.

Competitive cycling = denouncing one person/team for outperforming others.


I wasn't denouncing QS in making this thread, I was simply asking a question: is this believable? Most folks say yes. I'm on the fence.

And we're not talking about a team outperforming others, but rather, dominating. And in cycling, one has to either be a fool or ignorant of history to see one team dominating all the others and not ask the question.

That doesn't imply answering it.
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 819
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

Next

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bambino, Mayo from Mayo, Parker, Sestriere and 52 guests

Back to top