Log in:  

Register

Colombians Considered Clean?

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

17 Apr 2019 15:48

So If micro dosing then you are less likely to get caught ? ...asking for a friend :D

Seriously if Pantano,Cardosaa and others like SAMU (testosterone) are doping you can bet you bottom dollar alot of the others are too especially the older riders

Seems the possible benefits out weight the possible disadvantages if caught esp if near the end of your career ..risk it for another 2 years contract but if you get caught you are out but you may have been out anyway with no contract renewal

Also in fairness some nationalities do not frown on doping like others where your reputation is ruined (for a time anyways) for advertising work ,PR, media ,etc which can happen after your career. I cannot see how a rider like Pantano or SAMU can see its worth it unless they have been doing it years and have gotten away with it
HelloDolly
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,275
Joined: 13 Mar 2015 00:12
Location: Birmingham

Re: Colombians Considered Clean?

17 Apr 2019 17:49

Some say if you micro-dose by injecting intravenously and not subcutaneous you have a detection time of 6 hours. Only if something happens with your water balance or something you get caught. And there are ways of drinking some things before the test to clear the last part. There have been talks about allowing off competition testing 24/7 but there have been a massive resistance against it. Micro dosing doesn´t mess up the bio passport like injecting 400cc BB does. Maybe EPO is still the **** in the peloton, would be nice to get some inside information :cool:
User avatar Serpentin
Junior Member
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Sep 2017 09:17

Re:

Yesterday 07:46

rick james wrote:Yet more is made of a adverse finding from Froome than an actual EPO busts with Trek.....The fact of the matter is certain people are only interested in the big bad British

No, you're talking about a 6 time GT winner and a very good climbing domestique. If you don't expect one of them to face more scrutiny then more fool you.
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,082
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

Re: Colombians Considered Clean?

Yesterday 14:54

Serpentin wrote:Some say if you micro-dose by injecting intravenously and not subcutaneous you have a detection time of 6 hours. Only if something happens with your water balance or something you get caught. And there are ways of drinking some things before the test to clear the last part. There have been talks about allowing off competition testing 24/7 but there have been a massive resistance against it. Micro dosing doesn´t mess up the bio passport like injecting 400cc BB does. Maybe EPO is still the **** in the peloton, would be nice to get some inside information :cool:
This paper was published back in 2013 which found microdoses of rhEPO could be detected 100% in plasma and 87.5% in urine samples at the respective 98% specificity threshold levels up to *18 hours* after an injection. So, if an athlete microdosed at 11:00 pm before retiring for the night, he could be glowing well into the late afternoon of the next day.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24190107

That paper was 6 yrs ago and I'm not finding anything newer - so perhaps WADA has improved the detection window even further?
Last edited by Nomad on 18 Apr 2019 22:38, edited 1 time in total.
Nomad
Member
 
Posts: 420
Joined: 20 Apr 2016 01:39

Re:

Yesterday 15:26

hrotha wrote:It is true that Sky and the likes of Froome or Thomas attract more attention than Trek (currently 13th in the CQ team ranking) and Pantano (1070th in the rolling year ranking). It is a mystery.


It's a mystery why you decided to focus on the rolling ranking instead of the actual palmares.
User avatar roundabout
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,249
Joined: 07 Jun 2010 11:43

Re: Re:

Yesterday 15:32

roundabout wrote:
hrotha wrote:It is true that Sky and the likes of Froome or Thomas attract more attention than Trek (currently 13th in the CQ team ranking) and Pantano (1070th in the rolling year ranking). It is a mystery.


It's a mystery why you decided to focus on the rolling ranking instead of the actual palmares.


oh, so you mean like, winning 6 out of the last 7 Tours de France?
User avatar zlev11
Member
 
Posts: 634
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 17:49

Re: Re:

Yesterday 16:19

roundabout wrote:
hrotha wrote:It is true that Sky and the likes of Froome or Thomas attract more attention than Trek (currently 13th in the CQ team ranking) and Pantano (1070th in the rolling year ranking). It is a mystery.


It's a mystery why you decided to focus on the rolling ranking instead of the actual palmares.

I used the rolling ranking because it's funnier without distorting the underlying argument one bit. Surely you aren't saying their palmares are at all comparable, so.
User avatar hrotha
Veteran
 
Posts: 15,776
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

Re:

Yesterday 16:51

HelloDolly wrote:So If micro dosing then you are less likely to get caught ? ...asking for a friend :D

Seriously if Pantano,Cardosaa


What's a Cardosaa? Some fancy breed of puppy?
User avatar GuyIncognito
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,348
Joined: 27 Jun 2013 21:19

Re:

Yesterday 20:32

rick james wrote:Yet more is made of a adverse finding from Froome than an actual EPO busts with Trek.....The fact of the matter is certain people are only interested in the big bad British

Not that this is a terribly good indication of anything, but in the Clinic, since January 1 of this year, there have been around 100 posts in the Sky topic. In the same period of time, there have been a little over 100 posts on the MVP topic. I think that the riders who have more attention get more attention in this forum, if that makes sense.
Summoned
Junior Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 16 Apr 2017 00:14

Re: Re:

Yesterday 21:10

Summoned wrote:
rick james wrote:Yet more is made of a adverse finding from Froome than an actual EPO busts with Trek.....The fact of the matter is certain people are only interested in the big bad British

Not that this is a terribly good indication of anything, but in the Clinic, since January 1 of this year, there have been around 100 posts in the Sky topic. In the same period of time, there have been a little over 100 posts on the MVP topic. I think that the riders who have more attention get more attention in this forum, if that makes sense.


Usually but not always. There is a bias towards non English speaking riders. For a recent example, in Volta a Catalunya Astana's Miguel Angel Lopez set an eye watering pace to win on the climb to La Molina - 8.8km @6.6% climbed at 25.4km/h. Based upon Lopez's weight, that worked out to 450Watts for 21 minutes effort (below is the calculator I used assuming 7kg bike and Lopez Wiki weight of 65Kg). Early season. Not a peep in the clinic.

http://bikecalculator.com/
Cookster15
Member
 
Posts: 1,134
Joined: 14 May 2011 19:25

Re:

Yesterday 22:42

rick james wrote:Yet more is made of a adverse finding from Froome than an actual EPO busts with Trek.....The fact of the matter is certain people are only interested in the big bad British


Pure gold. Crying about bias and acting like there's a difference between Froome getting caught doping and someone else getting caught doping. Oh yeah, there is one difference. In one case, the UCI came in and exonerated the rider with absolutely no justification.

It really is curious why people dislike Sky. Must be their nationality. Can't possibly be their leadership and complicity in the total corruption of the sport at the highest level.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,213
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

Today 00:22

Cookster15 wrote:
Summoned wrote:
rick james wrote:Yet more is made of a adverse finding from Froome than an actual EPO busts with Trek.....The fact of the matter is certain people are only interested in the big bad British

Not that this is a terribly good indication of anything, but in the Clinic, since January 1 of this year, there have been around 100 posts in the Sky topic. In the same period of time, there have been a little over 100 posts on the MVP topic. I think that the riders who have more attention get more attention in this forum, if that makes sense.


Usually but not always. There is a bias towards non English speaking riders. For a recent example, in Volta a Catalunya Astana's Miguel Angel Lopez set an eye watering pace to win on the climb to La Molina - 8.8km @6.6% climbed at 25.4km/h. Based upon Lopez's weight, that worked out to 450Watts for 21 minutes effort (below is the calculator I used assuming 7kg bike and Lopez Wiki weight of 65Kg). Early season. Not a peep in the clinic.

http://bikecalculator.com/

Fair enough, but is MVP to be considered a non-English speaking rider? He seems to be getting attention now, and has done little that I am aware of to warrant it, apart from performing well. Whereas Sky’s history includes enough basis for suspicion to warrant both WADA/UCI and government investigation. Lopez and MVP may be performing at a level that invites suspicion and comment, but there is not the accompanying incident that laid the groundwork for the extensive and prolonged reaction that Sky and British riders have elicited.

I am often wrong, but I think there is a substantive basis for differentiating between these examples.
Summoned
Junior Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 16 Apr 2017 00:14

Today 08:02

red_flanders wrote:
rick james wrote:Yet more is made of a adverse finding from Froome than an actual EPO busts with Trek.....The fact of the matter is certain people are only interested in the big bad British


Pure gold. Crying about bias and acting like there's a difference between Froome getting caught doping and someone else getting caught doping. Oh yeah, there is one difference. In one case, the UCI came in and exonerated the rider with absolutely no justification.

It really is curious why people dislike Sky. Must be their nationality. Can't possibly be their leadership and complicity in the total corruption of the sport at the highest level.


but there is a huge difference...........1 allowed with limit....1 totally banned

... 'skys complicity in the total corruption of the sport at the highest level'...
...that's a reach.....................
User avatar ebandit
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,206
Joined: 02 Aug 2012 18:24

Re:

Today 14:38

ebandit wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
rick james wrote:Yet more is made of a adverse finding from Froome than an actual EPO busts with Trek.....The fact of the matter is certain people are only interested in the big bad British


Pure gold. Crying about bias and acting like there's a difference between Froome getting caught doping and someone else getting caught doping. Oh yeah, there is one difference. In one case, the UCI came in and exonerated the rider with absolutely no justification.

It really is curious why people dislike Sky. Must be their nationality. Can't possibly be their leadership and complicity in the total corruption of the sport at the highest level.


but there is a huge difference...........1 allowed with limit....1 totally banned

... 'skys complicity in the total corruption of the sport at the highest level'...
...that's a reach.....................


I'll probably regret replying here, but....

One sample massively over the limit, one from a totally banned substance. You really see a difference? A "huge" difference? I think that's a joke the way you mean it. There is a huge difference though, in enforcement. One obvious positive covered up, the other prosecuted. Corruption.

You really don't think Sky are doping, have been doping since 2011? You don't think they have won the Tour with multiple dopers, and don't see that they've obviously gotten protection from the UCI? That they have inundated the media around the sport with comically false narratives and explanations? Sky are the poster boys for the current state of the sport's corruption.

And no, none of that is because they're British. If anything they get less flak because so much of the media consumed by those who come here is english, and writers and readers are biased in favor of english-speaking riders. They have been long protected because of close ties between British Cycling, Sky, and the UCI.

The nationalistic whining of the fans is all the more ironic for all of that.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,213
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Today 17:38

To be honest I think they have been protected because they are the current big winner star team. Just as it has always been.

Nationality doesn't come into it.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,385
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Previous

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests

Back to top