Recent content by arjanh

The case wasn't about doping, it was about whether Rabo was right to fire him at the spot in '07.

Well, didn't they rediscover transfusions after tests for EPO become available? That was, what, 2001? And handling EPO probably is easier than handling BBs, and likely also easier to admninister.

That's how we perceive it today. I guess the top riders at the time saw taking BBs as the logical next step. In that sense, it was business as usual.

It's a peasant's sport. Just look at who raced 100 years ago - not a single person of some (social) standing. Nor would anyone with some standing organize a race. And with no friends in high places, you're the fall guy.

I'd like to see them give other sports (like track and field and speed skating) the same treatment.

I dunno. If I were on the juice, I sure wouldn't pull off stunts like Gilbert did in '11, and then fail completely until the World's in '12. That's the best way to raise more than a few eyebrows.

It's a sport, and hence there are some rules to adhere to. One of them being riding the complete course, another one being not taking dope. If you don't want to play by the rules, don't enter the sport.

Yes. He's moving further and further away from the arrogant a-hole he used to be in his doping days. And it's good this stuff comes out into the open. It's a plus that you're not allowed to race for a week after using a cortisones-TUE. It would be much better, though, to completely do away...

Maybe so, but he sure does ask the right questions. And I don't really know why teams are so shy of publishing that data (apart from the dirty ones who are then exposed). So your opponent finds out your power levels. Well, they're going to find out at the first race day, anyway....

Fair point. I'm just wondering why they keep on saying this. There must be a reason for it, and these guys aren't dumb.

OK, so the consensus is that it's BS. So then why do they perpetuate this lie? Then it occurred to me, maybe they _are_ right, but in a different kind of way. It's not that more riders dope, but that the dopers need more dope. So when the stages weren't that long and tough, you may not need that...

Like with Landis' and later Hamilton's confession/book, it depends on the details. The more details, the more credibility. And I don't think the burden of proof for a book is somewhat less than a statement under oath (let alone that it appears the judge won't allow him to make such a statement).

I believe the argument is that more would resort to doping for recovery after a long stage. Then again, I do remember the peleton taking it easy every now and then, riding a stage at an average of about 35km/h on a flattish stage. Must've been twenty years ago when that last happened in the TdF...

This question has been on my mind for a long time, and I was reminded of it because of the comments on yesterday's T-A stage of 208km with that monstrous triple climb. Purportedly, those long and hard stages lead to (more) doping. Personally, I don't buy that, as the consequence would be that...

Didn't Thomas Dekker used a similar excuse? Must've become a stock phrase in the Rabo team....