2013 Doping Poll

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Who had a team doping program in 2013

  • ALL OF THEM ARE DOPING A LOT

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
the asian said:
Belkin is the only team you can comfortably say don't have a Team wide doping program.
Why? I mean, I would not be comfortable to say that about any top sport team. Soccer, cycling, NFL, etc.

Of course, depending on the definition of team wide doping program. But at least if you define it as; team management knows about riders doping and accept it.

I am not saying your statement is false, I am just curious. That's all.
 
del1962 said:
I put my thoughts out on what I see, characters involved etc, on that I make my judgement on who is more and less suspicious, and in my opinion most teams ring many more alarm bells than Sky
Based on pure results, riderevolutions and dominance, one simply cannot dismiss that SKY is suspect - its not possible, unless you're just in complete denial
 
Cance > TheRest said:
Based on pure results, riderevolutions and dominance, one simply cannot dismiss that SKY is suspect - its not possible, unless you're just in complete denial
I prefer evidence to basin it on results, I prefer that innoncence until proven guilty to innuendo, thats why I am more interested in Tyler's accusations about Fabian than he won won two monuments. I read Levi's testimony and in 2011 he was getting serious stick from ppl at RS (not just Brunyeel) because he testified against Lance, this is why I put Radioshack top of my suspicon list.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
del1962 said:
I prefer evidence to basin it on results, I prefer that innoncence until proven guilty to innuendo, thats why I am more interested in Tyler's accusations about Fabian than he won won two monuments. I read Levi's testimony and in 2011 he was getting serious stick from ppl at RS (not just Brunyeel) because he testified against Lance, this is why I put Radioshack top of my suspicon list.
If you prefer evidence then why visit this part of the forum so often. Why not get on and enjoy your team without constantly defending them in here?

Plenty of people believe Sky are doping. Why? they are the top team for the last 2 years all overseen by McQuaid as UCI president and he implemented very little that would have meant an end to doping. Therefore how are Sky beating the big doping teams? By doping of course.

But as there is no rock solid 'positives' fans wont believe what is very obvious to seasoned watchers of the sport.

So why come in here posting?
 
Benotti69 said:
If you prefer evidence then why visit this part of the forum so often. Why not get on and enjoy your team without constantly defending them in here?

Plenty of people believe Sky are doping. Why? they are the top team for the last 2 years all overseen by McQuaid as UCI president and he implemented very little that would have meant an end to doping. Therefore how are Sky beating the big doping teams? By doping of course.

But as there is no rock solid 'positives' fans wont believe what is very obvious to seasoned watchers of the sport.

So why come in here posting?
So the only people should come here if they think everyones doping, not to find real evidence of doping?
 
Jan 18, 2010
3,059
0
0
I'd go Moviestar as the obvious teamwide doping team, Katusha, Astana right up there.

Sky have so many underperforming riders so I dunno with them, all the points picked up by 2 or 3 riders in races with massive points on offer which skews everything.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
del1962 said:
So the only people should come here if they think everyones doping, not to find real evidence of doping?
Nope, never said that and that says more about how you view the clinic.

You expect posters to prove doping when they post their opinions on the sport.

Sorry but that is not going to happen. The anti doping is pathetic, the omerta is strong as has always been the case so how do you expect evidence to be presented when the sport refused to acknowledge the doping.
 
Benotti69 said:
Nope, never said that and that says more about how you view the clinic.

You expect posters to prove doping when they post their opinions on the sport.

Sorry but that is not going to happen. The anti doping is pathetic, the omerta is strong as has always been the case so how do you expect evidence to be presented when the sport refused to acknowledge the doping.
OK fair enough, but I never said that all ppl who post in the clinic have those views, just that it was your view. I actually have less bother with you than some posters because you are generally more consistent in your views even though I don't always agree with them.

However I come to read about evidence, which is why I posted a list of teams that I though where more suspicious than other due to characters currently involved in those teams, I thought the way that according to Levi's testimony, some at Radioshack reacted to him put that team at the top of my list, with some other teams with characters with dodgy posts in doping behind them, it seemed to upset some people that I did not mention a team regularly discussed in the clinic.

The suspicions against these teams however is not proof that they have doping programs either, nor does it even lead me to the conclusion that they are likely to have doping programs.
 
del1962 said:
OK fair enough, but I never said that all ppl who post in the clinic have those views, just that it was your view. I actually have less bother with you than some posters because you are generally more consistent in your views even though I don't always agree with them.

However I come to read about evidence, which is why I posted a list of teams that I though where more suspicious than other due to characters currently involved in those teams, I thought the way that according to Levi's testimony, some at Radioshack reacted to him put that team at the top of my list, with some other teams with characters with dodgy posts in doping behind them, it seemed to upset some people that I did not mention a team regularly discussed in the clinic.

The suspicions against these teams however is not proof that they have doping programs either, nor does it even lead me to the conclusion that they are likely to have doping programs.
Tyler throws accuasations against everybody, he doesnt like, and the story about Cancellara never got very far. Anyways, Radioshack is not a very suspicious team imo. They win once in a while, but has been far from dominant. Horner might add to the suspiciousness, but the rest of the team is in no way suspicious.
Everybody who wishes to be a good cycling fan has to be smart enough to recognize when even their own favourite team performs suspiciously. Obviously thats not you
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Cance > TheRest said:
Tyler throws accuasations against everybody, he doesnt like, and the story about Cancellara never got very far. Anyways, Radioshack is not a very suspicious team imo. They win once in a while, but has been far from dominant. Horner might add to the suspiciousness, but the rest of the team is in no way suspicious.
Everybody who wishes to be a good cycling fan has to be smart enough to recognize when even their own favourite team performs suspiciously. Obviously thats not you
Dont kid yourself that Cancellara's clean.

Are people that blind?
 
Cance > TheRest said:
Tyler throws accuasations against everybody, he doesnt like, and the story about Cancellara never got very far. Anyways, Radioshack is not a very suspicious team imo. They win once in a while, but has been far from dominant. Horner might add to the suspiciousness, but the rest of the team is in no way suspicious.
Everybody who wishes to be a good cycling fan has to be smart enough to recognize when even their own favourite team performs suspiciously. Obviously thats not you
Irony overload!
 
Cance > TheRest said:
Tyler throws accuasations against everybody, he doesnt like, and the story about Cancellara never got very far. Anyways, Radioshack is not a very suspicious team imo. They win once in a while, but has been far from dominant. Horner might add to the suspiciousness, but the rest of the team is in no way suspicious.
Everybody who wishes to be a good cycling fan has to be smart enough to recognize when even their own favourite team performs suspiciously. Obviously thats not you
The more I look into Radioshack the more dodgy they seem, you just have to look at one of their doctors in 2012, not just the DS.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
ALL TEAMS, obviously, and apart from SKY (in its own dopeleague), the juice-playing field is more or less levelled, so the races like Giro or Vuelta are nowadays quite watchable, classics/worlds as well.
 
We are in a new era, with no doping programs. it is a sofisticated era anyway, with strong programs, but no doping. That doesn mean any doping, there is a little, but it is not a real problem.


Anyway, what people think has not relation with realilly.

I imagine this poll in 1994, and most of people saying almost nodody doping, and reallity was quite different.

We will discovered in the future that we are wrong, as then.
:)
 
Cance > TheRest said:
Tyler throws accuasations against everybody, he doesnt like, and the story about Cancellara never got very far. Anyways, Radioshack is not a very suspicious team imo. They win once in a while, but has been far from dominant. Horner might add to the suspiciousness, but the rest of the team is in no way suspicious.
Everybody who wishes to be a good cycling fan has to be smart enough to recognize when even their own favourite team performs suspiciously. Obviously thats not you
Okay let's see:
Frank Schleck: Just served a ban.
Chris Horner: Thinks Lance Armstrong is the rightful winner of the Tour de France 1999-2005 - i.e. if you pass the doping tests you're in the clear, no retroactive tests, external testimony, or police work allowed. GT winner at 41, with a passport showing haemoglobin levels increasing in the last week of the race.
Andreas Kloden: Found to have received a blood transfusion after stage 1 of the 2006 Tour de France. Came second twice in the Tour de France against heavily doped fields.
Yaroslav Popovych: rated 10/10 (joint highest) on the leaked 2010 suspicion list. Rider 16 in the LA reasoned verdict.
Andy Schleck: Matched a juiced Contador in the mountains 2 years in a row. Is ok with a doped Contador beating him but not ok with chaingate - i.e. doesn't want to look like a hypocrite.
Linus Gerdemann: Won the first mountain stage against a heavily doped field in the 2007 Tour de France, rated a 6 on the leaked 2010 suspicion index i.e. higher than Lance.

I don't assume that the youngsters are doped, but there seems to be a lot of doping knowledge in this team.

Of course, these are only the riders. The important people are Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya, etc.

Not singling out Radioshack (could list a dossier for lots of teams), but you said they're not a very suspicious team, and they clearly are.
 
vedrafjord said:
Okay let's see:
Frank Schleck: Just served a ban.
Chris Horner: Thinks Lance Armstrong is the rightful winner of the Tour de France 1999-2005 - i.e. if you pass the doping tests you're in the clear, no retroactive tests, external testimony, or police work allowed. GT winner at 41, with a passport showing haemoglobin levels increasing in the last week of the race.
Andreas Kloden: Found to have received a blood transfusion after stage 1 of the 2006 Tour de France. Came second twice in the Tour de France against heavily doped fields.
Yaroslav Popovych: rated 10/10 (joint highest) on the leaked 2010 suspicion list. Rider 16 in the LA reasoned verdict.
Andy Schleck: Matched a juiced Contador in the mountains 2 years in a row. Is ok with a doped Contador beating him but not ok with chaingate - i.e. doesn't want to look like a hypocrite.
Linus Gerdemann: Won the first mountain stage against a heavily doped field in the 2007 Tour de France, rated a 6 on the leaked 2010 suspicion index i.e. higher than Lance.

I don't assume that the youngsters are doped, but there seems to be a lot of doping knowledge in this team.

Of course, these are only the riders. The important people are Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya, etc.

Not singling out Radioshack (could list a dossier for lots of teams), but you said they're not a very suspicious team, and they clearly are.
Just going to keep running with that theme:

Levi Leipheimer: Was juicing from the mid to late 90's by his own testimony to USADA
Johan Bruyneel: Managed Armstrong right through the USPS/Discovery years and was a notorious doper himself
Kim Andersen: Served at least one doping suspension as a rider
Jens Voigt: Came up with EPO smuggling ideas for the '98 TdF. Omerta enforcing hardman

Surely referring to RSLT as a less suspicious team is a troll...
 
42x16ss said:
Just going to keep running with that theme:

Levi Leipheimer: Was juicing from the mid to late 90's by his own testimony to USADA
Johan Bruyneel: Managed Armstrong right through the USPS/Discovery years and was a notorious doper himself
Kim Andersen:Has the record for most doping suspensions.
Jens Voigt: Came up with EPO smuggling ideas for the '98 TdF. Omerta enforcing hardman

Surely referring to RSLT as a less suspicious team is a troll...
Fixed that for you ;)
 
vedrafjord said:
Okay let's see:
Frank Schleck: Just served a ban.
Chris Horner: Thinks Lance Armstrong is the rightful winner of the Tour de France 1999-2005 - i.e. if you pass the doping tests you're in the clear, no retroactive tests, external testimony, or police work allowed. GT winner at 41, with a passport showing haemoglobin levels increasing in the last week of the race.
Andreas Kloden: Found to have received a blood transfusion after stage 1 of the 2006 Tour de France. Came second twice in the Tour de France against heavily doped fields.
Yaroslav Popovych: rated 10/10 (joint highest) on the leaked 2010 suspicion list. Rider 16 in the LA reasoned verdict.
Andy Schleck: Matched a juiced Contador in the mountains 2 years in a row. Is ok with a doped Contador beating him but not ok with chaingate - i.e. doesn't want to look like a hypocrite.
Linus Gerdemann: Won the first mountain stage against a heavily doped field in the 2007 Tour de France, rated a 6 on the leaked 2010 suspicion index i.e. higher than Lance.

I don't assume that the youngsters are doped, but there seems to be a lot of doping knowledge in this team.

Of course, these are only the riders. The important people are Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya, etc.

Not singling out Radioshack (could list a dossier for lots of teams), but you said they're not a very suspicious team, and they clearly are.
42x16ss said:
Just going to keep running with that theme:

Levi Leipheimer: Was juicing from the mid to late 90's by his own testimony to USADA
Johan Bruyneel: Managed Armstrong right through the USPS/Discovery years and was a notorious doper himself
Kim Andersen: Served at least one doping suspension as a rider
Jens Voigt: Came up with EPO smuggling ideas for the '98 TdF. Omerta enforcing hardman

Surely referring to RSLT as a less suspicious team is a troll...
So which ones of these are actually in the position the implement a team-wide doping program?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 12
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts