The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Tbh this Stuyven guy won a big cycling race. That in itself warrants scepticism.
But he's barking at the wrong tree within that population lol.
It is hilarious to see the comparisons to other "populists" though.
WTFTbh this Stuyven guy won a big cycling race. That in itself warrants scepticism.
But he's barking at the wrong tree within that population lol.
It is hilarious to see the comparisons to other "populists" though.
I am pretty sure Vayer "normalizes" the w/kg to a given weight because he can't maintain that both Indurain and Pantani were super-"notnormal", but Indurain produced 455 and Pantani 446 watts if Pantani was some 20 kilos lighter.Vayer is a pseudoscientist who usually works with normalized weight for his calculations, but then he posts the total watts instead of w/kg and acts like everyone weight the same. Not to mention his antics and clickbait oriented posts.
What I say is there's no cyclist I'd stick my hand into the fire for, and I also clearly said that within that population Stuyven isn't near the most suspicious rider.WTF
Are you for real? Or are you trying to be funny? Stuyven was the biggest classic talent coming out of Belgian youth since Boonen. Predictions were that he would become a multiple Roubaix winner. His entire career he's been "not quite there yet" but last year (pre-covid!) He takes another big classic win. He wins San Remo on tactical merrits, but he's suspicious?
Maybe you only know of one populist but i assure you, history is littered with them. All presenting themselves as fighting the good fight while crying for attention, but the motives don't often match.
Then i must have misunderstood your post. You basically said that "this Stuyven guy" (as if he's some nobody) winning a big race is suspicious. Now it seems like what you meant was "anybody winning any race, is suspicious". Which in turn could be extrapolated to "everyone is suspicious".What I say is there's no cyclist I'd stick my hand into the fire for, and I also clearly said that within that population Stuyven isn't near the most suspicious rider.
To address the other questions, I was mostly waiting for Godwins law to strike again. And you're reacting the exact way that populists want you to react. Vayer is a *** idiot. Ignore him.
The only interesting thing he states in the interview is that the slovenians are likely using fluorocarbon (synthetic haemoglobin) as it wouldn‘t trigger the biological passport and is virtually undetectable according to him.I see he got an interview with the Süddeutsche, a rather respected newspaper in Germany, teased as "the renowned doping-hunter" Antoine Vayer. Ugh, well. (It's behind a pay wall, though, I don't know if anyone read it?)
Interesting, so like oxygen vector doping, but with an artificial oxygen carrier that won't leave an impact on the bio-passport?The only interesting thing he states in the interview is that the slovenians are likely using fluorocarbon (synthetic haemoglobin) as it wouldn‘t trigger the biological passport and is virtually undetectable according to him.
Ow and he also states up to 90% of the current peloton could be clean. Suprising to say the least especially if you follow his twitter ;p
So his logic is Gianetti did PFCs therefore Gianetti is using PFCs on his riders? I think I preferred the AK47 theory.The only interesting thing he states in the interview is that the slovenians are likely using fluorocarbon
Because RBC production is mainly regulated by oxygen availability to the tissues, it is more likely than not that artificial hemoglobin would suppress the amount of reticulocytes and cause some disruption into OFFscore and into the numerous ABPS-values.Interesting, so like oxygen vector doping, but with an artificial oxygen carrier that won't leave an impact on the bio-passport?
Isn't that stuff toxic? (inserte Ferrari's quote about Orange juice)
I'm not sure where this idea that PFCs are undetectable has come from? They are already detectable. Maybe not with any of the current screens, but there are several methods that could easily be approved to retest samples.Because RBC production is mainly regulated by oxygen availability to the tissues, it is more likely than not that artificial hemoglobin would suppress the amount of reticulocytes and cause some disruption into OFFscore and into the numerous ABPS-values.
Aranesp, CERA, clenbuterol, recreational drugs and all the other totally "foreign" molecules are generally traceable in miniscule amounts, therefore I don't fully buy the claim that athletes infuse artificial hemoglobin expecting that there will be no detection method been developed in the following 7 or so years to retest their samples.
This is WADA, confirming their detectability:I'm not sure where this idea that PFCs are undetectable has come from? They are already detectable.
Apart from Giannetti, Emmanuel Magnien is the only rider I can think of 'firmly' linked to PFCs, with one of the judicial samples taken during the Festina raids in 1998 allegedly showing the presence of a PFC derivative(?), PFOB (perfluorooctyl bromide). Main source for this claim is the French doping directory Cyclisme Dopage.6. WHAT ARE SYNTHETIC OXYGEN CARRIERS?
Synthetic oxygen carriers, such as haemoglobin based oxygen carriers (HBOCs) or perflurocarbons (PFCs), are purified proteins or chemicals having the ability to carry oxygen. Synthetic oxygen carriers appear useful for emergency therapeutic purposes when human blood is not available, the risk of blood infection is high or when there is not enough time to properly cross-match donated blood with a recipient. However, their misuse for doping purposes carries the risk of cardiovascular disease in addition to various serious side effects (e.g., stroke, myocardial infarction, embolism).
7. CAN SYNTHETIC OXYGEN CARRIERS BE DETECTED?
Yes. A test was implemented in 2004.
Could you post a screengrab of that? He Tweeted it but when I challenged his argument by saying there was a test he deleted his Tweet....The only interesting thing he states in the interview is that the slovenians are likely using fluorocarbon (synthetic haemoglobin) as it wouldn‘t trigger the biological passport and is virtually undetectable according to him.
That's a good summary of where I think the riders are. You would need a huge amount of meta-data to make a proper assessment of this data and it would take a very long time. It's also quite possible that proper assessment just wouldn't be possible and the likelihood of it proving doping is very low.Riders are asked if they will release their data. Usually they bat the question away, The reason the don't is the people ask that question are the journalists who won't go to proper experts who will tell them "I can't say anything from this" but will go to Vayer instead to get a 'suspicious' assessment from an attention seeking PE teacher who was used as a front for a doping team 25 years ago.