Circ

Page 19 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
blackcat said:
Rass never had it on him to lose. He developed his FTP without getting larger and muscular, he was always a jockey. please, please, some rigour.
Rasmussen was never big and muscular but he definitely went lighter and lighter.

Sorry BC, there are examples of his teammates ridiculing him about his anorexic weight obsession. On this one there's no newed to go all dramaticall "no no no no", Rassmussen is indeed one of the first weight maniacs.





Nuff said.
 
blackcat said:
no no no no no

Rasmussen was not the first.

He was not a "weightloss".

Rasmussen was a JOCKEY.

Froome, Nibali, Wigans, Kennaugh, Porte, they all had the weightLOSS.

Salient term iis LOSS. L O S S.

Rass never had it on him to lose. He developed his FTP without getting larger and muscular, he was always a jockey. please, please, some rigour.


some rigour please.
Ok, but it is all so confusing.

Armstrong claimed weight loss, when there was lack of evidence, to explain how he performed miracles.

Rasmussen didn't weigh anything, but looks like a shadow of any human.

Wiggins won because he lost, err no, gained weight.

Some of these others have clearly lost weight to an obscene level that would have to pose serious health risk if not supported by artificial means, but are not claiming to have lost weight at all.

I'm lost.

Dave.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
joe_papp said:
(not that it even has to be "justified" in this context to a pseudonymous user posting to online cycling doping forum, right?)
yo yo jo

less pseudonymous, more eponymous yo

synonymous but phonetic. I will still forever (pleonasm) be grateful for the pdf translation of walsh and ballester
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
D-Queued said:
Ok, but it is all so confusing.

Armstrong claimed weight loss, when there was lack of evidence, to explain how he performed miracles.

Rasmussen didn't weigh anything, but looks like a shadow of any human.

Wiggins won because he lost, err no, gained weight.

Some of these others have clearly lost weight to an obscene level that would have to pose serious health risk if not supported by artificial means, but are not claiming to have lost weight at all.

I'm lost.

Dave.
personally, I am lost to how they reconcile their internal organs, if they are losing 10% of their mass and still maintain the professional athlete performance. if I was their physician, I would be quite concerned. no claudio cecchini here
 
TheMight said:
If you look at the long view, riders wouldn't even acknowledge doping in previous eras. You're still hard pressed to get straight talk out of old school guys. They'd argue that it didn't work and couldn't help. There was all sorts of bullsh*t, they even argued against in-competition testing because the races were won with out of competition doping and training. Out of competition testing was a downright invasion of privacy..

Now, we know it works, pretty decisively. We know many of the techniques. We know many of the doctors that have facilitated programs. Riders can't deny that it happened. That's huge.
In 2014 the suspicions that there are non-detectable EPO variants was confirmed. We still have riders transforming themselves from nationally competitive to international @ss kickers. Horner is still never tested positive.

I'm as disgusted as many and the report just confirms nothing has changed. They are still hiding positives when it suits them. This is the reality.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Franklin said:
Rasmussen was never big and muscular but he definitely went lighter and lighter.

Sorry BC, there are examples of his teammates ridiculing him about his anorexic weight obsession. On this one there's no newed to go all dramaticall "no no no no", Rassmussen is indeed one of the first weight maniacs.





Nuff said.
you are indeed correct. I was wrong. you can see it in his legs.

however, he never had access to AICAR and GW and lipotropin.

I think he may have just destroyed his organs if he used.

how can one get max FTP or whatever threshold power, if you are always in caloric deficit. I dont know how you train on no calories. How you race on no calories.

The management and marketeers of Michael Phelps created some narrative about his diet and nutrition to get traction in the press.

you cant train when you are starved and starving.
 
blackcat said:
personally, I am lost to how they reconcile their internal organs, if they are losing 10% of their mass and still maintain the professional athlete performance. if I was their physician, I would be quite concerned. no claudio cecchini here
It's more than that though. They are somehow losing mass *as endurance athletes with very low body fat numbers to start* and maintaining fantastic power for weeks at a time.

Way back in the day on "pan y aqua" you could lose weight below whatever your body's "natural" limit, but it would bite you back in 7-14 days with a loss of power and/or getting sick and you'd have to stop training and gain some weight.

Elites, to some extent, were always concerned about weight. The more better results you had, the more room there was for forgiveness about coming in "overweight" at the start of the year. Treat that last claim like a sweeping generalization.
 
Page 48 gives us a new tactic that moves us along from simply relying on Motoman:

"An alternative method of transport was to administer the thawed blood and use the rider to "carry" it within his circulation, and it could then be removed at the destination. One rider gave information confirming that he would be given 2 to 3 units of blood in Madrid, and he would then travel to France where the units would be removed immediately, to be used later throughout the Tour."
Presumably that would also make tests for autologous transfusion even more challenged, and the use of blood bags even more effective as the stored blood would be mixed with current blood.

Dave.
 
Franklin said:
Rasmussen was never big and muscular but he definitely went lighter and lighter.

Sorry BC, there are examples of his teammates ridiculing him about his anorexic weight obsession. On this one there's no newed to go all dramaticall "no no no no", Rassmussen is indeed one of the first weight maniacs.





Nuff said.
How many years are there between those two photos? A decade?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
D-Queued said:
On P. 47 the comment:



Is notable given the continued denial by Floyd.

<sigh>

The truth is out there.

Dave.
I still think that Freddie Viane Floyd LAndis' soigneur, tho I prefer the phonetic swannie, might have used a massage oil with testo in it. Because Floyd admitted to doping but vociferous and maintains an innocence with the testo.

options?
i) metabolites in the bloodbags. legitimate option
ii) lying.legitimate option
iii) swannie Freddie Viane slipped him a massage oil mickie of some testo.

we need to ask Dr Arnie Baker. stat. Dr Arnie where are you?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
It's more than that though. They are somehow losing mass *as endurance athletes with very low body fat numbers to start* and maintaining fantastic power for weeks at a time.
indeed. that was unsaid premise.

they are already under healthy bodyweight to begin.
 
blackcat said:
I still think that Freddie Viane Floyd LAndis' soigneur, tho I prefer the phonetic swannie, might have used a massage oil with testo in it. Because Floyd admitted to doping but vociferous and maintains an innocence with the testo.

options?
i) metabolites in the bloodbags. legitimate option
ii) lying.legitimate option
iii) swannie Freddie Viane slipped him a massage oil mickie of some testo.

we need to ask Dr Arnie Baker. stat. Dr Arnie where are you?
It would be nice to hear Floyd state that Testosterone could easily have entered his system due to any of these, or other processes, given how prevalent its use is and was.

Surely that couldn't hurt him to state some sort of white like like that.

Dave.
 
okay, the report is out and it is zero amounts surprising, both in (limited) scope and findings. I definitely appreciate the anecdote about Savio; I am always interested in the details of how adapting programs work for various eras of doping.

Reading between the lines, from this 'estimate between 20% and 90% of the peloton are doping' statement, that seems to confirm what most rational people would think. I dunno if there is more detail on individual responses, but that would be more interesting, as range tells you little about the prevailing 'insider' wisdom. If I had to hazard a guess, the 90% came from Di Luca, who probably used that delusion as justification to continue doping as if it were 1997. The truth, I think, is likely somewhere on the lower end, but that's just an outsider's educated guess from reading the tea leaves of news reports and rider statements. Either way, seems clear to me that a) the scale of doping has gone down (from, say, 2005) in terms of the amount of advantage given, b) the amount of riders doping has gone down, and c) doping in some form is still wide-spread enough to be a serious problem that casts doubt on the legitimacy of the pointy end of any race.

I have seen expressed here by some that 'cycling is no different than the past' and other broad, cynical, repeated points of view in the same vein. I take a position that it's 'no different' in the 'yes/no' sense of 'are riders doping' and 'do the majority of riders stay silent against doping', but it seems clear to me that things are different in scale and tone. Like, the UCI's 'tough on doping' crap from the McQuaid era was just so insulting, as were rider denials - it was embarrassing to follow a sport that was such an obvious farce through and through. If the tides have shifted to the point where doping is less brazen and systemic and effective, but still exists widely, then so be it. There is always going to be a check and balance with regards to what anti-doping can do, and people are going to dope and deny. I think what galled me so much as a fan in the past was the sheer insult to my intelligence that was happening. Saying 'everyone is clean' would be insulting nowadays, but saying 'it's possible for a clean rider to win' doesn't seem that ludicrous to me. And that's a sea change as far as cycling is concerned.
 
skidmark said:
okay, the report is out and it is zero amounts surprising, both in (limited) scope and findings. I definitely appreciate the anecdote about Savio; I am always interested in the details of how adapting programs work for various eras of doping.

Reading between the lines, from this 'estimate between 20% and 90% of the peloton are doping' statement, ...
If I have to guess I read the 20-90% to the levels of doping. The 90% would translate to any kind of diet pill or recuperation med and 20% being on the O2 vectors + other things.
 
skidmark said:
okay, the report is out and it is zero amounts surprising, both in (limited) scope and findings. I definitely appreciate the anecdote about Savio; I am always interested in the details of how adapting programs work for various eras of doping.

Reading between the lines, from this 'estimate between 20% and 90% of the peloton are doping' statement, that seems to confirm what most rational people would think. I dunno if there is more detail on individual responses, but that would be more interesting, as range tells you little about the prevailing 'insider' wisdom. If I had to hazard a guess, the 90% came from Di Luca, who probably used that delusion as justification to continue doping as if it were 1997. The truth, I think, is likely somewhere on the lower end, but that's just an outsider's educated guess from reading the tea leaves of news reports and rider statements. Either way, seems clear to me that a) the scale of doping has gone down (from, say, 2005) in terms of the amount of advantage given, b) the amount of riders doping has gone down, and c) doping in some form is still wide-spread enough to be a serious problem that casts doubt on the legitimacy of the pointy end of any race.

I have seen expressed here by some that 'cycling is no different than the past' and other broad, cynical, repeated points of view in the same vein. I take a position that it's 'no different' in the 'yes/no' sense of 'are riders doping' and 'do the majority of riders stay silent against doping', but it seems clear to me that things are different in scale and tone. Like, the UCI's 'tough on doping' crap from the McQuaid era was just so insulting, as were rider denials - it was embarrassing to follow a sport that was such an obvious farce through and through. If the tides have shifted to the point where doping is less brazen and systemic and effective, but still exists widely, then so be it. There is always going to be a check and balance with regards to what anti-doping can do, and people are going to dope and deny. I think what galled me so much as a fan in the past was the sheer insult to my intelligence that was happening. Saying 'everyone is clean' would be insulting nowadays, but saying 'it's possible for a clean rider to win' doesn't seem that ludicrous to me. And that's a sea change as far as cycling is concerned.
As I have little or no respect for Di Luca, then I suppose that means that someone, somewhere would view him as a "respected cyclist".

Dave.
 
blackcat said:
I still think that Freddie Viane Floyd LAndis' soigneur, tho I prefer the phonetic swannie, might have used a massage oil with testo in it. Because Floyd admitted to doping but vociferous and maintains an innocence with the testo.

options?
i) metabolites in the bloodbags. legitimate option
ii) lying.legitimate option
iii) swannie Freddie Viane slipped him a massage oil mickie of some testo.

we need to ask Dr Arnie Baker. stat. Dr Arnie where are you?
Actually, buried somewhere is the how the positive came to be. It wasn't a straight crossing the T/E ratio. Samples were tested and retested until the results someone, somewhere wanted appeared.

This is actually the inverse of the repeated lie in the CIRC report claiming Armstrong never tested positive at the TdS. In that scenario, the order of samples was reversed so the positive sample was second and the first was non-positive. Since the first was non-positive, no further testing!! This is all perfectly within the rules and why Verbruggen is a brilliant administrator.

In light of the recent IAAF/Russia scandal and legend of Verbruggen somehow producing spiked samples, the idea that Landis was made positive is very plausible. Add to that the fact Armstrong was having better dopers testing positive at his request.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
blackcat said:
however, he never had access to AICAR and GW and lipotropin.
Indeed! There is absolute no contention that Rasmussen example (if indeed he is the prime example, this is conjecture from me!) has been made nuclear by his copiers by using next gen drugs.

Rasmussen weightloss was almost certainly the good old "Eat nothing, train more*" routine used to it's extremities. It's highly unlikely that the current crop did not try the new wonder drugs (considering a pro cycling is an area where they try anything!). And that highly unlikely can be read as really, really, really unlikely :D

To drive your very good point home, where Rasmussen became the best climber with a passable TT, some other people we will not name became both best climber as best TT specialist at the same time. :rolleyes:

Long story short, Rasmussen set a trend, but the way he did it and how it's done now are rather different :)


* But train chemically aided :D
 
Pedaaldanser said:
He added that when used in large quantities and in conjunction with other substances, they supported performance gains. Another doctor stated that some quite recent big wins on the UCI WorldTour were as a result, in part, of some members of the team all using corticoids to get their weight down to support the individual who won (who also used the same weight-loss technique). It was reported that this had been a planned approach by that group's management.[/I]
Pretty much described Sky at Andalucia.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Actually, buried somewhere is the how the positive came to be. It wasn't a straight crossing the T/E ratio. Samples were tested and retested until the results someone, somewhere wanted appeared.

This is actually the inverse of the repeated lie in the CIRC report claiming Armstrong never tested positive at the TdS. In that scenario, the order of samples was reversed so the positive sample was second and the first was non-positive. Since the first was non-positive, no further testing!! This is all perfectly within the rules and why Verbruggen is a brilliant administrator.

In light of the recent IAAF/Russia scandal and legend of Verbruggen somehow producing spiked samples, the idea that Landis was made positive is very plausible. Add to that the fact Armstrong was having better dopers testing positive at his request.
but when they went back to test the previous samples in the c12 and c13 isotopes, or whatever the testo isotopes where to discriminate between the plant v animal source, or, prolly endogenous v definitely exogenous, then Landis came up positive on more stages in the preceding week(s)
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
D-Queued said:
Page 48 gives us a new tactic that moves us along from simply relying on Motoman:



Presumably that would also make tests for autologous transfusion even more challenged, and the use of blood bags even more effective as the stored blood would be mixed with current blood.

Dave.
that was my theory about how riders outside the continent get their storaged blood onto the continent.

if ofcourse, the Oakley founder wont lend you his glasses strikethtru, private learjet.

or Betsy wont do her motowoman shtick. I always figured her for a wonderwoman/motowoman.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY