Circ

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
blackcat said:
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)
But, that kind of gets lost in the original point, the conditions of the positive were more scandalous than the positive.

Per the IAAF scandal, could those old positives be a swapped test? Maybe he really was using Test previously? Maybe those tests were spiked/"found" too? It doesn't really matter to me. Testing itself is compromised.
 
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 is crazy. Just crazy.
 
Feb 22, 2011
465
0
0
mwbyrd said:
I want to know why they wouldn't talk to Floyd Landis? What bombshell is he hiding?
Just, you know, spitballing here, but maybe they're saving something for the sequel?

Two pay checks r better'n 1.
 
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.

Not a surprise to me.
Much easier to 'smuggle' blood products inside your circulation. Literally zero risk of a customs bust. Depending on the flight length though, may cause other issues. I wouldn't want to do this Transatlantic or Europe to Asia.

All you need is the empty bags and paraphernalia provided at the far end.
 
Nov 14, 2013
527
0
0
hrotha said:
Maybe it came from Ricco and he simply introduced himself as "a respected cyclist."
To be fair he nailed it when he named himself after an unlovable reptile.

Nah, just kidding, Ricco is a laugh.
 
None of this is new, but there is something extra brought on when it comes all at once. Tidbits about finishing bottles and diet pills just don't have as much gravity when trickling through the news feed.

...

I say this a lot in conversations, but there is always a lot to admire about the commitment of dopers. Illegality and immorality (and mortality) aside, these techniques require physical, mental, and strategic commitment at the highest level.

I can imagine 5 guys sitting around a table talking about blood bags for hours: Mail? No. Motoman? No. Burying it on the route? No. How about we transport it in his own bloodstream! Genius!

Then they move on. Pharmacists take 6 year degree to learn the ins and outs of medications, and this band of cycling managers and their gynecologists are mixing 30 pills like they're making homemade pasta sauce.

And then the athletes... Want to be a domestique we may or may not pay at the end of the year? Swallow these... Okay team, we just got our first doses from our contact in China. We need volunteers to make sure it's not ground up horse bones covered in lead paint. BTW, the following riders' contracts are up after this year...Want to climb halfway up the summit for your leader and limp in 15 minutes later? I threw a dart at a map; move you and your family there (and tell your wife not to eat the pasta sauce in the fridge...)
 
mwbyrd said:
I want to know why they wouldn't talk to Floyd Landis? What bombshell is he hiding?
In the upside down world of the UCI, Landis is to blame for stirring anti-doping controversy. At minimum, he's on Thom Wiesel's s*#t list and Thom still runs USAC. Remember, the UCI is a federation of national federations.

Also, I think there's a conviction of some kind in France.(???) He may not want to tempt fate. Which, of course, the UCI would use as a personal attack.

The report is serving some Machiavellian end game that amateurs like me cannot imagine. So, nothing will quite add up, or make sense.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
My take on the 20-90% current doping level is this:

I believe that due to the constant cutting corners and playing the system (which changes all the time) that the riders themselves don't even know what cheating/being clean is anymore...

Some think that doping is only taking a banned substance... Others might only view doping as crossing the ABP high levels...

I mean the only way you know you are a cheat is if you get a sanction..
And even then it is probably just "bad luck" bad product etc...

I've said before that clean is the new mean.

The point is that the line between clean and doping has become eradicated due to the 1000's of products (many substitutes), micro-dosing, ever changing rules -and the idea of a level playing field... (doping ain't cheating)

There is no wrong or right in the percentages...
It's about perception...
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
mrhender said:
My take on the 20-90% current doping level is this:

I believe that due to the constant cutting corners and playing the system (which changes all the time) that the riders themselves don't even know what cheating/being clean is anymore...

Some think that doping is only taking a banned substance... Others might only view doping as crossing the ABP high levels...

I mean the only way you know you are a cheat is if you get a sanction..
And even then it is probably just "bad luck" bad product etc...

I've said before that clean is the new mean.

The point is that the line between clean and doping has become eradicated due to the 1000's of products (many substitutes), micro-dosing, ever changing rules -and the idea of a level playing field... (doping ain't cheating)

There is no wrong or right in the percentages...
It's about perception...
good points.
but we can infer from the report that the 20% is BS.
the report mentions:
- 95%(!) don't tick the box to have their samples tested for antidoping research. How's that compatible with being clean? It is not.
- usual answer to 'what do you know about doping in your team?' is: "3-4 clean, 3-4 dope, the others i don't know". that doesn't sound like 20%

My bet is somebody like Froome would say "20% or less".
Guys without anything to loose, like Santambrogio and Di Luca, are imo more trustworthy sources.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
sniper said:
good points.
but we can infer from the report that the 20% is BS.
the report mentions:
- 95%(!) don't tick the box to have their samples tested for antidoping research. How's that compatible with being clean? It is not.
- usual answer to 'what do you know about doping in your team?' is: "3-4 clean, 3-4 dope, the others i don't know". that doesn't sound like 20%

My bet is somebody like Froome would say "20% or less".
Guys without anything to loose, like Santambrogio and Di Luca, are imo more trustworthy sources.
The reference to "3-4 are clean" etc in the report is a reference to how many teams are doping, not how many riders on each team are doping.

"A common response to the Commission, when asked about teams, was that probably 3 or 4 were clean, 3 or 4 were doping, and the rest were a
?don?t know?. page 56 of the report
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
bewildered said:
The reference to "3-4 are clean" etc in the report is a reference to how many teams are doping, not how many riders on each team are doping.

"A common response to the Commission, when asked about teams, was that probably 3 or 4 were clean, 3 or 4 were doping, and the rest were a
?don?t know?. page 56 of the report
cheers, you're right, my misinterpretation.
 
For the 95% its probably simple laziness.

If you had a check a box so they would NOT be included in research, I would bet a good dinner that very few would check the box.

This sort of opt out opt/in is used all the time in marketing e-mails.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
Catwhoorg said:
For the 95% its probably simple laziness.

If you had a check a box so they would NOT be included in research, I would bet a good dinner that very few would check the box.

This sort of opt out opt/in is used all the time in marketing e-mails.
agree with this. unless riders believe this is an opt-in for retro testing which they surely don't
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Catwhoorg said:
For the 95% its probably simple laziness.

If you had a check a box so they would NOT be included in research, I would bet a good dinner that very few would check the box.

This sort of opt out opt/in is used all the time in marketing e-mails.
bewildered said:
agree with this. unless riders believe this is an opt-in for retro testing which they surely don't
disagree.
if you're clean, you're aware that dopers are stealing results and money from you.
isn't that enough incentive to check that box? think it is.

for what it's worth, Canadian cyclo-crosser Geoff Kabush also disagrees.
Geoff Kabush @GeoffKabush ? 11h 11 hours ago

CIRC: 95% of cyclists don't tick box allowing anonymous anti-doping research w/ sample? If you're for clean sport why not? I tick every time
 
Good for Geoff. (I mean that, no sarcasm intended)

Doesn't undermine the well known broader phenomena about opt in/opt out check boxes in general though.

If they changed the form the rates would adjust massively.
 
sniper said:
good points.
but we can infer from the report that the 20% is BS.
the report mentions:
- 95%(!) don't tick the box to have their samples tested for antidoping research. How's that compatible with being clean? It is not.
- usual answer to 'what do you know about doping in your team?' is: "3-4 clean, 3-4 dope, the others i don't know". that doesn't sound like 20%

My bet is somebody like Froome would say "20% or less".
Guys without anything to loose, like Santambrogio and Di Luca, are imo more trustworthy sources.
Not sure about this, I suspect people like Di Luca want to inflate the numbers to self justify their own doping.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
del1962 said:
Not sure about this, I suspect people like Di Luca want to inflate the numbers to self justify their own doping.
Yeah I agree the number will be a lot higher than the lower estimate but perhaps a fair bit lower than the top estimate.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
if they changed the form the results would be different, i agree, but you could also read a lot more into them then too imo
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY