Circ

Page 21 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 23, 2013
372
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, absolutely. My guess is that those who are practising 'legalized doping' (use of TUEs for non-therapeutic purposes that nonetheless conforms to the requirements of the official paper trail, or other not-yet-explicitly-banend methods akin to transfusions before they were outlawed) think of themselves as clean, and estimate that (for example) 20% of other riders are using EPO etc. Meanwhile, those who've been caught want to claim that everyone's doing it, and who are using EPO but haven't been caught don't see a distinction between what they're doing and the 'legalized' methods, and come up with estimates that doping is near-universal.

The two estimates are not necessarily incompatible. It depends on how the riders justify (including to themselves) what they are doing.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
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.
Comparing spam to anti dope retesting is a bit of a stretch........
 
Benotti69 said:
Comparing spam to anti dope retesting is a bit of a stretch........
How about organ donation then ?

Look at uptake for opt in and opt out.

Germany which has opt in ~12% of people are on the donor list.
Austria opt out 99%+ are on the donor list.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/09/david-millar-uci-report-doping-lost-hearts-minds

Leading anti-doping campaigner? Only when it suits him.

New generation?

Empathy for clean athletes? Yeah David, I get deafened by the uproar of the clean athletes whenever a big name gets popped.

Brainwashed into thinking everyone is doping. Is that his own experience?

The guy is deluded, that's the only way to put it. how anyone can take him seriously is beyond me.
 
The Hitch said:
Doesn't that say "provided that it can no longer be identified as my sample" :eek:
Yes it does.

Froome headed down a dangerous path that puts pressure on the UCI. This reminds me of the Tenerife posts from 2014. That, you know, inspired the UCI to test there. I'm not sure how much they can put up with him when he knows well they are protecting him.
 
Sep 6, 2014
283
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.
OMG I nearly fell off my chair when I read that, I was actually agreeing with all that you were saying until the last line.

Do you really honestly believe Di Luca and Santambrogio are trust worthy?
 
Mar 9, 2013
1,996
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Yes it does.

Froome headed down a dangerous path that puts pressure on the UCI. This reminds me of the Tenerife posts from 2014. That, you know, inspired the UCI to test there. I'm not sure how much they can put up with him when he knows well they are protecting him.
Do you think Froome is the only one who dopes?
 
Sep 6, 2014
283
0
0



Matt Brammeier‏@Mattbrammeier85
Throughout my whole career I always ticked 'the box' - I find it hard to believe I'm of the '5%' Who ticks the box?
 
TANK91 said:
Do you think Froome is the only one who dopes?
No. My point being, there is much more going on than doping.

Maybe another way to say this, if Phil Gaimon tweeted his displeasure with a lack of testing on Tenerife, would the UCI leap into action within 24 hours that allegedly leads to testing on Tenerife?

It's not the doping. It's the UCI picking winners, clearly favoring Froome. Again. And Froome has the nerve to practically use this against the UCI. Not a good choice.

Okay, well it IS the doping too. But, much more going on.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
The Hitch said:
Doesn't that say "provided that it can no longer be identified as my sample" :eek:
Exactly so it doesn't really matter if it is ticked or not. No indication of anything really is it.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
a smart doper will tick the box then. A clean rider will also have no issue in ticking the box. 95% figure should be completely ignored imo
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
grizzlee said:
OMG I nearly fell off my chair when I read that, I was actually agreeing with all that you were saying until the last line.

Do you really honestly believe Di Luca and Santambrogio are trust worthy?
I trust Di Luca to say what he really thinks when asked that question. I don't trust very many from the current peloton to do so. In fact almost none of them could be bothered to answer any question. All the funnier when they now are miffed when CIRC quotes Di Luca (or whoever it is). They had the chance to put their mark on the report, instead they let Rasmussen and Di Luca roll over them again.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/uci-statement-lloyd-mondory/

Lloyd Mondary AG2R AAF for EPO. One day after the Circ report states:-

"The impact on doping attitudes can be seen in the French teams, which have over the last 10 years generally been thought of as clean; because French teams know that they will be able to participate in the Tour, they are able to provide exposure for the sponsor without the pressure to dope to obtain results."
 
staubsauger said:
Contador got covered up twice! Won grand tours when he was concerned in Puerto. Won a Giro during his ban.

But yeah, it's (only) Froome who's the evil protected man and new Armstrong. :rolleyes:
It's absolutely not just one rider being protected. Little doubt in my mind that Froome is being protected however.

The UCI are attempting to manage a brand, not fight doping. If fighting doping helps that brand, great. They will do that. If it doesn't, they clearly have done and will continue to do that as well.
 
SundayRider said:
Exactly so it doesn't really matter if it is ticked or not. No indication of anything really is it.
It was just a pr stunt. Reminds me very much of the one he pulled in june last year when he asked for more testing on Teide, then saying that testing allows him to prove he is clean (just like it allowed Armstrong to prove he was clean i guess).

They sky internet brigade gets their 15 minutes, jumps on it and tries to make as much hoopla out of it as possible.

But a few months or even weeks down the line, the argument that froome is clean because he publically announced that he ticked a box in an anonymous questionaire is going to look hillarious.

Actually it makes me laugh since Froome deliberately took a photo of the question to try and score internet brownee points.
The same things sky's few remaining defenders keep preaching Sky are supposedly above.

bewildered said:
a smart doper will tick the box then. A clean rider will also have no issue in ticking the box. 95% figure should be completely ignored imo
Since the thing is supposed to be anonymous a doper can do either.

A desperate doper might however take out their phone and take a picture of it to post on twitter. To try to distract from the fact that a report released yesterday directly challenges the message froome has been trying to sell about the sport being cleaner. His comments in July 2013 that he would not be able to win if the sport wasn't clean look funny when put in this new light.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
SundayRider said:
Exactly so it doesn't really matter if it is ticked or not. No indication of anything really is it.
bewildered said:
a smart doper will tick the box then. A clean rider will also have no issue in ticking the box. 95% figure should be completely ignored imo
agreed. good spot, Hitch.

staubsauger said:
Contador got covered up twice! Won grand tours when he was concerned in Puerto. Won a Giro during his ban.
But yeah, it's (only) Froome who's the evil protected man and new Armstrong. :rolleyes:
There's no new Armstrong.
But Sky can be compared to USPS on many levels.

grizzlee said:
OMG I nearly fell off my chair when I read that, I was actually agreeing with all that you were saying until the last line.

Do you really honestly believe Di Luca and Santambrogio are trust worthy?
well, on such matters as doping i'd give them more cred than riders who haven't been caught yet. that's simple logic.

In addition, well before Di Luca's claim, I and some other more skeptical posters already estimated that around 90% of the peloton were still doping, based on common sense really. So when a guy like Di Luca comes along and states "90% are still doping", well, sounds plausible.

And when a guy like Talansky comes along to slam and insult Di Luca for his 90% claim, i see that as an extra bit of confirmation that Di Luca's estimate is probably rather close to the painful truth.
 
sniper said:
agreed. good spot, Hitch.


There's no new Armstrong.
But Sky can be compared to USPS on many levels.

well, on such matters as doping i'd give them more cred than riders who haven't been caught yet. that's simple logic.

In addition, well before Di Luca's claim, I and some other more skeptical posters already estimated that around 90% of the peloton were still doping, based on common sense really. So when a guy like Di Luca comes along and states "90% are still doping", well, sounds plausible.

And when a guy like Talansky comes along to slam and insult Di Luca for his 90% claim, i see that as an extra bit of confirmation that Di Luca's estimate is probably rather close to the painful truth.
You give a very specific figure but then back it up with a vague concept such as common sense.

Common sense can defend certain propositions, but how specifically you get that 90% of the peloton is doping I don't understand
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
The Hitch said:
You give a very specific figure but then back it up with a vague concept such as common sense.

Common sense can defend certain propositions, but how specifically you get that 90% of the peloton is doping I don't understand
The basic assumption is that clean riders are the exception, dopers the rule.
The proverbial 1 out of 10 then gets me to 90% ;)
I'd assume Di Luca's estimate is based on similar logic, plus a bit of insider knowledge.
He seems to think juicing is still the norm.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS