Moose McKnuckles said:Pretty much described Sky at Andalucia.
I think that's bingo right there...describes Sky at a couple Tours as well..
now if Cookson could call them out..
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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!
Moose McKnuckles said:Pretty much described Sky at Andalucia.
Mayomaniac said:On page 69 the report says that the commission was told that Fuentes is still woking with riders.
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)
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.
mwbyrd said:I want to know why they wouldn't talk to Floyd Landis? What bombshell is he hiding?
skippythepinhead said: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.
D-Queued said:
I thought Lance gave himself the title?
Dave.
hrotha said:Maybe it came from Ricco and he simply introduced himself as "a respected cyclist."
mwbyrd said:I want to know why they wouldn't talk to Floyd Landis? What bombshell is he hiding?
good points.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...
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.
cheers, you're right, my misinterpretation.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
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.
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
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
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.
del1962 said:Not sure about this, I suspect people like Di Luca want to inflate the numbers to self justify their own doping.