Classics Riders

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 20, 2009
97
0
8,680
Personally I thought Boonen's 2013 was way over the top. Soloing from 30k +, etc.. he seemed totally lubed up(credit:Matt Cooke).
Most seemed to think the old Tom was back but this one seemed all new.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Master50 said:
The analysis of the contents of that vial was benign. No doping products.
The analysis of the contents of that post was benign. No humor found.


Oh, btw, no banned doping products in that vial. :rolleyes:
 
papisimo98 said:
Personally I thought Boonen's 2013 was way over the top. Soloing from 30k +, etc.. he seemed totally lubed up(credit:Matt Cooke).
Most seemed to think the old Tom was back but this one seemed all new.
It was nearly as bad as 2010 Flanders, where Cance and Boonen went from miles out, and even though Boonen couldn't hold Cancellara's wheel, he still gained time on the rest of the peloton who were chasing like madmen.

To the OP, logic says that the classics would be at least as dirty as stage races, as the riders:

1. Only have to pass one test, not several over the course of 1-3 weeks

2. Don't have to transport doping products from stage to stage, risking raids etc.

3. Only have one chance to get their race right - they can't rescue their race the next day.

4. Hoste, Museeuw, VDB, Ballan, Rebellin, Iglinsky, Boogerd, Bartoli, Kelly, Dekker, Davis, Kolobnev, Di Luca, Hincapie, Schumacher etc, etc.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
Or, or or or, Hoste's career had tailed off to the point of his being more or less irrelevant at the time that took place.
but Armstrong is no longer even active and still talked about, every single day.

Okay, then, take the Mantova Case. Why is it hardly ever discussed on here? The main victim of it still is Ballan ...

Libertine Seguros said:
Cancellara doesn't get ignored by the Clinic, nor did Gilbert's miracle year or OPQS' resurgence the following year when Ibarguren jumped ship.
Again, when we are in April, people suddenly remember there are classics out there and so they discuss whether it's credible or not but once we are in May, forget about them. GT riders and Armstrong are just talked about 365 days a year, here. That's not serious for a forum that is meant to be specialised in cycling. If it were but Eurosport.com, I would understand (and even so) but this is meant to be cyclingnews.com

Libertine Seguros said:
Do you honestly, genuinely think people have ignored Mapei's Roubaix or Gewiss-Ballan at Flèche Wallonne as iconic doping performances?
I'm not sure people remember Mapei's Roubaix outside of "Enlightened Libertine" (sic).

Look, do you know what shocked me? By 2008 or so (don't exactly remember), the Gazzetta revealed that Michele Bartoli was actually Sansone on the Fuentes list. NOT A WORD in the international press. Nobody discussed that on the forums. And I'm still sure that many people don't even know that Bartoli has been confounded for doping. I learnt that myself much later. Bartoli is certainly a big name in the classics in the 90's. He stole a huge palmares. When Van Hooydonck made his public accusations against the Italians - at the 1994 Flèche brabançonne, it was -, who won the race?

Who remembered that Giorgio Furlan was a donkey becoming a race horse winning the Arrow, Milan-Sanremo and being 2nd to a teammate in Lombardy?

Libertine Seguros said:
Also, because the Classics are one-day races, there's an element of luck on the day - you're feeling good, others aren't, weather, crashes, and so on - that often evens itself out over the course of a GT, which doesn't in the Classics. I would therefore argue that it is more reasonable to make the assumption that a Classic can be won clean than that a GT can be won clean.
The idea that a classic can be won clean or not is an issue that can raise an interesting debate on a cycling forum. But I guess that has never been an issue here.

Libertine Seguros said:
The Armstrong threads went postal because of the enormity of his profile in the sport, which dwarfs that of Museeuw, regardless of your attitudes to the races he won (I despised his "all for the TdF and nothing else" calendar just as much as you, btw) or didn't win now... and because this is an Anglophone forum.
Yet the palmares that he stole is no bigger than those Museeuw and Jalabert stole. Besides, they doped a lot more. It was the 90's, remember ...

Libertine Seguros said:
Even in some traditional countries, the same happens. Would you argue, for example, that Spain is not a traditional cycling country? Yet they have very little history of Classics racing, and their calendar has historically revolved almost entirely around stage racing and single-day races finishing on mountaintops (Subida al Naranco, Subida a Urkiola, Subida a Arrate and so on).
I was in Spain in 1996 for the "iconic" Mapei Roubaix sweep and watched the race live on Spanish TV. :)

I've never showed any disrespect to the Spanish stage races, I've talked a lot about the late Catalan Week on these boards. I have most respect to Portuguese discussing the Tour of Portugal, to South American posters discussing South American races, etc. I'm just fed up with fanboys/girls (or haters too) discussing the same riders from the same 3 races for 12 months a year.


Libertine Seguros said:
However, at the same time, I resent the implication that all of us on the forum, with the exception of the enlightened Echoes, are mouth-breathing ignoramuses for not focusing all of our attention on the Classics to the exclusion of all else, because we don't remember that back in the 70s the Scheldeprijs wasn't the worst race in the entire cycling calendar and can't quote Jempy Monseré's palmarès outside of the Worlds by heart, and because we have the temerity to enjoy a multi-stage racing event which has climbs over 4km in length.
I wish you wouldn't caricature me the way you are doing here. This paragraph is full a clichés... There's no reason to refer to past/history when I'm talking about is present times. As if to ridicule me into an old-fashioned relic.

I don't consider myself a knowledgeable person with regards to cycling but I'm just very curious and interested. I love reading posts that really can teach me something interesting. Only that is not the case for 80% of them (your being in the remaining 20% :)).

Libertine Seguros said:
You're a good and informative poster most of the time, doing good work to bring some attention to the historical prestige of many races and introduce fans to some strong riders whose achievements shouldn't have been buried, and your work on globalization in cycling through the ages in particular has been of great value and interest to me as somebody greatly interested in the Course de la Paix and Ostbloc cycling as a whole. Please don't turn this into a crusade.
Thank you. I think the same about you.

Cheers, Libertine. :)
 
Mar 12, 2010
545
0
0
A flaw of the bio-passport.

During a GT, a leading rider may have as many as 4-5 samples taken for the ABP program and from that we can look at the way their blood values have developed over the course of a 3 week race, and in theory, the ABP would make it harder for a GT rider to dope because of this.

A rider doing a bunch of one day races, days off, one day race, days off, the ABP becomes much less of a useful tool, so riders have much more chance of avoiding problems. Then outside of that, just do what they always do, microdose at night knowing it will be out of the system in the morning.

There is also huge levels of cortisone abuse amongst the classic riders and they just work around it with the 8 day rule.
 
TheGame said:
A flaw of the bio-passport.

During a GT, a leading rider may have as many as 4-5 samples taken for the ABP program and from that we can look at the way their blood values have developed over the course of a 3 week race, and in theory, the ABP would make it harder for a GT rider to dope because of this.
It's rarely clear what is tested when. What is known is there are a large number of urine samples. But, one has to fail an IQ test to get caught this way.

In practice, what doping during a grand tour looks like is parameters stay "too normal", or do really strange things like Horner's. One of many holes in the ABP is trapping these "too normal" values. Bayesian analysis is not the right tool for catching "too normal" values. Parisotto said as much in his Horner analysis.



TheGame said:
A rider doing a bunch of one day races, days off, one day race, days off, the ABP becomes much less of a useful tool, so riders have much more chance of avoiding problems. Then outside of that, just do what they always do, microdose at night knowing it will be out of the system in the morning.

There is also huge levels of cortisone abuse amongst the classic riders and they just work around it with the 8 day rule.
It's really even worse than that. Time your EPO cycle to end about three days before your event and you will not test positive in the urinalysis. Defeating the testosterone urinalysis is easier still with a ridiculous 4:1 threshold before anyone checks for synthetic Test. Again, don't fail the IQ test like JTL though.

I believe that the system prevents athletes from killing themselves. And that's an improvement.

The IOC and IOC sports love to completely over-promise the system because it sure looks and sounds complicated. Unfortunately no one talks about the simple fact an anti-doping authority is not required to open a case.
 
DirtyWorks said:
It's really even worse than that. Time your EPO cycle to end about three days before your event and you will not test positive in the urinalysis. Defeating the testosterone urinalysis is easier still with a ridiculous 4:1 threshold before anyone checks for synthetic Test. Again, don't fail the IQ test like JTL though.
re: the T urinalysis:

1. It will catch some people, which is better than no people
2. If a rider is blood-tested for other reasons, the more accurate T test will be applied
3. The T:E in the general population varies. If you put the threshold too low, it will have many false positives, triggering the more expensive blood tests and increasing the overall cost of testing. Increasing the cost = fewer tests can be afforded. Fewer urine screens = fewer true positives.

Who is qualified to set the proper T:E threshold? Not you. WADA consults doctors and statisticians.
 
proffate said:
re: the T urinalysis:

1. It will catch some people, which is better than no people
Will it? We have evidence that at least one rider in particular had extreme T ratio and never tested positive. Maybe the UCI sends a letter? Again, the anti-doping authority doesn't have to open every positive recommendation.


proffate said:
2. If a rider is blood-tested for other reasons, the more accurate T test will be applied
Honest question: do you have a link that states that? My understanding is the synthetic test is time consuming and expensive. The latter being a huge reason why an anti-doping authority would not run it just to see what happens. I could be wrong though.


proffate said:
3. The T:E in the general population varies. If you put the threshold too low, it will have many false positives,
You know, they said the same thing when the ratio was 6:1.

Let's assume the anti-doping authority (ADA) is a fair dealer and follows the WADA process to the letter. Let's also assume the athlete is a very lucky outlier and has a naturally high ratio. What happens when they cross a low T/E ratio threshold?
-CIDR test is run to test for synthetic Test. CIDR test fails. non-positive.
-Let's argue the ADA pursues it anyway. Per WADA process standard, athlete is contacted and asked to provide an explanation.
-WADA has a protocol for issuing an T/E ratio exception. Athlete will meet the criteria because they are a lucky outlier.

If you understood how the process worked, you would not make these mistakes. Let's be fair to you and most people, no one on the sports administration side wants you to know how the system actually works.

proffate said:
Who is qualified to set the proper T:E threshold? Not you. WADA consults doctors and statisticians.
ZING!!! Sorry, the personal attack doesn't make you right.

Are you sure you know how that ratio came to be? WADA recommends a ratio to a board made up of sports administration authorities. Again, the science-side of WADA has no authority. The sports administrators are the ones setting the threshold.

Please, take a look:
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/who-we-are/governance/executive-committee
Lots of PHD's here! https://www.wada-ama.org/en/who-we-are/governance/prohibited-list-expert-group
Oh, except it turns out most are the Alan Lim of one sport or another.

And here!!
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/who-we-are/governance/olympic-movement-representation
Hmm. Yes, lots of strident anti-dopers running WADA.

Sepp Blatter, prominent WADA Board member, and his sports administration friends at clean sports like the IAAF never stopped managing WADA. Pat McQuaid lost his seat though!!
 
I think I am active on them (if not here then on Velorooms) but I don't always have time to. I'm not very active overall either.

Though I guess it's always the problem. On CN, there is attention to the classics when they are underway. Then they are forgotten.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
What I do not understand is the attitude of a single individual demanding others post according to their desires.

Incredible.

And then to post said desire as if it is going to change anything.

Unless of course it's just a rant, in which case a single post would have sufficed, surely?

I personally post about what interests me, when it interests me. Anything else is ignored. I laugh at anyone demanding any different. ha ha ha.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY