• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Colombians Considered Clean?

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 31, 2010
16,174
0
0
proffate said:
at the NRC season opener, Redlands, in the first 3 stages USADA tested:

stage 1: 0 riders
stage 2: 1 rider (stage winner/gc leader*)
stage 3: 3 riders (stage winner/gc leader** + 2 randoms)
stage 4-5: I was DNF at this point so I didn't find out

so 4/202 riders tested over 3 stages --- sleep well tonight; the scene is surely clean as a whistle! edit: also the winner came from the Hincapie team.

*doper Tom Zirbel
**sprinter Travis McCabe
trying to proove your point in a forum while being schizofrenic is not a working thing. good luck finding anyone to decipher your post and worse even your brain.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
proffate said:
at the NRC season opener, Redlands, in the first 3 stages USADA tested:

stage 1: 0 riders
stage 2: 1 rider (stage winner/gc leader*)
stage 3: 3 riders (stage winner/gc leader** + 2 randoms)
stage 4-5: I was DNF at this point so I didn't find out

so 4/202 riders tested over 3 stages --- sleep well tonight; the scene is surely clean as a whistle! edit: also the winner came from the Hincapie team.

*doper Tom Zirbel
**sprinter Travis McCabe
2% tested. Crazy.
 
Mar 31, 2010
16,174
0
0
proffate said:
at the NRC season opener, Redlands, in the first 3 stages USADA tested:

stage 1: 0 riders
stage 2: 1 rider (stage winner/gc leader*)
stage 3: 3 riders (stage winner/gc leader** + 2 randoms)
stage 4-5: I was DNF at this point so I didn't find out

so 4/202 riders tested over 3 stages --- sleep well tonight; the scene is surely clean as a whistle! edit: also the winner came from the Hincapie team.

*doper Tom Zirbel
**sprinter Travis McCabe
any proove of riders doping? or hell even any proof that only 4 riders were tested? :rolleyes:
 
Apr 13, 2011
847
0
0
Not making excuses for Zirbel, but the guy got popped for a very miniscule amount of DHEA, which has never proven to give any advantage whatsoever physically for performance.

Another useless banned substance...just throw anyting/everything on the list based off myth and fiction....then test everybody for everything.


Abstract

"Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is secreted by the zona reticularis of the adrenal cortex and is converted into potent sex steroids in peripheral target cells. As oral DHEA administration can lead to dose-dependent increases in circulating androgens, which may reach high supraphysiologic levels in women, it has been included in the list of prohibited substances by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). However, evidence for an ergogenic activity of DHEA is still largely nonexistent. Randomized trials in elderly subjects with an age-dependent decrease in DHEA have provided little or no evidence for enhanced physical performance after long-term administration of DHEA, 50 mg/d, and smaller short-term studies in healthy male athletes using higher doses were completely negative. Thus the widely perceived performance-enhancing activity of DHEA is still more myth than reality. However, because studies in female athletes are still lacking, an ergogenic activity of high-dose DHEA in this population cannot be excluded but is expected to be associated with adverse events like hirsutism, acne, and alopecia."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20122454
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
proffate said:
at the NRC season opener, Redlands, in the first 3 stages USADA tested:

stage 1: 0 riders
stage 2: 1 rider (stage winner/gc leader*)
stage 3: 3 riders (stage winner/gc leader** + 2 randoms)
stage 4-5: I was DNF at this point so I didn't find out

so 4/202 riders tested over 3 stages --- sleep well tonight; the scene is surely clean as a whistle! edit: also the winner came from the Hincapie team.

*doper Tom Zirbel
**sprinter Travis McCabe
Ok, so this is another facet of the system that is so beautifully designed to look like it is doing something. The sport can talk about testing, show complicated websites and talk about the testing pool and number of tests run annually. And yet, on the ground, not much going on.


Just to be clear, many riders do not need to be tested. Certainly more than 4 over three days, but not 202 tests. This is a well defined area of statistics.
 
Ryo Hazuki said:
any proove of riders doping? or hell even any proof that only 4 riders were tested? :rolleyes:
hard to collect any "proove" when there's barely any testing

Also I suspect (but do not know) that the tests were just urine tests because urine collection is a lot easier/cheaper than blood. The "RaceClean" program tested at a couple local crits last year, which consisted of collecting some urine in a special porta-potty.
 
Mar 31, 2010
16,174
0
0
proffate said:
hard to collect any "proove" when there's barely any testing

Also I suspect (but do not know) that the tests were just urine tests because urine collection is a lot easier/cheaper than blood. The "RaceClean" program tested at a couple local crits last year, which consisted of collecting some urine in a special porta-potty.
oh how convenient for you "believers"

also low amounts of testing doesn't equal extra doping use. just look at japanese keirin scene for an extreme example
 
Apr 22, 2012
2,625
0
0
Quintana:
"More than data, I've been relying on my gut feelings to judge my condition, and my instinct tells me things are going well. I hope it [my instinct] doesn't let me down. I have the same kind of feeling about my condition as I had before the Tour last year"
Every time I'm reading something like this I don't know what to think. What does it mean, to rely more on gut feeling and instinct than data. I doubt that's possible.
 
Kokoso said:
Quintana:
"More than data, I've been relying on my gut feelings to judge my condition, and my instinct tells me things are going well. I hope it [my instinct] doesn't let me down. I have the same kind of feeling about my condition as I had before the Tour last year"
Every time I'm reading something like this I don't know what to think. What does it mean, to rely more on gut feeling and instinct than data. I doubt that's possible.
What does that have to do with doping? :confused:
 
Apr 22, 2012
2,625
0
0
Netserk said:
What does that have to do with doping? :confused:
When you consider training in Colombia, there is bigger chance that doping happens. And Quintana's word could sound strange to somebody, like me. I!m serching fot explanation. Because of it I thought that this is better to post it here in clinic.
 
Quintana may be doping, and Colombia may be a safe haven to dope, but that has nothing to do with going by gut feeling for your training. Many riders are old school and would gladly use power meters and the like as little as possible.

See Carlos Sastre for the most obvious example.
 
hrotha said:
Quintana may be doping, and Colombia may be a safe haven to dope, but that has nothing to do with going by gut feeling for your training. Many riders are old school and would gladly use power meters and the like as little as possible.

See Carlos Sastre for the most obvious example.
Some people are confused by numbers.

Some folks describe it as a cognitive issue.

Not to be confused with some new 'marginal gain' approach to training.

Just saying.

Dave.
 
Apr 22, 2012
2,625
0
0
hrotha said:
Quintana may be doping, and Colombia may be a safe haven to dope, but that has nothing to do with going by gut feeling for your training. Many riders are old school and would gladly use power meters and the like as little as possible.

See Carlos Sastre for the most obvious example.
How is Quintana old school in age 24? Carlos Sastre quit cycling three seasons ago and from what I can see this his results got significantly worse after 2008 so I wonder if his old school approach wasn't insuficient.

Anyway, Quintana said he's judging his condition, not training. I find it hard to believe some top cyclist on this level is using more using instinct to judge his form.
And - Quintana isn't exactly one of "many riders".
 
"Old school" has little to do with how old you are, really. Quintana comes from a very traditional cycling background. Now I don't know about you, but I've heard plenty of riders say they trust their feelings more than what any on-board computer is telling them. No I wouldn't be able to give you any names right now.

If you find it hard to believe, that's your problem. *shrugs*
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Kokoso said:
How is Quintana old school in age 24? Carlos Sastre quit cycling three seasons ago and from what I can see this his results got significantly worse after 2008 so I wonder if his old school approach wasn't insuficient.
"Old school" (whatever that means in cycling*) got him a TdF. Seems like that worked and was sufficinet in cycling terms. Not too many win the TdF ;)

*I guess it means not relying on cycling computers and power meters.
 
Aug 16, 2011
9,595
0
0
Kokoso said:
How is Quintana old school in age 24? Carlos Sastre quit cycling three seasons ago and from what I can see this his results got significantly worse after 2008 so I wonder if his old school approach wasn't insuficient.

Anyway, Quintana said he's judging his condition, not training. I find it hard to believe some top cyclist on this level is using more using instinct to judge his form.
And - Quintana isn't exactly one of "many riders".
There's nothing wrong with judging ones form based on instinct and it in no way is some kind of proof or evidence that the cyclists might be doping. A rider seeing very high (like over 6.0 W/kg) numbers in training might be evidence of doping. But a rider training and basing where they think their fitness is at on how they feel proves nothing.

Off the top of my head I remember Nibali also commentated once on how he prefers to race based on feeling then according to the numbers on his screen.
 
hrotha said:
Quintana may be doping, and Colombia may be a safe haven to dope, but that has nothing to do with going by gut feeling for your training. Many riders are old school and would gladly use power meters and the like as little as possible.

See Carlos Sastre for the most obvious example.
How can old school compete with incredibly scientific coaches like Lim and Kerrison...
 
Oct 6, 2009
4,660
0
0
Voeckler is another who doesn't use power meters.

Quintana has had to do some scientific training at the Movistar camps, but if he prefers not to use power meters when he's at home, that's hardly a huge surprise. It doesn't mean he's never been in a wind tunnel, never used scientific training at all, etc. Just that he prefers to listen to his own body. He's likely been given a training plan for Colombia by the team's sports scientist anyway, so it's not like he's putting no thought at all into his training and just sitting around being lazy.
 
Apr 19, 2010
935
0
0
Ferminal said:
How can old school compete with incredibly scientific coaches like Lim and Kerrison...
Quintana doesn't need a computer to tell him when to rotate injection sites. Sticking a needle in your arm/**** is more oldschool than fancy gadgets and faddy training programs.
 
Aug 15, 2012
844
0
0
Maybe Quintana simply weighs his perceived effort in context more heavily than the peeps watching meters for the most part. Compared to some the newer ::ahem:: trends, i guess it could be considered old school.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS