Doping methods per rider please

[rsergio007]

Don't get me wrong but I just got fed up reading posts where people basically post opinions on how doped someone is, or their merits, based on very little hard facts or knowledgeable opinions. A lot of posts in the Clinic are just like a passionate soap opera or reality tv grade bit ching.

As someone who loves cycling, and appreciates the uncompromising way the Clinic commits to handling the doping issue, I would really like to see a better discussion about what really might be going on.

I and a lot of people think Froome, Contador, Nibali, Horner, Kittel, Cavendish, etc are dopers. Great. Move on. So, what are they on? What can people in the Clinic, which gathers members with a vast array of experience, can say about it? Educated guesses of course.
To me that is much more interesting that having a million posts stating "rider x is a lying cheat".

Can anyone explain what Horner has done to win the Vuelta? Never seen anything like it - impossible standing up climbing.
Can anyone explain the method Froome used last year for his circus act climbing? Also, totally unique to Froome.

So what is everybody on then?

 

[Benotti69]

they're on their bike 6 hours a day busting their a$$, what are you on.....

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Contrary to recent reports everybody seems to be on Nutella.

 

[hrotha]

It's been a while since we had a proper bust of a top GT contender (and by that I mean something that gave us a glimpse of what their program looked like). An educated guess, looking at his passport, would be that Horner relies on old school blood doping, while the rumours and the extra leanness might suggest Froome is on the cutting edge of artificial weight loss and similar stuff. Meanwhile, the likes of Europcar would seem to be using enough cortisone to embarrass Hinault's knee.

But it's just speculation. One thing, though: a method/product doesn't have to be unique to one rider/team for it to give them a boost over their rivals, even though the latter may be using the same stuff. Getting the perfect cocktail, individual responsiveness and good relations with the UCI have historically played a large role.

 

[Master50]

I have been asking that question for a while. I never get an answer because no one can identify the mechanism. Horner blood dopes? Froome is taking weight loss drugs? No one has any proof but hey they are certain and you know that is all that counts.
Sure didn't take long to get LA or at least a quote from LA into the conversation either.

 

[sniper]

I have been asking that question for a while. I never get an answer because no one can identify the mechanism. Horner blood dopes? Froome is taking weight loss drugs? No one has any proof but hey they are certain and you know that is all that counts.
Sure didn't take long to get LA or at least a quote from LA into the conversation either.

what is this post other than a demonstration of profound ignorance of the fact that we're on an cycling discussion forum?

 

[Cycle Chic]

New members

This thread is ridiculous - what does he want ? Just ONE THREAD to save him time

Its the same with any new member - they come onto the front page and briefly read one thread and start posting.

Go and read the vast amount of pages in the Clinic and become a little more educated on the volumes of information.

 

[HappyCycling]

I assume most GC contenders/climbers are on AICAR, GW1516 and TB500 - haven't doctors and riders been caught with all this?

From looking at the body fat % of most GC contenders and their performances in TT, it would suggest heavy AICAR use if I am lead to believe what the benefits are.

 

[Puckfiend]

If the OP is "fed up with reading posts......" I have a real quick solution for him!

 

[Granville57]

Can anyone explain what Horner has done to win the Vuelta?

Careful now. Mentioning Horner outside of the Horner thread may result in both of our posts being deleted.


Btw, it was nice of you to say "please" when asking for the impossible.

 

[DirtyWorks]

.... No one has any proof but hey they are certain ..

The "proof" thread returns. What is sufficient to prove any given rider is doping? Please be specific.

Since I'm such a charitable anonymous bone idle Internet w@nker, I'll post a few.

Froome's transformation from middling elite to grand tour destroyer.
New levels of weight loss and no loss of power never seen before in 70+ years of competitive cycling history.
Horner's blood values.
Athletes delivering EPO-fueled performances while never tested positive at some events.
Evidence suggests absolutely nothing has changed at the UCI.

It's not all bad though. The 2014 Giro was the opposite of this. Below-EPO performances, declines in power over weeks. Maybe RCS is running a tight ship?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Taking a certain older Veulta Winner, and have the understanding that plasma expansion tends to lead to a reduced HCT and HBG as a 3 week tour goes on.

When said person's HCT and HGB goes up, significantly and two readings in a row, and their ret% goes way down. That evidence of infusing blood.

Not lock it down, take it to the courthouse for a criminal trial strong, but certainly "on the balance of probabilities" strong.

 

[bewildered]

Dominating climbs and TTs should be enough for anyone who has watched the TDF since before 1990 to be sceptical.

The fact that we have stick thin riders doing it the last couple of years makes the time-trial dominance even more ridiculous.

 

[SeriousSam]

It's an interesting question but it seems like certain posters are only interested in going "aha, if you can't explain it thoroughly they must be totally clean. NO PROOF!" so perhaps an even better thread would be an explanation as to what proof and evidence are, and what they are not. That then gets stickied.

 

[doperhopper]

Well, we at least know skyborgs are on marginal pillows introduced by the guy who warned us that in the new clean era we should forget about brutal repeated attacks of the past.
Otherwise one interesting question would be whether EPO microdosing still works without problems (and how big the effect is).

 

[DirtyWorks]

It's an interesting question but it seems like certain posters are only interested in going "aha, if you can't explain it thoroughly they must be totally clean. NO PROOF!" so perhaps an even better thread would be an explanation as to what proof and evidence are, and what they are not. That then gets stickied.

Let me summarize:
Proof: UCI issuing a positive. This is posted completely oblivious to the facts the UCI is not a fair dealer.

Evidence: Medical waste in trash cans with an athlete's name on the waste. Which, really was a scheme by some mysterious forces to bring Team XYZ into disrepute. (see medical waste story associated with Armstrong)

Evidence: Calling pills found at 2014 P-R "a hoax", and personally attacking the person who collected them. And then following that up with every possible way to generate doubt and uncertainty. That's the summary of the "Mysterious Pills" thread.

See? NO PROOF!

 

[DirtyWorks]

Otherwise one interesting question would be whether EPO microdosing still works without problems (and how big the effect is).

It's bigger than that though because there are now apparently variations of conventional EPO that defy urinalysis. We also know peptides and other methods exist to inspire the body to generate red blood cells getting very close to old-fashioned EPO benefits.

Don't forget the best combo, HGH and Test. With a 4-1 ratio as the threshold, there's plenty of room to supplement and get some amazing recovery times. Cumulatively, it leaves only the most extraordinary "pan y agua" rider to a podium probably at a race 5 days or less.

 

[Catwhoorg]

The rEPO test looks for one type of EPO (recombinant) used and does so by a ratio method.

As Dirtyworks says there are a whole bunch of EPO analogues out there that cannot be reliably tested for now. Unless the authorities really get ontop of this quickly, its going to be back to the Wild West days of cycling.

4:1 ratio in T:E abuse is hopefully being limited by the steroid panel, but in reality it is probably encouraging consistent doping all year, rather than on and off.

 

[rsergio007]

This thread is ridiculous - what does he want ? Just ONE THREAD to save him time

Its the same with any new member - they come onto the front page and briefly read one thread and start posting.

Go and read the vast amount of pages in the Clinic and become a little more educated on the volumes of information.

This is the kind of know it all post the Clinic is full of and I am tires me.
If you bothered checking you could see I didn't join this forum yesterday.
And yes, I've gone through thousands of posts, most of them full of illuminated opinions such as yours.

Back to the point, as of 2014, do you have an educated input on was the major riders are doing?

 

[rsergio007]

If the OP is "fed up with reading posts......" I have a real quick solution for him!

I was looking for something a bit more informative, but thanks nonetheless.

 

[Nicko.]

FWIW, I tried to get this issue discussed here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1342227#post1342227
Summary:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1342544#post1342544

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Don't get me wrong but I just got fed up reading posts where people basically post opinions on how doped someone is, or their merits, based on very little hard facts or knowledgeable opinions. A lot of posts in the Clinic are just like a passionate soap opera or reality tv grade bit ching.

As someone who loves cycling, and appreciates the uncompromising way the Clinic commits to handling the doping issue, I would really like to see a better discussion about what really might be going on.

I and a lot of people think Froome, Contador, Nibali, Horner, Kittel, Cavendish, etc are dopers. Great. Move on. So, what are they on? What can people in the Clinic, which gathers members with a vast array of experience, can say about it? Educated guesses of course.
To me that is much more interesting that having a million posts stating "rider x is a lying cheat".

Can anyone explain what Horner has done to win the Vuelta? Never seen anything like it - impossible standing up climbing.
Can anyone explain the method Froome used last year for his circus act climbing? Also, totally unique to Froome.

So what is everybody on then?

The Clinic as an institution, is actually what most of the negative Clinic posters say about the real cycling institutions - the UCI, WADA, the ASO, the NADAs etc.

- It is not in the best interests of the Clinic to deal in facts, let alone hard facts.

- It is not in the best interest of the those biased posters who assume everyone is doped because they have a good race, to provide a reasoned argument as to why a rider is doped.

- It is not in the best interest of the Clinic to use educated guesses

- It is not in the best interest of the Clinic to state knowledgeable opinions

- it is not in the best interests of the Clinic to know about nutrition, training techniques, recovery, strength, flexibility, bike handling skills and motivation that may explain performance.

- It is in the best interests of those clinicians to throw out some preposterous speculation about a rider's or a team's doping

- It is in the best interest of the Clinic to not have discussions - just make blanket statements with no substance.

- It is in the best interest of the Clinic to keep the tone trashy, soap operaish and like bad reality TV - use phrases like - "you are an idiot" or better still "You are a (uc!ing idiot" or "you obviously know nothing about cycling"

- it is in the best interest of the Clinic to use phrases like - "Of course he dopes"; "He has always been a doper"; "Its obvious he dopes"; "His second cousin removed dealt with Ferrrari, so he must be a doper" etc.

If the Clinic did not preserve the principles stated above, there would be no Clinic and a whole lot of people would have nothing better to do. Clinic unemployment would be rampant.

If you really want to learn about the real facts of doping, read some USADA or some other NADA's or CAS decisions, some columns by knowledgeable journalists, some of the books (Hamilton, Wheelman, Macur, etc.), read the scientific research into doping (e.g. Ashenden research etc.) and keep abreast of the science that is creating more and more doping products that will withstand detection and what WADA is trying to do about it, and follow the WADA website.

If you want soap opera and faux drama follow the Clinic.

 

[rsergio007]

It's incredible how passionate people get over this. Clean, dirty, proof, no proof, UCI are this, Sky are that, take it easy guys.

I'm not trying to be a troll nor stirring people up by questioning their beliefs. Just looking for an updated view on what is going on in 2014. What do people think about the top guns?

Froome - seems to be on the most extreme programme. Ultra thin, big bursts of power, totally whacky disease stories, TUEs, etc, but also very inconsistent, the Dauphinais has shown a less "upgraded" Froome I guess.

Wiggins - could be just old school stuff, but his weight and niche capabilities point to something a bit different. Obviously a cynic after having Froome taking the "guy with best Sky doctor" role

Contador - At the same level as before being popped, despite being skiny (as always), seems to be on an old school programme

Nibali - Also seems to be on an old school programme but seems somewhat better than AC

Horner - His upright climbing is even more amazing than Froome's open legged bursts, must be doing old stuff plus something like Froome for his weight, must be working with a top doctor on power/weight, rpms, etc

Quintana - not so sure about him, seems a bit more human and inconsistent

Valverde - whatever he's doing seems very conservative at the moment

Rodriguez - a bit like Valverde and Quintana, more conservative and human

Uran - suddenly winning TT's, very suspicious, probably just old methods

Kittel - he looks like an 90's 100m track runner.

Etc...

 

[DirtyWorks]

FWIW, I tried to get this issue discussed here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1342227#post1342227
Summary:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1342544#post1342544

Nobody knows details until one of the GC guys does a Floyd Landis.

The artifacts of doping are there for many to observe. Of course, that has never stopped other participants from going to great lengths to deny.

Robbie, I don't know what we've done to deserve that rant, but, it's not true.

Final answer. Close the thread!!

 

[Benotti69]

I have been asking that question for a while. I never get an answer because no one can identify the mechanism. Horner blood dopes? Froome is taking weight loss drugs? No one has any proof but hey they are certain and you know that is all that counts.
Sure didn't take long to get LA or at least a quote from LA into the conversation either.

Sadly the teams dont announce their current methods. We tend to find out from riders who get caught, police raids, custom raids and riders have the balls to own up to their cheating.

Jesus Manzano, Landis, Voet, Kimmage, Jakshe, Frei, Rasmussen, Hamilton and a few others have admitted their methods.

That we see skinny guys climbing and TTing better than climbers or TTers tells us new methods and substances are in use.

But the "doping for cycling dummies' book is not out yet.