Doping methods per rider please

[buckle]

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

It is a highly entertaining proposition that Wiggins and Froome should have a fall out over who has access to the best doping program? If true, then the fall of what is left of Western Civilisation cannot be long in coming and probably should be welcomed.

 

[D-Queued]

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.

[/soapbox]

Bike handling? Flexibility?

Seriously?

TT speeds and extraordinary out-of-the-saddle climbing performances explained by Bike Handling?

Scotty, beam me up.

With respect to flexibility, have you any sense of the UCI guidelines for TT bikes?

As for knowledgeable journalists, and books, didn't these typically come quite a bit after evidence like Tyler's Operacion Puerto doping schedule?

Want a book? Start with breaking the chain.

Dave.

 

[Granville57]

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...

Well then, you seemed to have answered your OP right there.

That's a fairly decent summary of what many probably think/feel. Does anyone here have the specifics of whatever program some of these riders may be on?

With very, very few exceptions, not likely. Of course much of what is written here in The Clinic is speculation. That's kind of the point, in addition to, at times, very specific info being provided that corresponds to the topic and enlightens us all.

It's an internet forum. Are we supposed to have all the details on just how riders may or may not be cheating the system? No. And nothing about The Clinic's existence has ever suggested that that should be the case.

We dig, we prod, we investigate with varying means available to us. And in the end, more often than not, we are much more well informed than the general public when stories relating to Clinic topics actually make it into the main stream media. Quite often, we are, literally, years ahead.

Is that not good enough?

It's good enough for me.

There is also much entertainment value to be gleaned from these pages, as long as one is capable of adopting the necessary perspective to see it.

 

[rsergio007]

We dig, we prod, we investigate with varying means available to us. And in the end, more often than not, we are much more well informed than the general public when stories relating to Clinic topics actually make it into the main stream media. Quite often, we are, literally, years ahead.

That's what I'm going for here

 

[biokemguy]

I think strong candidates for many GC contenders are AICAR and GW501516 (other compounds that target the same protein are likely as well) taken together. The endurance and weight loss benefits seem to fit what has been observed in mice and rats.

If I'm right, we're likely to see a rash of cancer through the peloton in a few years. This will be truly tragic if it happens.

http://www.toxicology.org/AI/Pub/Tox/2009Tox.pdf

Search for abstracts 895 and 896. Not the greatest evidence, but when the science is done by a private company the results are rarely public.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If I were in a coma, and I woke up in July, I would't have have to look at a calendar to know what month it is. All I'd have to do is come to the clinic and read some threads like this.

It's our silly season folks. and as someone here once said (reveal yourself you brilliant, beautiful person...because I can't remember who first said this)

You fools are in a troll echelon.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

Hey Robbie, there seems to be something you are missing:

You seem to believe that our access to the information about what riders are using as doping products is equal to the actual doping. Dopers have ALWAYS been well ahead of the testers, and have doped at levels completely unknown to everyone outside of cycling. If we are to go by this "proof" you guys keep droning on about, only a few people in 1999 were doping in the Tdf...never mind that they all were.

To expect fans to have the "proof" you suggest completely avoids the reality that fans have NEVER had that kind of info. What we do have is comparison to known doped performances...and sad to say, by that measure, it appears that little has changed.

But you keep pretending that measure is devoid of validity. Brailsford is counting on it.

Me, if it smells like sh!t, I'm pointing it out.

 

[mewmewmew13]

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.

FGS I hope no one mentions Michelle Cound, the word 'Tuesday', TROLL, or a few accusations of the dope that someone is using without a LINK.

 

[42x16ss]

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?

Got a snarky one here

I'm only going to say this once because everything I'm about to list is easily available both in threads here and via good old Google.

Contador: Busted with Clen in his bloodstream. May have come from beef like he claims, more likely that it's part of his pre season weight loss regime. Also had enough plasticisers to reassemble a small blood bag. Probably on a LA style BB program learned off Saiz or Bruyneel.

Wigans/Hesjedal/Horner: Mildly fluctuating values during a GT suggesting an early 2000's style BB program but not as agressive as some in the past.

Nibali/Kreuziger: Links to the good Dottore Ferrari suggests a similar program to what LA was on. Past/present links to Vino (busted for transfusion) also add to this.

Valverde: Fuentes client - BB program is a safe bet, probably just using a more discreet provider these days.

Froome: The stick thin figure with awesome TT power and emergency TUE suggests rampant use of catabolic steroids. Not scared to pump in some Salbutamol too.

Rolland: Found with abnormally low cortisone levels strongly suggesting cortico abuse. Probably catabolics judging by his frame.

Rogers: Ties to Ferrari and Freiburg in his T-Mobile days, strong indications of another BB'er.

Pozzato: Has had rumours around him since his U23 days. Wasn't scared to pile on Simeoni when he spoke out on Ferrari. EPO/BBs seems to be his choice.

Cancellara: Seems almost certain to be the former Fuentes client Luigi. Multiple rumours from the peloton suggest this.

Cadel Evans: Has worked with Ferrari in the past, spent his early years at T-Mobile, may have used the Freiburg clinic at some stage. Learned to charge somewhere judging by '07 TdF, '09 WC, '10 GdI and '11 TdF. Looking at his build and history an old school BB/EPO program is a safe bet.

Frank Schleck: On the books with Fuentes, strongly suggesting a BB program. Not scared to use weightloss drugs as shown by xipamide pos.

These are just a few examples of simple deductions anyone can make. Takes 5 minutes on Google.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Hey Robbie, there seems to be something you are missing:

You seem to believe that our access to the information about what riders are using as doping products is equal to the actual doping. Dopers have ALWAYS been well ahead of the testers, and have doped at levels completely unknown to everyone outside of cycling. If we are to go by this "proof" you guys keep droning on about, only a few people in 1999 were doping in the Tdf...never mind that they all were.

To expect fans to have the "proof" you suggest completely avoids the reality that fans have NEVER had that kind of info. What we do have is comparison to known doped performances...and sad to say, by that measure, it appears that little has changed.

But you keep pretending that measure is devoid of validity. Brailsford is counting on it.

Me, if it smells like sh!t, I'm pointing it out.

A very valid observation!

 

[RobbieCanuck]

[/soapbox]

Bike handling? Flexibility?

Seriously?

TT speeds and extraordinary out-of-the-saddle climbing performances explained by Bike Handling?

Scotty, beam me up.

With respect to flexibility, have you any sense of the UCI guidelines for TT bikes?

As for knowledgeable journalists, and books, didn't these typically come quite a bit after evidence like Tyler's Operacion Puerto doping schedule?

Want a book? Start with breaking the chain.

Dave.

Dave, when it comes to flexibility I am not talking about the bike but the bike handler. In a straight off 10 km uphill race at 15% who do you want? Froome or Contador? I would take Contador any day. Why? Because he is more of an athlete who rides his bike as though it is part of his body. He is one smooth guy on a bike and that has a lot to do with bike handling and flexibility.

PS Say hi to Scotty when you get there!

 

[PosterBill]

If frank schleck is using then he needs a new dr...I have a hard time believing frandy has doped since 2011 given the drastic drop off of performance. ..I think theirs more then a handful of these types in the group

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

If frank schleck is using then he needs a new dr...I have a hard time believing frandy has doped since 2011 given the drastic drop off of performance. ..I think theirs more then a handful of these types in the group

Frank was pretty good in early 2012, especially Suisse

 

[hrotha]

If frank schleck is using then he needs a new dr...I have a hard time believing frandy has doped since 2011 given the drastic drop off of performance. ..I think theirs more then a handful of these types in the group

Perhaps the dominant riders have switched to different PEDs to which Frandy aren't as good responders.

Or perhaps Andy is not very professional and has crashed countless times, and Fränk is not getting any younger.

 

[buckle]

Frank was pretty good in early 2012, especially Suisse

His 2012 time on La Planche was pretty good also but was evidently outdoped by Kool and the gang.

 

[D-Queued]

Dave, when it comes to flexibility I am not talking about the bike but the bike handler. In a straight off 10 km uphill race at 15% who do you want? Froome or Contador? I would take Contador any day. Why? Because he is more of an athlete who rides his bike as though it is part of his body. He is one smooth guy on a bike and that has a lot to do with bike handling and flexibility.

PS Say hi to Scotty when you get there!

Please explain how a silly looking TT artist like Contadope can even come close to Spartacus, then.

Methinks you are placing far (!) too much emphasis on this. Cannot overstate that. There is no sport that is more CV capability dominant than cycling.

None.

Aerobic capacity >>>>> fine motor skill.

Especially so in the Grand tour defining climbing and TT stages.

Thinks 'slowtwitch' if you don't get it. Fast twitch fibers responsible for fine motor control have barely any impact.

My money is on their doctor/preparators. Or, in Froome's case, on the 'disease'.

Parasite beats cow.

Dave.

 

[rsergio007]

I was foolish.
Incredible to see how fast this sunk into page 2 oblivion.
Thanks to people who posted constructively, especially 42x16ss.