Dumoulin.

[Fernandez]

Most people here are casual cyclists who come here to critic any cyclist who has a good performance. No more than that.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Most people here are casual cyclists who come here to critic any cyclist who has a good performance. No more than that.

You keep commenting about what you think we do here in the clinic, yet it's obvious that you're closed to any discussion outside of your own bias's and you haven't read very far into many of the threads here. If you had, this discussion would be different.

 

[Fernandez]

Re: Re:

Most people here are casual cyclists who come here to critic any cyclist who has a good performance. No more than that.

You keep commenting about what you think we do here in the clinic, yet it's obvious that you're closed to any discussion outside of your own bias's and you haven't read very far into many of the threads here. If you had, this discussion would be different.

I,ve read enough of your clinic forums to realise you come here to critic cyclist without proofs because you are boring and dont believe in nothing.
You are not really cycling fans, I guess you could have fallen in other hobby and It would have been the same, you would have found whatever on It to criticise and be pissed off.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Most people here are casual cyclists who come here to critic any cyclist who has a good performance. No more than that.

You keep commenting about what you think we do here in the clinic, yet it's obvious that you're closed to any discussion outside of your own bias's and you haven't read very far into many of the threads here. If you had, this discussion would be different.

I,ve read enough of your clinic forums to realise you come here to critic cyclist without proofs because you are boring and dont believe in nothing.
You are not really cycling fans, I guess you could have fallen in other hobby and It would have been the same, you would have found whatever on It to criticise and be pissed off.

Now you're just trolling.

I would encourage you to read the forum rules before you post another comment such as the one you just posted to me. Not to mention that you could not have been any further from the truth with the entire comment you just posted.

You should read this post as an official warning, just in case you were wondering.

 

[Fernandez]

Re: Re:

Most people here are casual cyclists who come here to critic any cyclist who has a good performance. No more than that.

You keep commenting about what you think we do here in the clinic, yet it's obvious that you're closed to any discussion outside of your own bias's and you haven't read very far into many of the threads here. If you had, this discussion would be different.

I,ve read enough of your clinic forums to realise you come here to critic cyclist without proofs because you are boring and dont believe in nothing.
You are not really cycling fans, I guess you could have fallen in other hobby and It would have been the same, you would have found whatever on It to criticise and be pissed off.

Now you're just trolling.

I would encourage you to read the forum rules before you post another comment such as the one you just posted to me. Not to mention that you could not have been any further from the truth with the entire comment you just posted.

You should read this post as an official warning, just in case you were wondering.

Dont worry, dont care. Besides there are good pósters in here, there are too many others that are just haters, fanatics or cynics. I can live with It.

 

[Irondan]

I guess this conversation is over....

 

[topt]

Re: Re:

Most people here are casual cyclists who come here to critic any cyclist who has a good performance. No more than that.

You keep commenting about what you think we do here in the clinic, yet it's obvious that you're closed to any discussion outside of your own bias's and you haven't read very far into many of the threads here. If you had, this discussion would be different.

I,ve read enough of your clinic forums to realise you come here to critic cyclist without proofs because you are boring and dont believe in nothing.
You are not really cycling fans, I guess you could have fallen in other hobby and It would have been the same, you would have found whatever on It to criticise and be pissed off.

"If you are a skeptic, if you don't believe in cycling, I am sorry you can't dream big. I am sorry you don't believe in miracles."

 

[papisimo98]

Re: Re:

@Fernandez
Do you remember if you were happy or not when you found out Santa wasn't real?

 

[meat puppet]

I really envy posters who have the mental capabilities to extrapolate and boldly declare that the participants in discussions about doping in the clinic are failed or mediocre athletes themselves. Definitely my favourite projection devised to attack the discussants ad hominem of late.

Funny enough, what usually escapes the accusers is that the leap of imagination involved in this discourse is a lot bigger than in the discussions about doping that according to the accusers are illegitimate because they contain speculative elements (which they do, by necessity).

So please, keep 'em flowin'.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

If it's not a big deal anyway, why do you "refuse" to believe it's gotten dirtier, or "prefer" to believe they're clean unless they test positive?

I enjoy cycling as much as anyone. Its just that I dont have that mind to think they are doping without any proofs. All of you have are suppositions, never proofs, but still you fill pages everyday about how all are doping. Valverde, Dumoulin, Froome, etc. I dont get that mentality.

If there is proof, you don't have to think. It just is. Since there is almost never proof, we are discussing the evidence. If Dumoulin (and everyone else in the finishing group) did that time clean, they beat all but one of the known dopers to make that ascent, clean. Now accounting for the fact that it was the only climb of the day, do you really believe it's likely that this is possible? I find it impossible to believe.

If you don't want to discuss doping that is entirely your choice and a good choice. Not sure why you would be reading and posting here if that's the case. Seems that what you want is for all of us to stop discussing it. That isn't going to happen.

If you have reason to believe such rides are possible clean, great, let's discuss. Rational arguments are possible on either side. But insulting everyone here isn't going to change anything and will eventually get you booted out. Let's avoid that.

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

If it's not a big deal anyway, why do you "refuse" to believe it's gotten dirtier, or "prefer" to believe they're clean unless they test positive?

I enjoy cycling as much as anyone. Its just that I dont have that mind to think they are doping without any proofs. All of you have are suppositions, never proofs, but still you fill pages everyday about how all are doping. Valverde, Dumoulin, Froome, etc. I dont get that mentality.

If there is proof, you don't have to think. It just is. Since there is almost never proof, we are discussing the evidence. If Dumoulin (and everyone else in the finishing group) did that time clean, they beat all but one of the known dopers to make that ascent, clean. Now accounting for the fact that it was the only climb of the day, do you really believe it's likely that this is possible? I find it impossible to believe.

If you don't want to discuss doping that is entirely your choice and a good choice. Not sure why you would be reading and posting here if that's the case. Seems that what you want is for all of us to stop discussing it. That isn't going to happen.

If you have reason to believe such rides are possible clean, great, let's discuss. Rational arguments are possible on either side. But insulting everyone here isn't going to change anything and will eventually get you booted out. Let's avoid that.

Although I agree the poster is not helping this discussion I think numerous things need to be taken into account before accusing someone of doping. First of all the argument that dumoulin is doping because he was only slower than Pantani and faster than the rest of the epo field in this case I find problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly zakarin, landa and Quintana were also faster than that field and the times of the rest of the riders were up there with the times from that era. Which means two possibilities either we have a new super drug at least as powerful as epo, in which case what is it? Surely we would of heard of it by now we knew of the advantages of epo at the time, I know of no drug giving such an advantage around nowadays that is undetectable and whose use is widespread in the peleton. If that is not the case then what could explain the times? Well the performances were 20 years ago and there is no doubting in those years sport science has come a long way, in training methods, nutrition, equipment, recovery.... i don't see any reason why with specialized training and nutritional planning and better equipment the times could not be up there without doping. As a matter of fact if the riders were still doping surely along with all these improvements the times would be a lot faster than in that era. That is not the case, in fact they are a lot slower than Pantani and only as fast as classic rider Jalabert, do you really believe Quintana would be slower than Jalabert if he's doping? I have serious doubts. Finally taking times on an individual climbs for me is misleading as it fails to take into account factors like how hard the racing was before, weather conditions. I cannot say with certainty that no one is doping but there definitely are reasons to believe these performances could be done clean.

 

[hrotha]

Pantani wasn't on some super exotic new drug in 1999 - he was on the good ol' EPO and other well-known drugs, but on a very refined program after a decade or thereabouts of progress in scientific doping. Riders in 2017 don't really need to be on anything special, they just need to have refined the use of the various drugs we have reason to suspect have come to the fore the last 5-6 years.

As for the impact of those other factors you mention, it ranges from "negligible" to "not very large".

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re:

Pantani wasn't on some super exotic new drug in 1999 - he was on the good ol' EPO and other well-known drugs, but on a very refined program after a decade or thereabouts of progress in scientific doping. Riders in 2017 don't really need to be on anything special, they just need to have refined the use of the various drugs we have reason to suspect have come to the fore the last 5-6 years.

But epo was a huge booster especially in the times before it was detectable are there any drugs out there nowadays that have anywhere near that much effect. People knew how much of a difference epo made at the time it was just impossible to test for, is there a modern equivalent that could explain these fast times?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Pantani wasn't on some super exotic new drug in 1999 - he was on the good ol' EPO and other well-known drugs, but on a very refined program after a decade or thereabouts of progress in scientific doping. Riders in 2017 don't really need to be on anything special, they just need to have refined the use of the various drugs we have reason to suspect have come to the fore the last 5-6 years.

But epo was a huge booster especially in the times before it was detectable are there any drugs out there nowadays that have anywhere near that much effect. People knew how much of a difference epo made at the time it was just impossible to test for, is there a modern equivalent that could explain these fast times?

There are many variations of EPO, over a hundred apparently, and anti-doping can only test for a small number of them.

As Hrotha said. Programs have had fine tuning over the years. Add in TUEs and the sky is your limit.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

Pantani wasn't on some super exotic new drug in 1999 - he was on the good ol' EPO and other well-known drugs, but on a very refined program after a decade or thereabouts of progress in scientific doping. Riders in 2017 don't really need to be on anything special, they just need to have refined the use of the various drugs we have reason to suspect have come to the fore the last 5-6 years.

But epo was a huge booster especially in the times before it was detectable are there any drugs out there nowadays that have anywhere near that much effect. People knew how much of a difference epo made at the time it was just impossible to test for, is there a modern equivalent that could explain these fast times?

We know very little about how powerful modern drugs are. We know next to nothing about what kind of cocktails they're on and how those drugs interact with each other. Judging from the climbing times, they have the potential to not be much less potent than blood manipulation.

EPO didn't translate into supersonic speeds straightaway either. It took time.

 

[topt]

Re: Re:

Pantani wasn't on some super exotic new drug in 1999 - he was on the good ol' EPO and other well-known drugs, but on a very refined program after a decade or thereabouts of progress in scientific doping. Riders in 2017 don't really need to be on anything special, they just need to have refined the use of the various drugs we have reason to suspect have come to the fore the last 5-6 years.

But epo was a huge booster especially in the times before it was detectable are there any drugs out there nowadays that have anywhere near that much effect. People knew how much of a difference epo made at the time it was just impossible to test for, is there a modern equivalent that could explain these fast times?

There are many variations of EPO, over a hundred apparently, and anti-doping can only test for a small number of them.

As Hrotha said. Programs have had fine tuning over the years. Add in TUEs and the sky is your limit.

you mean Sky :lol:

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

Although I agree the poster is not helping this discussion I think numerous things need to be taken into account before accusing someone of doping. First of all the argument that dumoulin is doping because he was only slower than Pantani and faster than the rest of the epo field in this case I find problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly zakarin, landa and Quintana were also faster than that field and the times of the rest of the riders were up there with the times from that era. Which means two possibilities either we have a new super drug at least as powerful as epo, in which case what is it? Surely we would of heard of it by now we knew of the advantages of epo at the time, I know of no drug giving such an advantage around nowadays that is undetectable and whose use is widespread in the peleton. If that is not the case then what could explain the times? Well the performances were 20 years ago and there is no doubting in those years sport science has come a long way, in training methods, nutrition, equipment, recovery.... i don't see any reason why with specialized training and nutritional planning and better equipment the times could not be up there without doping. As a matter of fact if the riders were still doping surely along with all these improvements the times would be a lot faster than in that era. That is not the case, in fact they are a lot slower than Pantani and only as fast as classic rider Jalabert, do you really believe Quintana would be slower than Jalabert if he's doping? I have serious doubts. Finally taking times on an individual climbs for me is misleading as it fails to take into account factors like how hard the racing was before, weather conditions. I cannot say with certainty that no one is doping but there definitely are reasons to believe these performances could be done clean.

Let's play both sides again. The technological advantages are marginal up climbs. Let's say you can get .5% extra drive-train efficiency. And say 5% better aero, or 5% * 20%, so something like 1%. Let's say you got a 1.5kg of the 8kg bikes of the turn of the century (say 1995-2005), between lighter bikes and lighter kit. So that's another say 2%. I think that's about as far as you can stretch that. 2.5%. That's the absolute tops, IMHO. Again, some of this might be pie in the sky. At some point you (2005-2010) you actually had lighter bikes than today. The wax they're using on chains now is quite similar to what a lot of people were using back then. For all the claimed performance benefits of carbon rims, you still saw guys climbing up not-so-steep Oropa in standard box-sections.

So what's the EPO impact in performance. Full on program, estimates vary. Here's 13%. And 17%. Now, it's going to vary depending on the individual. Someone with a naturally high hematocrit won't get the same boost. But let's go with a conservative 10% average improvement. Say 7.5% for top athletes, for the limits of human performance. And those guys weren't stopping at EPO.

So you're making up, say 5% out of training and nutrition. That seems really high to me. Someone like Carlos Betancur can be on sub-optimal diet and fitness regime and stil win Paris-Nice. Peter Sagan can binge on Haribos and still win back-to-back World Championships. It would seem then that any advance in training and nutrition can only go so far.

Meanwhile, check out any old Armstrong piece or doc. Those guys counting every gram and calorie. If anything, you look at those faces on that Nike doc, for one, and those guys seemed terrified to have gone trough all that to just not make the cut. They all looked far more stressed than anyone nowadays. And just as lean. Do you really think guys today are all that more rigorous? Because those guys really looked like they had a gun to their heads. And you can see those guys warming up on rollers, pacing efforts with powermeters, doing intervals upon intervals.

But I agree with your other point, that some here do take all of this speculation as fact. There's still a lot of fudge in there. You can get there with microdosing. You can get there with wonderdrugs. But you can also get there with the most aggressive assumptions of clean.

And even if you shift the presumption onus, that doesn't mean dirty unless proven otherwise. Just not clean until so proven. Yet proving you're clean is impossible. So how to navigate the realm of the know unknowns? It depends on where you're going and how you want to get there. You can assume they're clean, and just enjoy. You can assume they're dirty, and just enjoy. You can wonder, and leave it at that. Or you can come here and engage in reasoned discussion, and some a times knowledgeable, a times not as much, speculation.

 

[spalco]

EPO is a very powerful drug, but unless I misunderstand basically does nothing other than increase the amount of red blood cells.
Even assuming that there are no EPO analogs in use in sports anymore (which is optimistic to say the least), there are other ways to boost the level of red blood cells, legal and illegal; which in connection with new developments in drug research (peptides, sarms, whatever the *** else is out there) and continued refinement of old-fashioned techniques and drugs can easily explain EPO level performances without EPO imo.

The only thing I'm pretty confident does not exist anymore in a widespread way is blood doping, because the logistics are so risky.

 

["Jeff"]

Re: Re:

I find it amazing that anyone could imagine that the difference in how riders look after races comes from better training. If there is such a difference that's it's visible, that riders are notably less drained, it is a massive difference.

What do people imagine riders were doing in the 80's? Drinking beer all night and eating pizzas all day, only getting up for races?

I tend to suspect people have no idea how hard riders used to train. Recency bias seems strong.

Hyperbole at its finest. Like there is no grey area between drinking beer & eating pizza's and today's training. I tend to suspect you dont understand the difference between hard training and hard training + science.

I find it amazing that this is even a discussion.

So just by saying the word- "science" you automatically proved that the techniques they have now are so much more advanced than 10 years ago?[/quote]
The 80s were not 10 years ago.

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

EPO is a very powerful drug, but unless I misunderstand basically does nothing other than increase the amount of red blood cells.
.

It does more than that. Stimulates angiogenesis, the generation of new blood vessels and it prevents cell death. It's huge.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

What do people imagine riders were doing in the 80's? Drinking beer all night and eating pizzas all day, only getting up for races?

1) Banging in blood bags; 2) Riding harder for longer with weaker team support (look at the length of stages and the strength in depth of teams - they *have* changed)

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

What do people imagine riders were doing in the 80's? Drinking beer all night and eating pizzas all day, only getting up for races?

1) Banging in blood bags; 2) Riding harder for longer with weaker team support (look at the length of stages and the strength in depth of teams - they *have* changed)

Interesting point on the stages and depth. Don't buy the blood bags notion at all. Never seen anything that would indicate this was a practice in GTs during that era.

 

[hfer07]

honestly - I have not seen yet an E.T. performance from Tom like Froome's to even call him a full doper- he might, but I'm not seeing the "mutation" like the ones from Sky, so I'm cool with his current doping


... unless of course he's able to stick to Quintana for the rest of the last week's climbs without losing a single second

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Don't buy the blood bags notion at all. Never seen anything that would indicate this was a practice in GTs during that era.

See the thread. There's more evidence than you realise...

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Don't buy the blood bags notion at all. Never seen anything that would indicate this was a practice in GTs during that era.

See the thread. There's more evidence than you realise...

Which thread? I've been in discussions around this for years. Never seen anything convincing at all.