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 said:Most people here are casual cyclists who come here to critic any cyclist who has a good performance. No more than that.
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.Irondan said: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 said:Most people here are casual cyclists who come here to critic any cyclist who has a good performance. No more than that.
Now you're just trolling.Fernandez said: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.Irondan said: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 said:Most people here are casual cyclists who come here to critic any cyclist who has a good performance. No more than that.
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.
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 said:Now you're just trolling.Fernandez said: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.Irondan said: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 said:Most people here are casual cyclists who come here to critic any cyclist who has a good performance. No more than that.
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.
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 said: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.Irondan said: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 said:Most people here are casual cyclists who come here to critic any cyclist who has a good performance. No more than that.
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.
Fernandez said: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.hrotha said: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?
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.red_flanders said:Fernandez said: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.hrotha said: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?
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.
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?hrotha said: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.
Ramon Koran said: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?hrotha said: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.
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.Ramon Koran said: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?hrotha said: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.
you mean Sky :lol:Benotti69 said:Ramon Koran said: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?hrotha said: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.
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.
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.Ramon Koran said: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.
The Hitch said: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."Jeff"":1ulwg6l2][quote="red_flanders said: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.
I find it amazing that this is even a discussion.
It does more than that. Stimulates angiogenesis, the generation of new blood vessels and it prevents cell death. It's huge.spalco said:EPO is a very powerful drug, but unless I misunderstand basically does nothing other than increase the amount of red blood cells.
.
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 said: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?
fmk_RoI said: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 said: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?
See the thread. There's more evidence than you realise...red_flanders said:Don't buy the blood bags notion at all. Never seen anything that would indicate this was a practice in GTs during that era.
fmk_RoI said:See the thread. There's more evidence than you realise...red_flanders said:Don't buy the blood bags notion at all. Never seen anything that would indicate this was a practice in GTs during that era.