Dumoulin.

Page 42 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 21, 2017
1,019
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
GraftPunk said:
Hai guys, anything interesting happening with our favorite time trialist?
He just did a Riis. :D
Yup. In all fairness though, everyone not in the first group seemed oddly.... weak? I guess I'll have to wait for the numbers, but today felt weird for some reason. Maybe the pace was just so high the anti-climax was a given and Nibs/Quintana are saving matches. In any event I was anticipating more action, granted I'm usually disappointed when I do that.
 
is Quintana always careful or not? I think he is. Sometimes you have to take a risk to win but these guys worry too much about their present GC position and simply don't have a crack at winning.
 
Apr 3, 2016
400
0
0
Awsome race by Dumoulin again today, the race is his to loose now and I think he will win bar some accident or too many gels;) (I've ran for the ditches myself doing that:p).
 
This was a much less impressive performance than some of his earlier ones in this Giro. Yes he had no problem dealing with Nairo Quintana's attacks in the mountains. But Sebastian Reichenbach had no trouble controlling today's Quintana. As for the final climb, I strongly suspect that very fit cyclotourists have scaled it faster than than our three GC leaders did today.
 
Aug 17, 2016
56
0
0
Re:

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.

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

Brilliant! So advances in tyres, wheels, frames, clothing, use of radios and power meters, beetroot juice, and Tramadol milkshakes. None of that can have any effect at all. Why did they spend all those hundreds of millions on research then?

Also micro dosing EPO doesn't give you the same results as whacking your haematocrit level up to 60%. If modern riders are on EPO then they're giving themselves a tiny advantage over not using it. So where is all your proof that everybody is just as drugged as they used to be?

There is none. Which is the problem. As anytime somebody points out that the level of tinfoil required to be a clinic cultist would provide hats for the whole of China, they are banned and the cult just keeps fapping along.
 
Re: Re:

GreasyChain said:
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.

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

Brilliant! So advances in tyres, wheels, frames, clothing, use of radios and power meters, beetroot juice, and Tramadol milkshakes. None of that can have any effect at all. Why did they spend all those hundreds of millions on research then?

Also micro dosing EPO doesn't give you the same results as whacking your haematocrit level up to 60%. If modern riders are on EPO then they're giving themselves a tiny advantage over not using it. So where is all your proof that everybody is just as drugged as they used to be?

There is none. Which is the problem. As anytime somebody points out that the level of tinfoil required to be a clinic cultist would provide hats for the whole of China, they are banned and the cult just keeps fapping along.
Tramadol is one of the drugs that have come to the fore hrotha mentions.

The other things about advances - of course they have an effect, but they're not exclusive to one rider or team. It's very rare that one rider or team has access to something that absolutely nobody else has, whether it be a legal or an illegal form of assistance. If a new technological advance is made, you can bet the other bike manufacturers will be on it like glue to neutralize their opponents' advantages as quickly as possible. If a new drug is discovered, the chances of a team forking out an exclusivity deal with its producers à la Balco is much more limited in a team of commercial sponsors, as there's money to be made if the drug can be obtained legally, and if it can't then the black market knows no exclusivity deal.

Even those that sold us the "marginal gains" story - who you'd have to be pretty naïve to believe weren't pulling the wool over people's eyes by now, as to truly believe they didn't do anything wrong and it was all a misunderstanding, you'd be crediting them with far too little intelligence to have got where they are without it being a complete fluke - credited the success to the "aggregation" of marginal gains, an important distinction which is all too often omitted by both the defenders of, and ridiculers of, the theory. In the kayfabe version of events (I use the wrestling term deliberately, in order to specify that here I'm solely talking about the "on-message" explanation, rather than intending to start another debate) each gain is negligible - that's why they're called "marginal" gains in the first place, of course - but the various incremental, "not very large" gains then combine together to produce a larger gain.

As for the "proof everybody's as drugged up as they used to be", it's completely fallacious to argue that this is the point hrotha is making. People aren't doping to mid-late 90s levels now, it's plain to see. In 1998, there were a dozen Emanuele Sellas wearing out their brake pads on switchbacks in the mountains; in 2008 he stood out like a sore thumb. Nobody except Jimmy Briceño is recording 60% hct, nobody is having to be woken up in the middle of the night to go spinning to prevent their blood from clotting (notwithstanding that that story was possibly apocryphal anyway). You can't see hct fluctuations of 20% now. That's probably the greatest achievement of the bio-passport - it may not stop doping, but it keeps it within much safer parameters and ensures careful management of levels; it's far from impregnable, as we know full well (Kreuziger...) but it's meant that the amount of doping you can get away with is much lower. The difference in level between a clean rider and a rider of comparable level doping as much as he can get away with is less, so the clean rider can be more competitive than he was 20 years ago - but it doesn't necessarily mean that the péloton is any cleaner, if the same number of riders are doping, just doping less than they did before...
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

GreasyChain said:
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.

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

Brilliant! So advances in tyres, wheels, frames, clothing, use of radios and power meters, beetroot juice, and Tramadol milkshakes. None of that can have any effect at all. Why did they spend all those hundreds of millions on research then?

Also micro dosing EPO doesn't give you the same results as whacking your haematocrit level up to 60%. If modern riders are on EPO then they're giving themselves a tiny advantage over not using it. So where is all your proof that everybody is just as drugged as they used to be?

There is none. Which is the problem. As anytime somebody points out that the level of tinfoil required to be a clinic cultist would provide hats for the whole of China, they are banned and the cult just keeps fapping along.

Dumoulin clean beating Nibali a client of Dr Ferrari?

EPO whether micro-dosed or not is just part of the cocktail of PEDs. There are many different variations of EPO and not all can be tested for. Who knows what the latest PED of choice is, as testing is at least 10 years behind.

Check out the list Jimenez took.

CIRC reported some riders taking more than 30 tablets a day during GTs.

No tinfoils hat needed when looking at whether cycling still has a doping culture, just look at those running the sport, the teams, the doctors etc etc........they have not changed their ways, just the medicine cabinets contents and methods.
 
Re: Re:

GreasyChain said:
Brilliant! So advances in tyres, wheels, frames, clothing, use of radios and power meters, beetroot juice, and Tramadol milkshakes. None of that can have any effect at all. Why did they spend all those hundreds of millions on research then?

Also micro dosing EPO doesn't give you the same results as whacking your haematocrit level up to 60%. If modern riders are on EPO then they're giving themselves a tiny advantage over not using it. So where is all your proof that everybody is just as drugged as they used to be?

There is none. Which is the problem. As anytime somebody points out that the level of tinfoil required to be a clinic cultist would provide hats for the whole of China, they are banned and the cult just keeps fapping along.
Just bolding the things that made me laugh for various reasons. Entertaining!

"Clothing" is my favorite.
 
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
GreasyChain said:
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.

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

Brilliant! So advances in tyres, wheels, frames, clothing, use of radios and power meters, beetroot juice, and Tramadol milkshakes. None of that can have any effect at all. Why did they spend all those hundreds of millions on research then?

Also micro dosing EPO doesn't give you the same results as whacking your haematocrit level up to 60%. If modern riders are on EPO then they're giving themselves a tiny advantage over not using it. So where is all your proof that everybody is just as drugged as they used to be?

There is none. Which is the problem. As anytime somebody points out that the level of tinfoil required to be a clinic cultist would provide hats for the whole of China, they are banned and the cult just keeps fapping along.
Tramadol is one of the drugs that have come to the fore hrotha mentions.

The other things about advances - of course they have an effect, but they're not exclusive to one rider or team. It's very rare that one rider or team has access to something that absolutely nobody else has, whether it be a legal or an illegal form of assistance. If a new technological advance is made, you can bet the other bike manufacturers will be on it like glue to neutralize their opponents' advantages as quickly as possible. If a new drug is discovered, the chances of a team forking out an exclusivity deal with its producers à la Balco is much more limited in a team of commercial sponsors, as there's money to be made if the drug can be obtained legally, and if it can't then the black market knows no exclusivity deal.

Even those that sold us the "marginal gains" story - who you'd have to be pretty naïve to believe weren't pulling the wool over people's eyes by now, as to truly believe they didn't do anything wrong and it was all a misunderstanding, you'd be crediting them with far too little intelligence to have got where they are without it being a complete fluke - credited the success to the "aggregation" of marginal gains, an important distinction which is all too often omitted by both the defenders of, and ridiculers of, the theory. In the kayfabe version of events (I use the wrestling term deliberately, in order to specify that here I'm solely talking about the "on-message" explanation, rather than intending to start another debate) each gain is negligible - that's why they're called "marginal" gains in the first place, of course - but the various incremental, "not very large" gains then combine together to produce a larger gain.

As for the "proof everybody's as drugged up as they used to be", it's completely fallacious to argue that this is the point hrotha is making. People aren't doping to mid-late 90s levels now, it's plain to see. In 1998, there were a dozen Emanuele Sellas wearing out their brake pads on switchbacks in the mountains; in 2008 he stood out like a sore thumb. Nobody except Jimmy Briceño is recording 60% hct, nobody is having to be woken up in the middle of the night to go spinning to prevent their blood from clotting (notwithstanding that that story was possibly apocryphal anyway). You can't see hct fluctuations of 20% now. That's probably the greatest achievement of the bio-passport - it may not stop doping, but it keeps it within much safer parameters and ensures careful management of levels; it's far from impregnable, as we know full well (Kreuziger...) but it's meant that the amount of doping you can get away with is much lower. The difference in level between a clean rider and a rider of comparable level doping as much as he can get away with is less, so the clean rider can be more competitive than he was 20 years ago - but it doesn't necessarily mean that the péloton is any cleaner, if the same number of riders are doping, just doping less than they did before...
Well..Contador claims he was on inferior equipment with his bike being 400 grams heavier at Specialized.
Also, this was the reason for his bad performance in the past TdFs. :lol:
 
Aug 20, 2009
97
0
8,680
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
GreasyChain said:
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.

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

Brilliant! So advances in tyres, wheels, frames, clothing, use of radios and power meters, beetroot juice, and Tramadol milkshakes. None of that can have any effect at all. Why did they spend all those hundreds of millions on research then?

Also micro dosing EPO doesn't give you the same results as whacking your haematocrit level up to 60%. If modern riders are on EPO then they're giving themselves a tiny advantage over not using it. So where is all your proof that everybody is just as drugged as they used to be?

There is none. Which is the problem. As anytime somebody points out that the level of tinfoil required to be a clinic cultist would provide hats for the whole of China, they are banned and the cult just keeps fapping along.
Tramadol is one of the drugs that have come to the fore hrotha mentions.

The other things about advances - of course they have an effect, but they're not exclusive to one rider or team. It's very rare that one rider or team has access to something that absolutely nobody else has, whether it be a legal or an illegal form of assistance. If a new technological advance is made, you can bet the other bike manufacturers will be on it like glue to neutralize their opponents' advantages as quickly as possible. If a new drug is discovered, the chances of a team forking out an exclusivity deal with its producers à la Balco is much more limited in a team of commercial sponsors, as there's money to be made if the drug can be obtained legally, and if it can't then the black market knows no exclusivity deal.

Even those that sold us the "marginal gains" story - who you'd have to be pretty naïve to believe weren't pulling the wool over people's eyes by now, as to truly believe they didn't do anything wrong and it was all a misunderstanding, you'd be crediting them with far too little intelligence to have got where they are without it being a complete fluke - credited the success to the "aggregation" of marginal gains, an important distinction which is all too often omitted by both the defenders of, and ridiculers of, the theory. In the kayfabe version of events (I use the wrestling term deliberately, in order to specify that here I'm solely talking about the "on-message" explanation, rather than intending to start another debate) each gain is negligible - that's why they're called "marginal" gains in the first place, of course - but the various incremental, "not very large" gains then combine together to produce a larger gain.

As for the "proof everybody's as drugged up as they used to be", it's completely fallacious to argue that this is the point hrotha is making. People aren't doping to mid-late 90s levels now, it's plain to see. In 1998, there were a dozen Emanuele Sellas wearing out their brake pads on switchbacks in the mountains; in 2008 he stood out like a sore thumb. Nobody except Jimmy Briceño is recording 60% hct, nobody is having to be woken up in the middle of the night to go spinning to prevent their blood from clotting (notwithstanding that that story was possibly apocryphal anyway). You can't see hct fluctuations of 20% now. That's probably the greatest achievement of the bio-passport - it may not stop doping, but it keeps it within much safer parameters and ensures careful management of levels; it's far from impregnable, as we know full well (Kreuziger...) but it's meant that the amount of doping you can get away with is much lower. The difference in level between a clean rider and a rider of comparable level doping as much as he can get away with is less, so the clean rider can be more competitive than he was 20 years ago - but it doesn't necessarily mean that the péloton is any cleaner, if the same number of riders are doping, just doping less than they did before...
I like this post a lot. The performances are more real today, especially if you pop in a video from 1994-201 or so of the attacks by some of the leaders. Guys like Di Luca, Menchov and Froome* really begin to stand out.
I paid to watch the race on Fubotv. I could see, very clearly, because of the picture quality the spittle on NQ chin on the final climb. He was done and was trying to hide it and wasn't going to float away ala the old days. The attacks are so muted and barely sustained compared to the old era.

It was really enjoyable to watch somewhat real racing.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
GreasyChain said:
Brilliant! So advances in tyres, wheels, frames, clothing, use of radios and power meters, beetroot juice, and Tramadol milkshakes. None of that can have any effect at all. Why did they spend all those hundreds of millions on research then?

Also micro dosing EPO doesn't give you the same results as whacking your haematocrit level up to 60%. If modern riders are on EPO then they're giving themselves a tiny advantage over not using it. So where is all your proof that everybody is just as drugged as they used to be?

There is none. Which is the problem. As anytime somebody points out that the level of tinfoil required to be a clinic cultist would provide hats for the whole of China, they are banned and the cult just keeps fapping along.
Just bolding the things that made me laugh for various reasons. Entertaining!

"Clothing" is my favorite.
My personal favorite is 'fapping.'
 
Re:

masking_agent said:
I hope he takes this Giro and then joins a stronger team, with a better "program" and goes after Froome for 2018's TdF and is around as a contender for some time.
The way he's riding this Giro, a stronger team and better program and he'll win every GT by 10 minutes. Even with Froome there.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
GreasyChain said:
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.

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

Brilliant! So advances in tyres, wheels, frames, clothing, use of radios and power meters, beetroot juice, and Tramadol milkshakes. None of that can have any effect at all. Why did they spend all those hundreds of millions on research then?

Also micro dosing EPO doesn't give you the same results as whacking your haematocrit level up to 60%. If modern riders are on EPO then they're giving themselves a tiny advantage over not using it. So where is all your proof that everybody is just as drugged as they used to be?

There is none. Which is the problem. As anytime somebody points out that the level of tinfoil required to be a clinic cultist would provide hats for the whole of China, they are banned and the cult just keeps fapping along.

Dumoulin clean beating Nibali a client of Dr Ferrari?

EPO whether micro-dosed or not is just part of the cocktail of PEDs. There are many different variations of EPO and not all can be tested for. Who knows what the latest PED of choice is, as testing is at least 10 years behind.

Check out the list Jimenez took.

CIRC reported some riders taking more than 30 tablets a day during GTs.

No tinfoils hat needed when looking at whether cycling still has a doping culture, just look at those running the sport, the teams, the doctors etc etc........they have not changed their ways, just the medicine cabinets contents and methods.
If he was talking tramadol I doubt he would needed to have taken a dump so urgently :lol: I am surprised they aren't using tapentadol, a fairly new synthetic opiod, like a stronger version of tramadol
 
in a fair side of things- Dumoulin's performance in the last ITT was a "healthy one" and consistent with a rider already tired/exhausted after a hard 3rd week filled with hard mountains- IOW Tom did not pull and E.T. ride despite his TTing skills over the others. In fact- Quintana's ITT today was extraordinary having all things considered.....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY