DFA123 said:
samhocking said:
OK, well the how is the big mystery for everyone lol. Clearly it isn't EPO, Testosterone, HGH, Corticosteroids and Salbutomol because all teams have access to that to loose weight and gain power/keep power anyway.
It's only an observation, i'm not claiming or disproving anything, simply nobody can possibly know, yet we have thousands of posts claiming such transformations by Froome must be from doping. Doping might explain the transformation, but it doesn't explain why a transformation is only available to Froome/Sky when one would assume more talented/gifted racehorses in other teams with proven palamares unlike Froome can't dope and beat Froome with arguably better riders to work their doping on.
That's not clear at all. We already know that some riders in the blood doping era respond much better than other riders to certain products and cocktails. If Froome is a "super-responder" to something that he wasn't previously taking, or was taking sub-optimally for his physiology, then it's quite logical that he would gain considerably more relative to his peers. In fact, I would go as far to say him being a super-responder to something fairly common and accessible is the most likely reason behind his big improvement.
Genuine question...maybe covered before (i've obviously heard the stories about Armstrong etc) but what exactly is a super responder?
To my, admittedly limited and mostly anecdotal, knowledge...drugs do what drugs do. There's a balance to be struck between positive results and side effects, and yes personal tolerance to side effects is certainly a thing in the bodybuilding world for example. And yes, getting the right dose and combinations of products takes a bit of practice, mostly trial and error if you like. But again..what is a 'super response'?
If we take EPO for example...it works. Full stop. There's no super response, with fairly basic and simple medical supervision you get the dose right and raise your HCT to the desired level. There's a sweetspot of what that level is. There's no magical response where someone's level jumps way higher than someone elses, that would be counterproductive. So, you get the dose right, you get the levels right, that's it. One rider might need to take less than another to get to the right levels, but there's no 'super response'. EPO does what it does, same for everybody unless they have some kind of contraindication to its use.
Testosterone....again only used very sparingly for cyclists. In the bodybuilding world its a free for all, the more you take the bigger you get, and the more troublesome the side effects (actually bodybuilders just take even more drugs to combat the side effects but thats another story!). But most of the effects above a certain dose (rapid weight gain) would be undesireable for cyclists. They're just taking minimal doses to aid recovery. So again, any kind of 'super response' to Testosterone wouldn't be a good thing for a cyclist.
Same goes for HGH, and most anabolic steroids really, most of the benefits to cyclists would only be seen at relatively modest doseages. Go higher, or have a 'super response' and its generally not good.
No idea on Salbutamol...but Clenbuterol which i understand to act similarly, you wouldn't want a 'super response'. Get the dosing wrong on this and the side effects are awful. In the bodybuilding world lots of people have used this and vowed never again because they can't stand the side effects when using in quantities significant enough to get any desireable effects. Such known side effects would not be good for a cyclist.
I really dont understand the 'super responder' theory, but maybe someone can enlighten me. Im not trying to be smart here, just curious