Has anyone changed their mind about doping?

[The Hitch]

One guy was warned for missing a test five years ago, yep that makes all the difference...

I never said that swedes don't dope, they clearly do, I am arguing that they are less prone to do so because of the anti-doping culture that has existed and still exists in Sweden.

Swedish athletes that get caught are hated by the public, they are a disgrace for the country. I don't get the same impression watching the Vuelta with regards to piti and AC. Neither did I when I watched the 2010 Giro with Basso. They still see this guys as heroes. Heck, Pantani still gets praised for his performances. And I can tell you, none is praising Ludmila Engquists olympic gold medal in Sweden.

Nicklas Axelsson couldn't even live in Sweden after his suspension. He said people looked at him like he was a murderer. This is hardly the case in Spain and Italy.

You really think if Ibrahimowich got caught doping he would be run out

 

[thehook]

I still do not want doping in my sport.

However I try to watch the races and just enjoy them for what they are. What drives me crazy. And I guess it is just a pet peeve of mine. Is the absolute B.S. that is being pitched by some in our sport (SKY). Do what you do. But don't insult me with the utter B.S.

I just leave it to the authorities to catch them. And enjoy the races.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Hemoglobin data have been available from ski teams beginning from 1987, and from 1989 to 1999 we have followed hemoglobin values in elite cross-country skiers in international competitions. The mean values at the 1989 World Nordic Ski Championships were lower than population reference values, as would be expected from plasma volume expansion associated with endurance training. However, an increase, particularly in the maximal values, became obvious in 1994 and rose further in 1996. These extreme values provide both a health risk to the individual athlete and unfair competition. After a rule limiting hemoglobin values was introduced, the drop of the highest values was remarkable: among men 15 g/l (0.23 mmol/l) and among women 42 g/l (0.65 mmol/l). It would appear that the rule had achieved its goal of limiting extreme hemoglobin values. Yet the mean hemoglobin concentrations in men and women have continued to rise, suggesting the continued use of artificial methods to increase total hemoglobin mass.

Who do you think they tested back then? The guy in last place? Of course they didn't, they tested the guys on the podium and as I said in an earlier post (when I first posted this link) sweden claimed 6/12 individual medals and the relay gold on the men's side.

No, the abstract does not describe a test showing no blood transfusions but it show that the hemoglobin values are lower than the mean values for the general population as would be expected and rules out blood doping. So unless you are to tell me the swedish team used masking agents, such as say Hemohes, I'd say it counts as evidence that they did not use blood transfusions.

I can give the English miscommunication a pass due to your (supposed) multi-lingual ability, but logic is pretty much universal.

Firstly, I am glad we cleared up that there was no test showing transfusions had not occurred.

As for who was tested: unless you see the data, not only can you not claim it was podium winners, but only testing podium winners is not sound statistically, as it introduces a variable that has the potential to skew the results, obviously.

Also, you need to test more than 3 people to derive a statistically significant (ie worth publishing) result. Ed Coyle studies notwithstanding.

What really screws up your argument is this:

After the EPO-test was introduced, the swedes start to become more successful again, do you think that's just a coincidence?

Yet the mean hemoglobin concentrations in men and women have continued to rise, suggesting the continued use of artificial methods to increase total hemoglobin mass.

If by "successful" you mean "podiuming", then no, I do not think it's coincidence. I think they are doping, just like everyone else.

 

[No_Balls]

This is ridiculous. I was a kid when I started to watch cycling. I had no idea how bad Armstrong's disease was until I started to follow cycling more closely after a couple of years. If you called out Lance in 1998, then great, good for you.

Yes it is indeed ridiculous to go from a pack fodder to a GC contender like Armstrong/Froome. In fact, Froome is the british equivalent and, needless to say, they've got the their nose up the Cookson **** as Lance with Verbruggen. You guys must trust UCI though because they have until recently held your boy under their wings. Surely, you must have beginning to wonder what have happen to the boy who scored Armstrong-times at Ventoux and looked like Indurain against the watch. Dont you start to feel a little doubt creeping?

I didn't have any idea how lousy Armstrong was earlier in his career since all the media was backing him and spinning the "youngest world champion ever" story.

He was in fact more believable then Froome.

I despise Lance Armstrong now since I know what he has done and you trying to peg me as a fanboys to Lance will never work. Read my post history and you will se that.

Great! A shame this is seldom heard as you seem to put a great emphasis on certain riders. I mean, cheating should be judged equal right?

You call me a part of the problem and yet you have Contador as your avatar?

Yes i do realize you Skybots needs Contador like Christianity needs the devil. Without him your god cant be viewed as holier then thou. Its the Walsh-method we've been all to familiar with. But, sorry to disappoint, i have no reasons to believe Contador was clean. Not because of the banned substance in 2010 which you guys have orchestrated as "ton of evidence" because all you really care about is wheter a rival to your god was doped or not, but because it seems unlikely that a Discovery rider under Bruyneels tutelage was clean. But, the difference with me and you is that i do not believe Contador is the driving force behind doping in the peloton, and that get rid of him would have the problem solved. You guys needs it to be so because how could the story with the Sky-led dawn with Sir Dawg the clean otherwise be sold properly?

 

[Tonton]

One guy was warned for missing a test five years ago, yep that makes all the difference...

I never said that swedes don't dope, they clearly do, I am arguing that they are less prone to do so because of the anti-doping culture that has existed and still exists in Sweden.

Swedish athletes that get caught are hated by the public, they are a disgrace for the country.

Wiggins interview:

I don't care what people say, the attitude to doping in the UK is different to in Italy or France maybe, where a rider like Richard Virenque can dope, be caught, be banned, come back and be a national hero.

If I doped I would potentially stand to lose everything. It's a long list. My reputation, my livelihood, my marriage, my family, my house.

Sounds familiar , coming from a guy who could barely finish the TdF a few years before... I would suggest that you read threads, Chinese watchdogs proud that they don't get positives. Wow! One billion people. So the Chinese don't dope. OK. We all know it . So convenient to use the Italians and Spaniards as born-cheaters, use stereotypes. I despise Piti (and so do you - different thread), wished him the worst at the TdF ITT, loved the outcome, but I don't believe that any country is dope-free due to cultural values.

You have never been in a club, raced, tried to get an edge, modify your diet, you don't know how far someone can go to make it. You are lame, and we are wasting time. Read threads, studies, come back in a year. And ride a freaking bike.

 

[Walkman]

*shudder* I get the feeling this discussion is going to remain unresolved if this is the level of logic being employed by Walkman.

I didn't even wrote this post, and yet you are trying to pin the logic to me, can you explain that?

 

[Walkman]

You really think if Ibrahimowich got caught doping he would be run out

Good question.

I think many people, like myself, would abandon him and see him as a disgrace. But unfortunately I think a lot of people still would see him as an big star, but mostly young teenage boys and ignorant football fans.

Just look at what happened when Backstrom tested positive at the Olympics. People were bashing him left and right. Sure, some were defending him but he did took a lot of heat before he was cleared. And that was just a case of him batting caught for taking something he had a TUE for. Had it been EPO or anabolic steroids I am pretty sure to would have been another story.

 

[Walkman]

Ok, at a guess (yes just opinion) doping is 80% training and 20% racing, in terms of number of times / days it is carried out, and also in terms of the impact of its use.

Could you elaborate, I can't really follow you here?

I do not think you can compare racing of skiing vs cycling and say doping doesn't help to the same extent.

Why not?

Recovery is many times the main issue for cyclists, whether it is during a 6 hour one day race, during a week long race or during a GT.

Doping makes you recover much faster and thus have a profound impact on cycling whereas in XC-skiing, you can be done with a competition under 40 minutes hence I believe doping isn't going to be as effective.

My point isn't that doping does not matter, my point is that if you can manage to reduce doping in the sport, it will be much easier for clean athletes to compete in XC-skiing rather than in cycling seeing how relatively small amounts of doping will give you a clear edge over your competitors in cycling due to how much harder the sport is.

Let's say you are doing a 7 hour mountains stage and one rider is doping and gains an extra 2%. During such a grueling stage, this rider will have a clear advantages over his competitors. Now imagine the same scenario in an 15 km freestyle XC-skiiing race. You are racing for a little more than 30 minutes and they 2% gain isn't going to be as obvious. You could easily lose that advantage if you gets your waxing wrong and clean riders can beat you.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I didn't even wrote this post, and yet you are trying to pin the logic to me, can you explain that?

You can't follow a simple conversation in a thread, so no, I do not think there is any value in breaking it down.

You can't do the math. Simple. No point in further discussing your "facts".

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Could you elaborate, I can't really follow you here?



Why not?

Recovery is many times the main issue for cyclists, whether it is during a 6 hour one day race, during a week long race or during a GT.

Doping makes you recover much faster and thus have a profound impact on cycling whereas in XC-skiing, you can be done with a competition under 40 minutes hence I believe doping isn't going to be as effective.

My point isn't that doping does not matter, my point is that if you can manage to reduce doping in the sport, it will be much easier for clean athletes to compete in XC-skiing rather than in cycling seeing how relatively small amounts of doping will give you a clear edge over your competitors in cycling due to how much harder the sport is.

Let's say you are doing a 7 hour mountains stage and one rider is doping and gains an extra 2%. During such a grueling stage, this rider will have a clear advantages over his competitors. Now imagine the same scenario in an 15 km freestyle XC-skiiing race. You are racing for a little more than 30 minutes and they 2% gain isn't going to be as obvious. You could easily lose that advantage if you gets your waxing wrong and clean riders can beat you.

I believe you don't know much about doping at all, or why or when it is used, and I am not going to try and get you up to speed. There's lots of info around, including books written by dopers.

Peace out.

 

[neineinei]

Here are some facts about Sweden and anti-doping:

Sweden doesn't have an independent anti-doping agency. The Swedish anti-doping authority is a part of the Swedish Sports Confederation.

The Swedish Sports Confederation didn't do any EPO testing prior to 2005. They also didn't take any blood tests.

In 2008 the Swedish Sports Confederatioin took 100 doping tests in FIS sports and 26 in biathlon.
In 2012 the Swedish Sports Confederation performed 24 EPO tests.

Up until the summer of 2013 many Swedish top athletes only had to report their wherabouts for every third day.

(Source: Mads Drange-Dopingbløffen)

 

[Dr.Guess]

Hello. Seeing as we're speaking doping education i thought i'd ask here. Some time ago, in some other thread, someone posted a link to a website which was "a must read". Unfortunately i don't remember what the name of the site or thread was. Perhaps you can help me?
Also, wouldn't it be good to have a sticky with links to articles etc that are the latest in doping.
Cheers

Btw. The thread topic was really interesting. To me, well, I always wonder if i would be happier being an unknowing idiot. It's a shame really. I remember my feelings when Pantani got kicked out of The giro 99 and it was of dissapointment. Not wholefelt towards him, just more of the , "yeah, that figures". I guess I was always aware and wary of doping in sports. On The other hand I feel like an idiot for not connecting the dots to other sports. Perhaps It's because of how interested I am in the sport.
So I think I am still dissapointed about doping in sport as I feel like you can nerver know if the performance is true. And because I love sports because it should be open for anyone no matter where youre from and it creates dreams. When doping occurs it interferes with those dreams.
So to conclude. I despise cheating and doping. In most cases I don't like The cheating athlete. Perhaps he or she is a good person outside the sport. But I know them as that, sportsmen.


Perhaps there are some misspellings etc. I blame that on the auto correction.

 

[neineinei]

Not really. You just need to minimize doping. XC-skiign is not like cycling. Before Tour de Ski there were no back to back races and even so, stages in the Tour can be 5km or sprint stages hence the need for recovery is not nearly as important in XC-skiing as it is in cycling.

Of course doping will make you better, but not to the same extent as it does in cycling. With a EPO test and a maximum limit for Hb values you take away the ability to supercharge like Smirnov, Pantani and Riis did. That's enough to make a real impact in XC-skiing. Just look at the 2001 World Championships. During the opening distances Mühlegg was good, but not great, then come the 50km he dominated. The other guys could keep up when fresh but once the recovery became an issue, the dopers had the advantage.

Are you sugesting there hasn't been any doping for the one day classics in cycling?

In grand tours there is a big logistics problem, as during a 3 week tour dopers needs fill up. Constant travel, crossing borders mid tour (customs), and in countries like France nosey Police, For the cross country Wolrd Cup with competitions mostly on the weekends you don't need to bring with you blood bags and EPO for fill up. One can do all the doping at home, or at the altitude training facility. There is no need to bring lots of doping products/blood bags with you to competition.

In SLC Mühlegg was best also at the start of the games. He won on Feb 9, he won on Feb 14 and he won on Feb 23. He was doped to the gills but managed to get past the pre race haemoglobin test. If it wasn't for the new darbepoetin test he would have gotten away with it. According to Catlin other dopers at the same games did get away with it.

 

[Echoes]

None of this post makes sense.

Which ironically does make sense, when you consider the source.

For sure, posts by the source for this post always make perfect sense.

Have a look at yourself first, man.

 

[No_Balls]

One guy was warned for missing a test five years ago, yep that makes all the difference...

And what year it was for Söderling. It was the same year he climbed up to fourth in ATP and beated Nadal at Roland Garros - the supposed poster boy of doping in professional tennis. The swede is the only active player who actually have bested Nadal in Paris over a 9 year period.

Now, when he actually turns up at doping controls, he was fast to decline and arent even close to the top. Funny, dont you think?

I never said that swedes don't dope, they clearly do, I am arguing that they are less prone to do so because of the anti-doping culture that has existed and still exists in Sweden.

This so called anti-doping culture doesnt exist because there are no governing body for it. What does exist is the belief that swedes are moraly superior, of course trumpeted by media in favor of the national heroes.

Swedish athletes that get caught are hated by the public

No they are hated by the media, and this not because they have doped but that they got caught. The best omerta, the best protection against suspection, is the belief that they are all clean. Look what happened with Bäckström: he got massive support being found out with ridiculous amounts of a banned substance under IOC rules, Axelsson slipped out of the backdoor widely ignored because cycling isnt that big in Sweden anyways, Kessiakoff? No need to look under those stones. Some guys like Patrik Sjöberg and Ricky Bruch has been popularized as they was quick labeled as "troubling geniuses" or "bad boy rebels". The only really outcry was when Ludmila Enquist got caught and that was of course because she earlier competed in the Soviet system and was from Ucraine.

I don't get the same impression watching the Vuelta with regards to piti and AC. Neither did I when I watched the 2010 Giro with Basso. They still see this guys as heroes. Heck, Pantani still gets praised for his performances.

There is a cultural/national slightly more cynical attitude towards racing and competition in these countries, yes. Everyone, or the vast majority, believes everyone is a doper and since everyone are doing it why cant our riders? Who cant really blame that since more or less everyone of the great white hope you've been perfectly willing to give benefit of the doubt (due to their fluid english) has been involved, or orchestrated directly, in one of the biggest doping cartel since the East german program.

And to believe the doping problem starts with riders, or even worse that getting rid of one our two solves it, should be enough for a permaban due to stupidity.

Nicklas Axelsson couldn't even live in Sweden after his suspension. He said people looked at him like he was a murderer. This is hardly the case in Spain and Italy.

Niclas Axelsson was a perfect victim since Sweden has no problem to throw a tiny (barely mentioned) sport as cycling under the bus. It worked as a warning shot to others should they got caught. He himself believed this would happen but didn't care to check it out for himself as he lived and had stabilized himself in Italy. It was a lot worse with Ludmila who even was labeled with her russian name.

I know what kind of North Corea style brainwash you are being fed with so wont burst your bubble any more. If the belief that the problem starts with riders south of Pyreenes and Brenner helps you sleep at night then i am glad.

Thus has been established: You dislike certain dopers, but you dont mind doping. Mind the difference.

 

[hrotha]

I see nothing particularly controversial about the notion that different societies have different views on different things. Including doping.

Seriously, no matter how inconsequential Axelsson was, you just need to compare that to how much of Spanish society treats its own dopers. Even no-names.

edit: oh, and while there's plenty of cynics, there's ALSO plenty of people who think it all boils down to French jealousy when someone is caught. They're always ready to believe whatever excuse the athlete uses. For casual sports fans, I'd say they are the majority.

 

[the sceptic]

wonder how the anti doping culture in sweden stops hockey players from doping. One of the most doped up sports in the world probably. I bet if I posted this on some swedish message board everyone would go mental, similar to norwegians and XC skiing.

 

[mrhender]

Hello. Seeing as we're speaking doping education i thought i'd ask here. Some time ago, in some other thread, someone posted a link to a website which was "a must read". Unfortunately i don't remember what the name of the site or thread was. Perhaps you can help me?
Also, wouldn't it be good to have a sticky with links to articles etc that are the latest in doping.
Cheers
snipped

Here's what I think you where asking for.

Thread:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=22758

Website/article:
http://www.theouterline.com/setting-a-new-ethical-standard-in-pro-cycling/


The must-read part is of course a personal judgement..

I think the website includes some interesting articles in general.

 

[doperhopper]

I changed my mind - from "maybe the cycling can be saved" to "no way under current UCI/ASO/teams mafia", maybe there can be a slight chance in some new independent league run by Bassons-like guys, teams run by similarly minded people, with a reasonable financial/business model.

 

[movingtarget]

What I find most disturbing is the results of the testing from the Tour. No positives from the Tour testing. Mmmmmmmmm is testing that hapless or have fans just become too cynical in the wake of what has happened over the past 10 years and before ? Not one rider out of 200 odd doing the wrong thing. Is it possible ? Or have the doctors and riders become smarter ?

 

[BigMac]

What I find most disturbing is the results of the testing from the Tour. No positives from the Tour testing. Mmmmmmmmm is testing that hapless or have fans just become too cynical in the wake of what has happened over the past 10 years and before ? Not one rider out of 200 odd doing the wrong thing. Is it possible ? Or have the doctors and riders become smarter ?

I think so, yes. But I also think it's somewhat understandable.

 

[Granville57]

What I find most disturbing is the results of the testing from the Tour. No positives from the Tour testing. Mmmmmmmmm is testing that hapless or have fans just become too cynical in the wake of what has happened over the past 10 years and before ? Not one rider out of 200 odd doing the wrong thing. Is it possible ? Or have the doctors and riders become smarter ?

It is amusing that the very statement they release to the public is done with the intention of offering reassurance. But the reality is that it only makes some of us even that much more suspicious.

It's a tough spot they find themselves in. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Tough indeed.



Oh wait, it's of their own doing.


(I haven't even followed this thread. It's just that I seem to be the only one logged in right now and I'm trying to win the forum bingo by posting in every topic.)

 

[DirtyWorks]

I changed my mind - from "maybe the cycling can be saved" to "no way under current UCI/ASO/teams mafia", maybe there can be a slight chance in some new independent league run by Bassons-like guys, teams run by similarly minded people, with a reasonable financial/business model.

The IOC has as much to do with it as the UCI. There are good ideas out there.

http://veloclinic.com/imminent-arrival-reward-side-anti-doping/

Don't give up. Just share the facts.

 

[rhubroma]

It's tough because even being a fan of a non doped rider is not straight forward. So many called clean guys are not clean, and how can you tell if a Sagan, Evans or Froome is doped. There's guys like Pinot whom I've enjoyed watching for the last 3 seasons but I'm not a 100% sure he is clean. Being a fan of a doped rider is probably easier to do if you've never competed though. Personally I enjoy getting fit naturally, having good days, terrible days where nothing seems right and other days where I feel strong. Doing this by cheating seems weird to me. I just love riding for the way each ride differs.

As far as the pros go, it's safe to say: don't bet your house on any of them. That doesn't mean that some might be riding on "bread and water" alone, but just don't bet your house on it. This is not cynicism, but a fair dose of realism.

As far as competing against dopers goes, the thing is, if one is on a good program, responds well, has decent natural ability (I'm not saying world class, just good) and does their homework with training; doping doesn't make you just go faster, but supersonic. And the difference is just rediculous.

I've known guys before they got on a program and what they were able to do, and then the same ones who got on a program for a few years and it was just night and day. Fortunately it is getting harder to be so frank about it, with the "Ricco-effect" and things like that, but there's still a lot in circulation.

 

[DirtyWorks]

What I find most disturbing is the results of the testing from the Tour. No positives from the Tour testing. Mmmmmmmmm is testing that hapless or have fans just become too cynical in the wake of what has happened over the past 10 years and before ? Not one rider out of 200 odd doing the wrong thing. Is it possible ? Or have the doctors and riders become smarter ?

UCI is not required to open a case for every positive.