History - doping - asterisk performances - have we crossed the line?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
hrotha said:
Too soon to say that era has ended, or to say when it ended (why 2009?). We still lack historical perspective to know if it's true that clean riders can truly win the biggest races, particularly the GTs.
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Ok, I think it probably is possible at the moment for super talented clean riders to occasionally win a race. But IMO that is because of the unexpected progress the passport has made and some resulting risk aversion. That progress will be short lived if the UCI continues with reduced monitoring and fails to monitor those high on the suspicion index. The current quiet patch will be just that, a quiet patch. Until the pockets of highly sophisticated doping Ashenden talks about set the arms race off all over again.

By all means start the "dark era" in 1991, that coincides with the start of Hein's presidency nicely. He completely failed to manage the problem. Just don't close the dark era off yet. Don't close it till the UCI makes the changes needed to prevent it happening all over again.
And I was asked, "Why 2009?"

As others have noted in this thread - both blood values and climbing speeds/ watts/ other metrics have decreased significantly. Most of us seem to accept 2011 as a relatively doping-free year. The exception was the high-profile AC positive. In 2009, we saw High Road, where Stapleton had an avowed obsession with riding clean, become HTC-Columbia, and they had winners riding that year.

In the news today, we have this http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-armstrong-may-have-been-blood-doping-at-2009-tour-de-france

But when I look at this list for 2010, I wonder if maybe we should make it 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling#2009

In 2011, we have Ricco and Sinkewitz - but both getting detected relatively quickly, and Ricco at least getting some sort of just reward.

The point, somewhere, is that we seem to have turned a corner, and even though Ashendon points to pockets of sophisticated dopers, it seems a clean rider can ride and win in the top ranks. Although, we seem to have a majority amongst those responding to this thread that the dark era may not yet be over. They remain skeptical. I hope they are wrong, but I am glad they are skeptical and suspicious. Without those suspicions, we would be watching the cycling version of World-Wide-Wrestling (now W-W-ENTERTAINMENT) today.

We have seen a continuous uptick in the number of doping cases detected and pursued, since Festina, up until about 2009 or 2010. It seems to me that the ABP and current testing regimes have created more risk for the dopers, and therefore they are fewer!

It could also be that history records the end of the "Dark Era" as 2012, since we have the remarkable event this year of the USADA vs LA case.

But I picked 2009, because that is the year I feel represents the first year, that we the fans, could be relatively sure that a pro peloton rider could compete clean and win. 2010 still had some big drug cases, but they were caught quicker, and prosecuted quicker, and the methods they were caught with seemed to me, more commonplace. Less difficult.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Fowsto Cope-E said:
I'm sorry, but Team Sky didn't sandbag and still drop everyone else. That's ridiculous. And if you only derived that calculation from speed, height, and the fact that there was a headwind, that doesn't seem particularly accurate.
How do you explain the massive difference in the final TT times then? If they weren't sandbagging? If they were able to push 420W at 100-110rpm uphill? If noone else could stay with them bar Nibali and the odd hanger-on every now and then? Yes it is ridiculous - it certainly looked ridiculous, and to explain it away we have "it was a weak tour", etc trotted out as excuses.

As for a model not being accurate - you seem to have no respect for what we can use to calculate power required to TT. What should we be using instead? I suggested:

speed & atmospheric conditions.

The other variable they used was elevation - ie the actual elevation of the course, for its duration.

Check it out for yourself: http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/ProRaceAnalysis.aspx

If you have something constructive to add other than "that's ridiculous" and "not particularly accurate", I am all ears. Krebs Cycle has a PhD and offers that sort of input as well, so you're in fine company.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Hiero I wish I could buy into your end of the dark era. I think it's way premature to call this from your (I am sure many valid) observations.

Top sports people all have something in common. They are ruthlessly ambitious to get to the top of their profession. In cycling with the benefits gained being so large, unless they feel doping controls will take them out they will try and beat the system. And peer pressure will do the rest. It's Darwinism at its extreme favoring the doper. And I have no faith in the control system administered by UCI.

I think all the biopassport has achieved is a refinement of doping methods.
I think what we are seeing is a relative lull in positives, with the clever guys knowing how to beat the system, ie better protocols to not get caught. The positives we see now are from the guys that are running years behind in their methods or have a dodgy back office logistics system (read Tyler's Siberia & Mr Alzheimer).

Have we seen a reduction in speeds. Yes, quite likely. The above rationale fits that theory. The risk/benefit ratio has shifted towards slightly less risk and doping method refinement, with a resultant slightly reduced benefit also. Are we still seeing "not normal" performances. Absolutely & routinely.

What would convince me that the age of enlightenment is nearing is a much more transparent control system that I could trust. We need a transparent, retrospective testing methodology run independently from UCI, well funded on developing new tests as well as a higher frequency of tests, combined with stronger penalties for riders but team staff and teams also.

That would give me hope at least.
 
Jul 27, 2010
260
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
How do you explain the massive difference in the final TT times then? If they weren't sandbagging? If they were able to push 420W at 100-110rpm uphill? If noone else could stay with them bar Nibali and the odd hanger-on every now and then? Yes it is ridiculous - it certainly looked ridiculous, and to explain it away we have "it was a weak tour", etc trotted out as excuses.

As for a model not being accurate - you seem to have no respect for what we can use to calculate power required to TT. What should we be using instead? I suggested:

speed & atmospheric conditions.

The other variable they used was elevation - ie the actual elevation of the course, for its duration.

Check it out for yourself: http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/ProRaceAnalysis.aspx

If you have something constructive to add other than "that's ridiculous" and "not particularly accurate", I am all ears. Krebs Cycle has a PhD and offers that sort of input as well, so you're in fine company.
Yes, it did look ridiculous. They were ridiculously stronger than the rest of the feild. And yet, you claim that they were holding and could do much more. And according to the model on that site, Maxime Bouet produced 6.14W/kg. Where was he on the climbs? That model, for whatever reason (ex. the wind wasn't as strong as reported), overestimated the power outputs. If Wiggo and Froome were sandbagging the climbs and then went 6.9W/kg on the TT, then everyone was sandbagging until the TT.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Fowsto Cope-E said:
Yes, it did look ridiculous. They were ridiculously stronger than the rest of the feild. And yet, you claim that they were holding and could do much more. And according to the model on that site, Maxime Bouet produced 6.14W/kg. Where was he on the climbs? That model, for whatever reason (ex. the wind wasn't as strong as reported), overestimated the power outputs. If Wiggo and Froome were sandbagging the climbs and then went 6.9W/kg on the TT, then everyone was sandbagging until the TT.
Just look at the actual TT times - forgetting margin of errors and model accuracy.

Froome was 2% slower, requiring 6% more power to match Brad's time. Everyone slower than Froome required more than 6% additional power to match Brad's time. By 5th place you need 10% more power.

So if Porte is putting out 420W on the climb, and Wiggins is on his wheel, but Porte needs to generate 10% more power for an hour+ to match Brad in the TT, I believe most definitely Brad could have ridden uphill faster than he did.

Brad was riding at the acceptable physiological limit. Any faster could only be explained "by another couple of blood bags". ie he couldn't ride any faster or it would look too suspect. They were counting on everyone else respecting this simple fact.
 
Jul 27, 2010
260
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Just look at the actual TT times - forgetting margin of errors and model accuracy.

Froome was 2% slower, requiring 6% more power to match Brad's time. Everyone slower than Froome required more than 6% additional power to match Brad's time. By 5th place you need 10% more power.

So if Porte is putting out 420W on the climb, and Wiggins is on his wheel, but Porte needs to generate 10% more power for an hour+ to match Brad in the TT, I believe most definitely Brad could have ridden uphill faster than he did.

Brad was riding at the acceptable physiological limit. Any faster could only be explained "by another couple of blood bags". ie he couldn't ride any faster or it would look too suspect. They were counting on everyone else respecting this simple fact.
See, this is my problem with it. If everyone else is just making sure that they don't exceed the acceptable physiological limit, then why couldn't they keep up with Wiggins and Froome who were riding right at that limit?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Fowsto Cope-E said:
See, this is my problem with it. If everyone else is just making sure that they don't exceed the acceptable physiological limit, then why couldn't they keep up with Wiggins and Froome who were riding right at that limit?
Brad and Froome were the only ones who could do this, day in and day out.

Tyler says in his book - you plan your good days, coz you can't go good the whole tour, even with EPO and transfusions and the works. A few good days.

You might get a few good days where you get ahead, and then work to maintain that lead or limit your losses. Noone could get that break. Brad / Sky made sure people knew it would look bad.

Sky managed to do the whole Tour at a good level, and preempted the few good days most doping riders could get, with a "couple of blood bags" threat played out in the media.
 
Fowsto Cope-E said:
See, this is my problem with it. If everyone else is just making sure that they don't exceed the acceptable physiological limit, then why couldn't they keep up with Wiggins and Froome who were riding right at that limit?
because the "acceptable physiological limit" is in dispute, given the last time we know a GT winner won without O2 vector doping was in 1990. And because there is a presumption that yes, teams were actually dialling it back the past few years. Just like in 1999 post Festina. Then along comes a team juiced to the eyeballs, and wham!! the rest are sitting ducks.

The evidence for the 1999 presumption is the 1999 samples being re-tested in 2005. Off the top of my head, 13/97 had EPO, six positives being Armstrongs with another two being his but having inconsistencies that prevent them being "positive". We do not know if any of the other 5 were individual riders, or from the same rider. Doesn't really matter, as it indicates that a maximum of 5% of the peleton were taking EPO in 1999.

This is the reason why the domestiques are queried. Porte and Dodger (and Vroome) sticking it to the GT contenders day after day. Because it is so reminiscent of USPS.
 
Jul 27, 2010
260
0
0
sittingbison said:
because the "acceptable physiological limit" is in dispute, given the last time we know a GT winner won without O2 vector doping was in 1990. And because there is a presumption that yes, teams were actually dialling it back the past few years. Just like in 1999 post Festina. Then along comes a team juiced to the eyeballs, and wham!! the rest are sitting ducks.

The evidence for the 1999 presumption is the 1999 samples being re-tested in 2005. Off the top of my head, 13/97 had EPO, six positives being Armstrongs with another two being his but having inconsistencies that prevent them being "positive". We do not know if any of the other 5 were individual riders, or from the same rider. Doesn't really matter, as it indicates that a maximum of 5% of the peleton were taking EPO in 1999.

This is the reason why the domestiques are queried. Porte and Dodger (and Vroome) sticking it to the GT contenders day after day. Because it is so reminiscent of USPS.
I am not denying the suspicion of Team Sky's performance during the Tour. I just find it hard to believe that they were using power meters in order to restrain themselves while everybody else just let them go. I believe that the BioPassport program is what is restraining everyone's performancce, not simply a decision to not look overly suspicious.
 
Fowsto Cope-E said:
...I just find it hard to believe that they were using power meters in order to restrain themselves while everybody else just let them go...
the issue is that nobody "let them go", it is that they were right on the rivet and everybody else could barley keep up let alone make an attack. The various quotes have been posted in the Sky threads numerous times, basically Basso said at 420W sitting behind Porte he struggled to keep up and nobody could attack, Wiggo himself said Dodger was pumping out 450W so nobody could attack unless they could hold 500W for 30 mins, and Dodger said he was putting out his best ever power at 480W - a 7% gain (from his days with Telekom ;) )

Vroome Dodger and Porte prevented any attacks by GT contenders, when Evans tried he busted his boiler, when Nibali tried he busted his boiler the first time and the second time was ridden down like an amateur by none other than Wiggo himself. Each time an attack was made, Rogers upped the power and shredded the yellow jersey group. Each time there was the four Sky riders plus two or three stragglers, thats it. The rest blew straight out the back.
 
Jul 27, 2010
260
0
0
sittingbison said:
the issue is that nobody "let them go", it is that they were right on the rivet and everybody else could barley keep up let alone make an attack. The various quotes have been posted in the Sky threads numerous times, basically Basso said at 420W sitting behind Porte he struggled to keep up and nobody could attack, Wiggo himself said Dodger was pumping out 450W so nobody could attack unless they could hold 500W for 30 mins, and Dodger said he was putting out his best ever power at 480W - a 7% gain (from his days with Telekom ;) )

Vroome Dodger and Porte prevented any attacks by GT contenders, when Evans tried he busted his boiler, when Nibali tried he busted his boiler the first time and the second time was ridden down like an amateur by none other than Wiggo himself. Each time an attack was made, Rogers upped the power and shredded the yellow jersey group. Each time there was the four Sky riders plus two or three stragglers, thats it. The rest blew straight out the back.
No, no, I understand that. That's not what I meant. I meant that what you guys are saying (I think) is that people are doping in less effective ways just so that they can avoid looking suspicious. Meanwhile, Team Sky is doped to the gills but backing it off a notch so that they fall just under what would be considered the accepted limit of clean performance. So what I am saying by "letting them go" is that other teams could have come into the Tour better prepared but chose not to and decided to let the better prepared team stomp all over them. Do I have this right?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Fowsto Cope-E said:
No, no, I understand that. That's not what I meant. I meant that what you guys are saying (I think) is that people are doping in less effective ways just so that they can avoid looking suspicious. Meanwhile, Team Sky is doped to the gills but backing it off a notch so that they fall just under what would be considered the accepted limit of clean performance. So what I am saying by "letting them go" is that other teams could have come into the Tour better prepared but chose not to and decided to let the better prepared team stomp all over them. Do I have this right?
Not at all.

Meeting with ASO pre-tour + good relationship with UCI = cart blanche Tour de France access to results for Team Sky. $$$ talks.

I believe everyone else was doping as per usual since the passport was introduced. Micro dosing, smaller transfusions perhaps, all the usual pre-race prep like EPO / HgH / steroids. 3-4 days total at the tour where they can shine.

I believe Sky had access to priviledges not available to other teams / riders, allowing them to shine for all 3 weeks. Just like Lance + USPS.

Basically the winners are chosen and allowed to win. As long as you are on board with the UCI, and have the go ahead from ASO, things will be fine.

British Cycling and UK in general = massive untapped cycling market, in an Olympic year.

Tibet? Not so much. Cadel won't win again.
 
Jul 27, 2010
260
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Not at all.

Meeting with ASO pre-tour + good relationship with UCI = cart blanche Tour de France access to results for Team Sky. $$$ talks.

I believe everyone else was doping as per usual since the passport was introduced. Micro dosing, smaller transfusions perhaps, all the usual pre-race prep like EPO / HgH / steroids. 3-4 days total at the tour where they can shine.

I believe Sky had access to priviledges not available to other teams / riders, allowing them to shine for all 3 weeks. Just like Lance + USPS.

Basically the winners are chosen and allowed to win. As long as you are on board with the UCI, and have the go ahead from ASO, things will be fine.

British Cycling and UK in general = massive untapped cycling market, in an Olympic year.

Tibet? Not so much. Cadel won't win again.
Okay. Though, that is kind of what you said.

Dear Wiggo said:
Brad was riding at the acceptable physiological limit. Any faster could only be explained "by another couple of blood bags". ie he couldn't ride any faster or it would look too suspect. They were counting on everyone else respecting this simple fact.
Dear Wiggo said:
Sky managed to do the whole Tour at a good level, and preempted the few good days most doping riders could get, with a "couple of blood bags" threat played out in the media.
They were afraid of the suspicion brought about by going faster than Wiggins and Froome, so they instead chose to get dropped by them.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Fowsto Cope-E said:
Okay. Though, that is kind of what you said.





They were afraid of the suspicion brought about by going faster than Wiggins and Froome, so they instead chose to get dropped by them.
I think all 3 quotes line up. It's clear in my head and I am not changing the theory mid-thread to try and agree with myself.

The days when they could attack - Rogers tells everyone they can't stay away. Noone did. Mission accomplished. They had only a few days in which they could do this. Then they are back to "normal", and "abnormal" Sky drop them - not because they chose to get dropped, but because Sky could and did drop them.

July 11, 2012, Pat McQuaid, "No I won't be going to the Sky part- er the winner's party at the end of the Tour".
 
Jul 27, 2010
260
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
I think all 3 quotes line up. It's clear in my head and I am not changing the theory mid-thread to try and agree with myself.

The days when they could attack - Rogers tells everyone they can't stay away. Noone did. Mission accomplished. They had only a few days in which they could do this. Then they are back to "normal", and "abnormal" Sky drop them - not because they chose to get dropped, but because Sky could and did drop them.

July 11, 2012, Pat McQuaid, "No I won't be going to the Sky part- er the winner's party at the end of the Tour".
Okay. But all of the basic principals behind your idea are contradictory. First you say, Sky's performance at the Tour was incredible. So, they must be doped at exraordinary levels. But then, when explaining how they got away with it, you say they rode at levels that are considered possible to do clean, in otherwords, nothing we haven't seen before. So, was the performance incredible or not? You seem to be accusing them of using way more dope than was necessary and then backing off to a believable level. How can you really say that based on their extraordiinary performance, they must not have been pushing that hard?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Fowsto Cope-E said:
Okay. But all of the basic principals behind your idea are contradictory. First you say, Sky's performance at the Tour was incredible. So, they must be doped at exraordinary levels. But then, when explaining how they got away with it, you say they rode at levels that are considered possible to do clean, in otherwords, nothing we haven't seen before. So, was the performance incredible or not? You seem to be accusing them of using way more dope than was necessary and then backing off to a believable level. How can you really say that based on their extraordiinary performance, they must not have been pushing that hard?
If you can point out a single post of mine where I say, "Sky's performance was possible clean" I will eat thehog's hat.

They were doped. Pure and simple.

No offense but is English your second language, or am I really expressing myself that poorly? Or are you a Krebs Cycle clone, come to haunt me?

I've already said the performance that is "physiologically possible" is based on a superman with 85-90 VO2max and 22-23% efficiency.

In case you missed that, I have said it again.

Brad road like a superman for 2 weeks straight. Impossible. One day, maybe, but not for 2 weeks. And not even one day for Brad, who showed NO ABILITY on the road - not in the hills, not on the flats and not even in the TTs before 2009.

Nowhere do I say, "Sky used more dope than necessary". If you are interpreting what I have written in that way, then fine, but those words do not appear in anything I have ever posted. Primarily because it makes no sense.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Here. In case you missed it the first time around:

Fowsto Cope-E said:
So, you're saying that everyone is, at least mostly, off the juice except for Team Sky, who just keeps it at tempo up the climbs and drops everyone by making sure to stay within the accepted power output of a clean cyclist? That seems a little far-fetched to me.
I'll try to spell it out more clearly.

1. The physiological limit is based on a superman of a rider - not a clean, above average rider, but a superman.
2. Everyone is doping at the tour - if not everyone, then the top 30-40 on GC and the top 5-10 in each points competition at least.
3. Team Sky dominated those doping riders from March to August, 2012, by doping as well. Having arrangements with ASO, et al and constantly "explaining" their performances (450W on the front for each climb) helped keep everything perceived as clean.
 
I think the confusing bit is two different "arguments" are in play at the same time, and on the surface look incompatible.

1) level of doping
2) performance

Much has been said about (2) performance, both what is perceived and measurable. Such as speeds, VAM, total power output, power per kg that kind of thing. Because the fact of doping is now in the public consciousness, riders realise they cannot put out numbers like 1992-2005. That is an immediate give away that they are doped to the gills. Look at Ricco, the most obvious juiced rider who because of his megolomania had no idea that his ridiculous performances would attract attention of the authorities. This also applies to the Chicken.

And because of advances in technology, the internet, streamed video, published date and publicly available calculators, aficionados can more easily determine what is going on with performance. The argument is what are the current lot being compared to - Armstrong? Pantani?? Indurain??? As thehog likes to say, whats the point of saying someone does not climb as well as Pantani. Many have postulated that we should compare to LeMond and the Badger in the late 80s just before O2 vector doping (EPO).

The problem for doped riders is they have no idea what is acceptable and what is not. A bit less than Armstrong? A bit more than LeMond?? Is is REALLY acceptable for domestiques to be performing better than LeMond and the Badger every day? Is it REALLY acceptable for the winner to be slightly less than the Armstrong/Pantani category?

This is why there is not total agreement with guys like Krebs and acoggan, who are scientists and are incapable of looking at reality compered to possibility. Sure it is scientifically possible for someone to output 450W, or 6.2W/kg, but not ALL THE TIME. It is NOT possible to be at 100% of superman ALL THE TIME. And it is NOT possible for washed up journeymen like Dodger, and relative newcomers like Porte, and nobodies like Vroome, to perform better than LeMond and the Badger on every mountain stage. Killing all comers.

Then we have (1) the level of doping. Juiced to the gills? Much more difficult now with the passport, but we are now led to believe the UCI are totally corrupt. More juiced than everyone else (with UCI compliance) who is playing the game by the rules? A definite possibility, remembering the UCI has also used the passport to warn some riders and some teams to back it off a notch (the 2010 suspician index). So the level of doping means that performance has to be kept in check to a perceived acceptable level. No more Riccos, no more Chickens to embarrass everyone.

But wait, there is Chris Froome sprinting up la Toussuire leaving wiggo floundering in his wake, overtaking GT winner Nibali like he is standing still. After busting his boiler all day roping in Evans and Nibali. So what happens? Get on the radio Dave, tell Vroome to back it off. And he does, sits bolt upright and lets Wiggo catch up. Then the WAGS start having a cat fight on twitter :eek:. Doesn't get much better than that lol ;)

And what does a relatively inexperienced Vroome do for the rest of the Tour, and the whole of the Veulta? He constantly looks down at his power meter. No more nasty surprises thanks very much.
 
Jul 27, 2010
260
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
If you can point out a single post of mine where I say, "Sky's performance was possible clean" I will eat thehog's hat.

They were doped. Pure and simple.

No offense but is English your second language, or am I really expressing myself that poorly? Or are you a Krebs Cycle clone, come to haunt me?

I've already said the performance that is "physiologically possible" is based on a superman with 85-90 VO2max and 22-23% efficiency.

In case you missed that, I have said it again.

Brad road like a superman for 2 weeks straight. Impossible. One day, maybe, but not for 2 weeks. And not even one day for Brad, who showed NO ABILITY on the road - not in the hills, not on the flats and not even in the TTs before 2009.

Nowhere do I say, "Sky used more dope than necessary". If you are interpreting what I have written in that way, then fine, but those words do not appear in anything I have ever posted. Primarily because it makes no sense.
No, I never said Sky's performance was possibly clean, either. I meant the same as you meant, they within the accepted physiological limit of a clean cyclist. According to Aldo Sassi, that limit is aproximately 6.2W/kg. I was under the impression that top GT riders have still been flirting with that limit through the use of microdoping. In fact, in that link you provided earlier, Nibali was said to have done 6.4W/kg in the time trial. I don't think it's that far fetched to say that you can take someone who is talented and microdope them into the equivilent of a "clean superman."

Now, to the "more dope than necessary" comment. You did say that Team Sky was making sure not to exceed that physiological limit. With that, you are inferring that they could have gone even faster up those climbs but chose not to in order to avoid looking suspicious.

So, your reasoning is that Sky's performance was ridiculous,therefore they must have doped to levels much greater than that of the rest of the field. Buth then you say that their performance was within the accepted physiological limit, something that should be attainable through microdoping. You are also saying that the reason that they are staying within this physiological limit is by choice not by inability to do more. Therefore, you are accusing them of being able to produce even greater W/kg than they did because they were that doped up. You are accusing them of being even greater than that "clean superman," but there is no evidence to suggest that was case.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
So in conclusion are those past performances with an asterisk or not?

Oh wait we are discussing the dominance of team sky and wattage calcs. My bad. :rolleyes:
 
Hiero2 would like to start afresh from 2009.

Fowsto is for some strange reason is trying to pick holes in dear statements using logic, but badly missing the point.

I am saying that this year we have witnessed another 1999 false dawn, so Hiero2 has jumped the gun. Others chime in with the current omertà towards USADA/Armstrong, Hein and Fat Pat corrupting UCI, and Asho suggesting the game has changed but still continues in a new guise all preclude assuming 2009 is a starting point.

Voila
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
hrotha said:
Too soon to say that era has ended, or to say when it ended (why 2009?). We still lack historical perspective to know if it's true that clean riders can truly win the biggest races, particularly the GTs.
Until, doping can be detected contemporaneously, the dark era will continue. When you can pass tests, and be retroactively found guilty, the system has no validity.
 
May 10, 2011
247
0
0
I won't accept that the Dark Era has ended until we get have an upheaval of UCI leadership and a truth and reconciliation where everything is laid bare. That quite possibly means we'll never get it and stay in the Dark Era. Especially when you have dudes like Vino and Ekimov taking over team management positions. It's just going to continue if everyone is happy with the status quo. Here's to hoping the USADA has some unbelievably serious dirt on the UCI.
 
Mishrak said:
I won't accept that the Dark Era has ended until we get have an upheaval of UCI leadership and a truth and reconciliation where everything is laid bare. That quite possibly means we'll never get it and stay in the Dark Era. Especially when you have dudes like Vino and Ekimov taking over team management positions. It's just going to continue if everyone is happy with the status quo. Here's to hoping the USADA has some unbelievably serious dirt on the UCI.
While I agree, that would only get us to a point where we could end the 'Dark Era' not that it would be ended.

To establish a clean era, we still have to deal with those that were doping previously.

How do you get them to become part of the solution? The motivation will not disappear as the tremendous gains that are possible will still be possible. Moreover, the best thing for a doper to make sure they win is to make sure nobody else dopes.

Is it possible to enlist the expert dopers as 'experts' in the fight, or have they already sold their souls?

Dave.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS