Is anyone else getting tired

[Jonathan]

Are riders guilty until proven innocent these days?

No, that does not appear to be the case. Who has been found guilty without proof?

 

[red_explosions]

Question, yes. But many posters go way beyond questioning. They state as a FACT! that all top cyclists dope, irrespective of whether there's actually any evidence of it. To top it off, if anyone disagrees they are called a "fanboy", or replied in other patronising, condescending ways that don't actually deal with the point other than "he won so he's on drugs. Fact." Yawn.

I don't care if many of you are bitter cynics, that's why I stay out of the clinic most of the time now and only pop in when there's an actual doping event to discuss. But it's got to such ridiculous levels that the rest of us can't even enjoy a classic without people invading the race threads with drug talk.

I've asked Brodeal this before but didn't get an answer - if you all think every top cyclist dopes (FACT!) and get wound up by it so much you feel the need to spend half your time on the forum discussing it, and professing how they're all drugged-up scum, why do you bother watching it?

So the fans who want a clean sport have to give up watching because dopers take them to be mugs? Nice logic.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I certainly won't accuse riders of doping without evidence. I think the peeps on here who do so are cynics to the nth degree. Not peeps I'd like to go out riding with. I've had enough of their stupidity and nonsense.

Cancellaras display to me was not as outrageous a display as the likes of Schumachers TT's or Rasmussen in the Albi TT, but neither of us has a right to dictate to others how to form their opinion.

I have offered you the opportunity to change my opinion when I questioned your earlier statement....

These guys are tested more than in any other sport and I believe the inside observers who now assert that 95% of the pro riders are non-users.

The biggest problem at the moment is that many fans have absolutely no faith in the system or in the administration of the sport.

It is my view that although there was lots of talk about a new beginning (again)for the sport after what happened in 2006, 2007 & 2008 ultimately little has changed and the risk/reward is now back in favor of those who wish to dope.

The

 

[Race Radio]

Of course he may be on PEDs but that doesn't explain his superiority unless all the other riders were clean.

You are under the naive assumption that all riders have access to the same $100,000 year program and all riders react the same to dope. Neither of these assumptions is true.

 

[Anonymous]

So the fans who want a clean sport have to give up watching because dopers take them to be mugs? Nice logic.

Nice misinterpretation.

No. The fans who are aware of doping etc but either a) are not willing to dismiss a rider without some shred of indication of doping, or b) just want to enjoy the race anyway, have to stop reading certain forums so as to get away from the "they're all doping anyway but I still feel the need to shout about it all the time because I know more about cycling than you and you're all morons for not realising this" crowd.

If you all stick to the Clinic, happy days. I can then ignore you until an actual doping case arises. But please stop bringing it into racing threads.

 

[BikeCentric]

Nice misinterpretation.

No. The fans who are aware of doping etc but either a) are not willing to dismiss a rider without some shred of indication of doping, or b) just want to enjoy the race anyway, have to stop reading certain forums so as to get away from the "they're all doping anyway but I still feel the need to shout about it all the time because I know more about cycling than you and you're all morons for not realising this" crowd.

If you all stick to the Clinic, happy days. I can then ignore you until an actual doping case arises. But please stop bringing it into racing threads.

Oh I get it, now the fans who want clean sport have to stop watching because it's making it difficult for other fans who want to delude themselves into pretending there's no problem. Guess what, you ain't the thought police...

 

[Anonymous]

Oh I get it, now the fans who want clean sport have to stop watching because it's making it difficult for other fans who want to delude themselves into pretending there's no problem. Guess what....

Oh, the irony.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Nice misinterpretation.



If you all stick to the Clinic, happy days. I can then ignore you until an actual doping case arises. But please stop bringing it into racing threads.

This prompts the question, what the hell are you doing over here then?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nice misinterpretation.

No. The fans who are aware of doping etc but either a) are not willing to dismiss a rider without some shred of indication of doping, or b) just want to enjoy the race anyway, have to stop reading certain forums so as to get away from the "they're all doping anyway but I still feel the need to shout about it all the time because I know more about cycling than you and you're all morons for not realising this" crowd.

If you all stick to the Clinic, happy days. I can then ignore you until an actual doping case arises. But please stop bringing it into racing threads.

As you say - nice misinterpretation - I would say that the posters who say "they are all doping" are in the minority, off the top of my head I can only think of 3 or 4 who suggest 'they're all doping".

What alarms me most about the current debate on Cancellara was the OP on the other thread appeared to be a 'casual' fan of the sport.
If 'casual fans' are starting to question suspect performances it shows that there is no trust or faith in the sport.

Agree with your last point about the racing threads.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh I get it, now the fans who want clean sport have to stop watching because it's making it difficult for other fans who want to delude themselves into pretending there's no problem. Guess what, you ain't the thought police, so STFU. Here's an ingenious little hint: maybe you should GTFO a doping forum if you don't want to read about doping you farking maroon.

It's comments like this that I believe Hibbles is talking about. It's childish and moronic to tell someone to STFU and GTFO. It only degrades the thread and the person that wrote it. It does not lend any substance to the topic.

I'm all for constructive criticism and opposing points and ideas. But this is blatant harrassment and should not be tolerated by anyone. The forums are for all people to view and respond if they please. Not meant to be used to demean someone else.

 

[Anonymous]

This prompts the question, what the hell are you doing over here then?

Well, it is unusual for me to be here these days! I was seeing if there was any update on the Lampre/Ballan thing and saw this topic so thought I'd add to it. I like to be aware of ongoing doping matters so I check in from time to time. It's the forcing baseless speculation down people's throats I like to avoid.

 

[BikeCentric]

Oh, the irony.

Sorry about the prior version of my post Hibbles; it was unnecessary - my bad.

 

[Escarabajo]

Nice misinterpretation.

No. The fans who are aware of doping etc but either a) are not willing to dismiss a rider without some shred of indication of doping, or b) just want to enjoy the race anyway, have to stop reading certain forums so as to get away from the "they're all doping anyway but I still feel the need to shout about it all the time because I know more about cycling than you and you're all morons for not realising this" crowd.

If you all stick to the Clinic, happy days. I can then ignore you until an actual doping case arises. But please stop bringing it into racing threads.

I really respect the road racing forum. I make comments but I don't talk about the doping in there. You are coming here and complaining about why we talk and speculate about doping all the time. Wasn't the Clinic a place created for this? So if that is the case don't come back here, please. Do the same thing and leave if you can not stand the doping speculations.
Thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

I really respect the road racing forum. I make comments but I don't talk about the doping in there. You are coming here and complaining about why we talk and speculate about doping all the time. Wasn't the Clinic a place created for this? So if that is the case don't come back here, please. Do the same thing and leave if you can not stand the doping speculations.
Thanks.

I wasn't complaining about it in the clinic so much - that's what it's here for, just like the LA thread is there to mop up the LA weirdo's (although some people's attitudes even in the clinic are a little... extreme). It's more the creeping into racing threads I dislike. Anyway, I'm off, it's after work and the Canyon is calling. *waves*

 

[Escarabajo]

I wasn't complaining about it in the clinic so much - that's what it's here for, just like the LA thread is there to mop up the LA weirdo's (although some people's attitudes even in the clinic are a little... extreme). It's more the creeping into racing threads I dislike. Anyway, I'm off, it's after work and the Canyon is calling. *waves*

No problem.

Be careful, don't be hearbroken any time soon.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well, it is unusual for me to be here these days! I was seeing if there was any update on the Lampre/Ballan thing and saw this topic so thought I'd add to it. I like to be aware of ongoing doping matters so I check in from time to time. It's the forcing baseless speculation down people's throats I like to avoid.

That would be fine but I don't think any speculation about doping in cycling (or other sports) can be characterized as "baseless", that is the whole problem. Some speculation might go a bit over the top, but to say "I think all top pros dope" is less baseless speculation than to say "I think it is down to only a few bad apples who are still doping" based on both the history and current events in the sport.
That being said I get a little tired when the speculation ramps up after a good performance. "Oh Cancellara must have been doping to ride away from everyone like he did". Of course he was, how else could he beat all those other dopers? But why bring it up right now?

 

[Escarabajo]

.... "Oh Cancellara must have been doping to ride away from everyone like he did". Of course he was, how else could he beat all those other dopers? But why bring it up right now?

Excellent point. What's the point if he has been doing it for a while now. Maybe better preparation now. Improved the program. Who knows.

 

[SirLes]

You are under the naive assumption that all riders have access to the same $100,000 year program and all riders react the same to dope. Neither of these assumptions is true.

Not at all. Are you suggesting that the the other top teams could not afford the same quality program for their best riders? Perhaps the boys from Sky, Quickstep and Cervelo were on $150,000 programs so Cancellara's performance was even better!

With regards to responding: How well do we know how anyone responds given we have no idea when they started taking what. Cancellara has been very good since he started as has Boonen and many of the other favourites. Therefore it is not naive to assume that the field is made up of all the best responders from when they started as juniors otherwise they'd never have got that far.

Which takes us back to the original point that drugs were not the deciding factor.

If you actually believe all it takes is the best program and best responder then go and start administering PEDs to a very large random selection of the population and you'll probably find someone that responds better than Cancellara and hey presto a classics champ.

If the other favourites are clean then of course the PEDs may have been the deciding factor. We'd have to run the race again under identical conditions a few times with Cancellara clean or dirty to be confident of such a conclusion though.

 

[JPM London]

If the other favourites are clean then of course the PEDs may have been the deciding factor. We'd have to run the race again under identical conditions a few times with Cancellara clean or dirty to be confident of such a conclusion though.

Maybe we could get them all to go along with a blind trial...

 

[SirLes]

I'd watch half a dozen Paris Roubaixs!

 

[Race Radio]

Not at all. Are you suggesting that the the other top teams could not afford the same quality program for their best riders? Perhaps the boys from Sky, Quickstep and Cervelo were on $150,000 programs so Cancellara's performance was even better!

With regards to responding: How well do we know how anyone responds given we have no idea when they started taking what. Cancellara has been very good since he started as has Boonen and many of the other favourites. Therefore it is not naive to assume that the field is made up of all the best responders from when they started as juniors otherwise they'd never have got that far.

Which takes us back to the original point that drugs were not the deciding factor.

If you actually believe all it takes is the best program and best responder then go and start administering PEDs to a very large random selection of the population and you'll probably find someone that responds better than Cancellara and hey presto a classics champ.

If the other favourites are clean then of course the PEDs may have been the deciding factor. We'd have to run the race again under identical conditions a few times with Cancellara clean or dirty to be confident of such a conclusion though.

You are misguided to think that all teams and riders have the same level of access, and willingness to use, modern doping methods. In the Fuentes files it showed that Ulrich was paying $100,000 a year for his services. Please tell us how a Neo-Pro making 30,000 Euros a year affords this? Ferrari has an exclusive deal with Armstrong, he is not allowed to train any other GT contenders.

No need to have a study as one had already been performed. EPO shows a wide variance in response. Some see a 3% improvement others see a 18% improvement.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/bny7bu1p3b4y8nc7/

It is a fact that humans respond differently to Pharmaceuticals, any doctor or researcher will tell you this. Here is another study on Viagra and athletic performance at altitude that showed a wide difference in response rate.
http://www.the-aps.org/press/journal/06/15.htm

Armstrong, Ulrich, Riis, all benefited greatly from their access to a advanced doping program and their bodies response to it.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

It is a fact that humans respond differently to Pharmaceuticals, any doctor or researcher will tell you this.

Of course, but do you have some reason to believe that if a person responds strongly to one pharmaceutical, they will also respond strongly to most other pharmaceuticals? I would have thought different people responded differently to different things. In which case 'normal responder with massive talent' would be a more likely explanation for top performances throughout a rider's career. Assuming that one career spans a number of different PEDs regimes of course. (Given the cost and difficulty of accessing a top program, and adaptions necessitated by changes in testing, this seems a reasonable assumption IMO)

 

[JPM London]

It's more the creeping into racing threads I dislike.

Have actually never really visited the racing threads before, but just took a wee detour there. Blimey, there's almost more doping comments and discussion in there than here! Definitely understand your frustration...

 

[SirLes]

You are misguided to think that all teams and riders have the same level of access, and willingness to use, modern doping methods. In the Fuentes files it showed that Ulrich was paying $100,000 a year for his services. Please tell us how a Neo-Pro making 30,000 Euros a year affords this? Ferrari has an exclusive deal with Armstrong, he is not allowed to train any other GT contenders.

No need to have a study as one had already been performed. EPO shows a wide variance in response. Some see a 3% improvement others see a 18% improvement.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/bny7bu1p3b4y8nc7/

And how did Ullrich get to be in a position where he could afford $100,000 doping programs? generous rich uncle? Lotto win? If success can only be achieved through a $100,000 program how do you get to afford it if you start on 30,000? Maybe they get all the new riders together at the start of training camp and say "we've got enough money to put one of you on the full program. Put your names in the hat and let's find the next superstar of cycling"

It doesn't change the fact that if Cancellara could afford the best so could Boonen and the rest of the main contenders. They got to that position because they are also the best.

With regards responding, evidently individuals do respond differently (which i don't think is mush of a surprise). What I could not see from the study is what the final values were. If my Vo2 max is already 88 would i get an increase to 104? (18%). My Vo2 max is only low 70s. If I was the best responder i would still be below a Greg Lemond.

Again. I restate that in the example i gave of Cancellara's recent performances, PED's were not the significant contributory factor (unless everyone else was clean) Your information , although interesting does not imo overturn that assumption.

The case of Ricco, Schumacher and Kohl in the 2008 tour is interesting.

Their success may have been because the rest of the peloton were being careful and keeping to certain limits (or clean) and they thought they could push the limits without fear of being caught and so drug use, as it had in the early 90s did become the overriding factor. Or that could all be total B*ll*cks. we will never know.

 

[pmcg76]

The whole problem with doping in general is witnessed in this thread. Nobody has the answer.

As long as doping is going on, it is impossible to argue who the rightful winner of any race could be or who is or isnt doped.

People assume that if everyone is doping, its a level playing field and I would have believed that myself once upon a time but not now. Would the same guys who are doping and winning now be the same guys who would be winning if everyone was squeaky clean. Judging by what many ex-pros have said, this would have been the case pre-EPO but not afterwards. Fact is nobody knows one way or the other for sure and that is why doping distorts the sport.

I personally believe the French teams have been cleaner than a lot of other teams and I would like to see what a guy like Casar or LeMevel could do if everyone were clean, could they win the Tour. I know it aint gonna happen and thats why it makes it sad. If you say no there is no way the French could be contenders, why not, how can anyone be sure if they are on lesser programmes.

Looking at it logically, lets take 2 US racers who developed at the same time. Lance and Bobby Julich. As amateurs and pre EPO, both were considered huge talents with Armstrong having better one day racing potential and Julich having better stage racing potential. Julich was not selected for the Olympics in 92 because he wasnt a one day rider even though he finished as top US Amateur and in the Top 10 at the 92 Tour du Pont(US biggest stage race).

If people use the clean winners equals doped winners, then how did Julich never win a GT but Lance won 7 Tours easily, yes we know all the spin, theories but look at it logically.

Fact is doping in racing=?????????

It distorts the sport completely, unfortunately.