Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

Page 38 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 18, 2009
324
0
0
Re: Re:

Huapango said:
My theory: Cookson just probably told his team to sideline the rider after glowing at Amstel (and Flanders, hence missing Paris-Roubaix despite stellar form).
My theory also. I mean, you scorch Flanders and take a pass on Roubaix? Makes no sense. If he dismantles the field at Flanders he'll be in the mix at Roubaix bare minimum.
 
Re: Re:

Dan2016 said:
Tilting at windmills I'm afraid. Building straw men. It's silly to suggest I think I'm better than ToreBear. I'm glad they at least took my post in the spirit intended (which was a friendly one).

I offered an opinion to ToreBear as to why I think they haven't proven their argument, whilst acknowledging I couldn't prove they are definitively wrong. Ultimately it comes down to opinion. However, in agreement with others here, I think what strongly strengthens the opinion that most riders are doping is the past, the ex-riders testimony, the speeds, power data, the corruption and so on (others here have covered these things). It's mine and others inductive & abductive reasoning vs ToreBears deductive reasoning. ToreBears theory (premise) that the bio-passport has caused a big drop in doping numbers is, in my opinion, incorrect - 'wishful thinking'. I think the premise is incorrect and using deduction itself is incorrect. That's it. Full stop. I then offered some links I thought they would find interesting, as points of discussion etc., not foolproof evidence for a definitive case I'm not even making (read: personal opinion, points of discussion etc)

The economics? Interesting. Do I know how to use Google? Yes.

The reasoning method above answers your blather and straw man about me dismissing evidence, blindly accepting WADA's call for more money etc., etc...
So, in summary, you're saying that while you know that not enough is being spent on anti-doping you don't know how much is actually being spent on anti-doping?

Ok, well, how much would be enough then, will you at least answer than for me, please? Would $300 million be enough?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Dan2016 said:
Tilting at windmills I'm afraid. Building straw men. It's silly to suggest I think I'm better than ToreBear. I'm glad they at least took my post in the spirit intended (which was a friendly one).

I offered an opinion to ToreBear as to why I think they haven't proven their argument, whilst acknowledging I couldn't prove they are definitively wrong. Ultimately it comes down to opinion. However, in agreement with others here, I think what strongly strengthens the opinion that most riders are doping is the past, the ex-riders testimony, the speeds, power data, the corruption and so on (others here have covered these things). It's mine and others inductive & abductive reasoning vs ToreBears deductive reasoning. ToreBears theory (premise) that the bio-passport has caused a big drop in doping numbers is, in my opinion, incorrect - 'wishful thinking'. I think the premise is incorrect and using deduction itself is incorrect. That's it. Full stop. I then offered some links I thought they would find interesting, as points of discussion etc., not foolproof evidence for a definitive case I'm not even making (read: personal opinion, points of discussion etc)

The economics? Interesting. Do I know how to use Google? Yes.

The reasoning method above answers your blather and straw man about me dismissing evidence, blindly accepting WADA's call for more money etc., etc...
So, in summary, you're saying that while you know that not enough is being spent on anti-doping you don't know how much is actually being spent on anti-doping?

Ok, well, how much would be enough then, will you at least answer than for me, please? Would $300 million be enough?
$300 million is not enough for WADA and their cronies - These agencies always want more money - The Anti-Doping movement is greedy.
 
Money isn't the answer. The answer is pulling anti-doping power from the UCI and having a completely independent body doing it. Not having a bunch of UCI cronies running a falsely independent organization in the same building.

I'll not hold my breath.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
exactly! ...do fish swim....................do those steppers win.................

and i loved seeing phil gil win.............
 
Re:

therealthing said:
Well that illness that forced him to abandon Flanders certainly cleared up quickly!
Whenever I come down with a slight stomache ache it's usually at least three months before I'm even able to walk to the shops again, let alone ride my bike. So yes, clearly, Gilbert coming down with tummy trouble that caused him to abandon Dwars - and skip the Ronde three days on - yet still being able to win Paris-Roubaix a week and a half later, that's pas normal and only a complete idiot wouldn't see it as proof of DQS's massive doping programme.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
therealthing said:
Well that illness that forced him to abandon Flanders certainly cleared up quickly!
Whenever I come down with a slight stomache ache it's usually at least three months before I'm even able to walk to the shops again, let alone ride my bike. So yes, clearly, Gilbert coming down with tummy trouble that caused him to abandon Dwars - and skip the Ronde three days on - yet still being able to win Paris-Roubaix a week and a half later, that's pas normal and only a complete idiot wouldn't see it as proof of DQS's massive doping programme.
Clearly being sick a week before a major race is no hindrance to winning if one is prepared the right way.
 
Cookster15 said:
Der Effe said:
Take one look at QS medical team and you'll have your answer.
So where was the QS medical team before Flanders? Sometimes this place is ridiculous. I loved seeing Phil win too. Just enjoy it for what it is. As legit as anything else you will see this season.
Well they won most other one day races before that as well...
 
Re:

masking_agent said:
I think he's definitely on some new program including a few bags of blood every now and then
How could anyone on the outside possibly have a clue what if anything he's on? Why a "new program"? He's been at a higher level before.

Cycling isn't a simple equation of dope = wins. People still have ups and downs in form.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
masking_agent said:
I think he's definitely on some new program including a few bags of blood every now and then
How could anyone on the outside possibly have a clue what if anything he's on? Why a "new program"? He's been at a higher level before.

Cycling isn't a simple equation of dope = wins. People still have ups and downs in form.
And as well as ups and downs let's not forget that Gilbert had five years with Jim Ochowicz at BMC, where careers went to hibernate.

(Though doubtlessly someone'll pop up to say this was time on the naughty step, the UCI imposing a Secret Ban on him by making him ride for BMC.)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY