ManicJack
BANNED
- Apr 4, 2023
- 1,253
- 1,632
- 5,680
- Feb 9, 2013
- 6,686
- 7,738
- 23,180
- Feb 8, 2023
- 622
- 1,292
- 6,180
Is there a particular reason why you are so sure they are that effective? Because to my mind it looks an awful lot like someone figured out a good way to get around the passport in 2020, and they’ve been pushing it further and further each season.I'm sure we are looking at the same article:
Biological Passport: Have dopers found ways to beat it?
Procycling investigates the cracks that have appeared in the tool credited with cleaning up cyclingwww.cyclingnews.com
Biological passports haven't stopped doping completely, but they are incredibly effective in finding doping signatures and deterring people from trying to cheat for fear of losing their livelihoods. As the article states, researchers with the Adlerlass study used athletes' personal narratives to describe undetected cheating using the old out-of-competition blood bag method. These are from Lundby's studies in 2008 - 2012. And the biological passport system has improved as well. I'd read somewhere that we'll know if athletes have had *any* blood transfusions.
You say biological passports haven't stopped doping. I've stipulated that in several posts already. But what I'm saying is that the tests and biological passports of high-profile athletes are highly effective because they under constant and intense scrutiny.
I just can’t get past the 90s-level climbing performances and the fact that we got here from the relative plateau of the 2010s so quickly. All of the talk of technology, diet, and training improvements during those years yet the performances didn’t really improve, save for a few Sky bombs that would barely register compared to what’s going on now.
Then suddenly in the span of 3 years we’re here. The last time riders were flying like this they were all on outrageous doping programs. Surely for riders to get back to this level in such a short amount of time without PEDs, there must have been some incredible breakthroughs being made in other areas, no? Yet no such breakthrough seems to exist, and all we get are the same excuses - more dedication, more training, a new gadget or two - that we’ve always gotten. In the absence of any real explanation, how can I possibly come to any conclusion other than that they’ve figured out a way to dope like the 90s again? It’s like that old saying - Fool me once? Shame on you. Fool me twice? Shame on me…
- Jul 3, 2022
- 2,961
- 5,068
- 10,180
I'm with you about being skeptical about cycling, especially after the dark years, 1990s-2011 (or so). And many are unhappy with the widescale use of TUEs in recent years.
Doping is certainly down. For example, here is a chart that is suggestive, but I would not say definitive. We can't say this is low percentage is how many people in Pro Cycling were doping, but we can say what percentage has been caught, admitted to doping, or refused the controles.
Infographic: Has Pro Cycling Cleaned Up Its Act?
This chart shows the share of Tour de France riders that have been involved in a doping case at some point in their career.
www.statista.com
So I think cycling is doing much better keeping the sport clean. I and (judging from crowds) many others are more confident in our enjoyment of the sport. But who knows, maybe Lucy will pull the football from us yet again.
The question in the air is whether Jonas Vingegaard is involved in some kind of performance enhancing venture. The evidence that his detractors give is that his performance in the time trial was too good (not on any other stage, just in the time trial). But I do not know if we can say it was "too good" without more information from his biological passport. We do know that officials have looked at it and made a determination that it was not "too good," that it was in line with his fitness history.
A simpler explanation is that Pogačar should have been better on the time trial, maybe by as much as a minute, if he had been feeling better. And of course he should have been much better climbing and attacking la Loze.
- Feb 8, 2023
- 622
- 1,292
- 6,180
I mean as you say yourself, all that graphic shows is that people are being caught muchI'm with you about being skeptical about cycling, especially after the dark years, 1990s-2011 (or so). And many are unhappy with the widescale use of TUEs in recent years.
Doping is certainly down. For example, here is a chart that is suggestive, but I would not say definitive. We can't say this is low percentage is how many people in Pro Cycling were doping, but we can say what percentage has been caught, admitted to doping, or refused the controles.
Infographic: Has Pro Cycling Cleaned Up Its Act?
This chart shows the share of Tour de France riders that have been involved in a doping case at some point in their career.
So I think cycling is doing much better keeping the sport clean. I and (judging from crowds) many others are more confident in our enjoyment of the sport. But who knows, maybe Lucy will pull the football from us yet again.
The question in the air is whether Jonas Vingegaard is involved in some kind of performance enhancing venture. The evidence that his detractors give is that his performance in the time trial was too good (not on any other stage, just in the time trial). But I do not know if we can say it was "too good" without more information from his biological passport. We do know that officials have looked at it and made a determination that it was not "too good," that it was in line with his fitness history.
A simpler explanation is that Pogačar should have been better on the time trial, maybe by as much as a minute, if he had been feeling better. And of course he should have been much better climbing and attacking la Loze.
less, not what the cause is. Which yes is definitely doing a good job of convincing people the sport has cleaned up its act, but in reality there’s no reason why it has to be that and not riders getting better at not being caught.
While yes this is Jonas’ thread, and it is his TT performance that has sparked this conversation, it’s very much not the only reason PEDs are suspected (at least on my part). Just this tour, he and Pogacar have broken the Tourmalet record from 1995, and were a few minutes away from breaking Pantani’s mythical Joux Plane record before sitting up and looking at each other. Vingegaard made a mockery of the Marie Blanque record from the 2020 tour that kicked off this new era, and basically every half-decent climber that tried broke the Grand Colombier record despite it being paced for the most part by an 80kg roleur who had been working all day and an all-rounder who could barely keep pace with the breakaway. Vingegaard has been flying - and the TT was definitely the craziest performance of the lot - but Pogacar has been as well (until today), and basically every GC guy is going fast enough to leave a 2010s peloton far, far behind. And most of these stages have been raced at a ridiculously ferocious pace from neutral, as opposed to the often sleepy processions of a decade ago. So it’s much more than just this one stage, for me at least.
That’s why, when we bring the biological passport in and say yes, this all looks to be in line with what they should be able to do, the effectiveness of it comes into question for me. As far as we know, this kind of level hasn’t been within anyone’s natural capabilities, ever. Not even close. Yet suddenly, all at once, come two riders who push the boundaries so far above where they were before - and nearly a dozen or so GC also-rans and domestiques going at least as well, if not better, than the absolute peak natural (which are likely TUE-boosted anyway) performances from the 2010s. And we don’t even have some of the best climbers in the world at this race! To me it’s simply impossible for all these riders to come along right at the same time when none seemed to exist in the decade prior. Maybe you can buy it - and there’s nothing wrong with that, we’re all entitled to our own opinions after all - but I just can’t.
- May 29, 2011
- 3,504
- 1,573
- 16,680
Start here:
Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping - PubMed
The Athlete Blood Passport is the most recent tool adopted by anti-doping authorities to detect athletes using performance-enhancing drugs such as recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). This strategy relies on detecting abnormal variations in haematological variables caused by doping, against...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Lance Armstrong Blood Passport Analysis
One of the more interesting claims that Lance Armstrong made during the first part of his interview with Oprah was that he was clean durin...
Then factor in the fact that Kreuziger, for one, busted the passport when his case was in the court of law.
So, IMHO the ABP regulates blood doping, but does not prevent it. There is definitely wiggle room. Glass half full take is that it prevents the riders from killing themselves. Half empty types retort that fair point, but performances imply physiology and just look at those climbing speeds.
Did not have the time to read the entire discussion. Thanks especially to posters that contributed with Aderlass knowledge.
The stepwise progression of racing and climbing speeds is especially suspicious to me. From the COVID break on, there has been a jump. It is visible to the naked eye, too. Racing is just full on, from the gun, and translates into climbing speeds that threaten the freaking 90s records.
And when you compare GC rider morphology, it has also changed from what it was 10yrs back. The Sky dudes were railthin. The optimisation was just as much on the "kg" side of the w/kg equation. The current generation looks a bit less anorexic to me, but would just smoke the Sky bois. Mainly because they have more watts, not because they are skinnier.
The w/kg discussions were more active 10-15yrs ago in this forum and elsewhere. Perhaps they died when doping died, ha!
My recollection is that 5,6-5,8w/kg were the historic norms for GT winners on the regular TDF 35min+ climbs prior to the epo and transfusion proper era, ie prior to the 1990s.
This Tour Vingo and Pog were onto pushing 6,5w/kg for the entire Joux Plane, then started to fool around. Did 29min at 6,5w/kg and the entire climb at 6,2-6,3w/kg for 34min. The first 10k, the 29min, were done faster than Pantani of all riders.
Last edited:
- Jun 1, 2015
- 2,001
- 3,052
- 17,180
Yeah, imagine if the Europeans had like discovered the Americas. They might have wreaked havoc on the indigenous people. Or if they’d colonized Africa and stripped countries of their able bodied men and natural resources, or like carved up nations like the Indian Peninsula or the Middle East.
- Jul 16, 2015
- 4,826
- 12,678
- 21,180
This is not exclusive to America, i.e. certainly in this case where based on what we've seen & know of Jumbo-Visma they have a similar mentality as Armstrong (win at all costs, smash the rivals into dust, justify all that by assuming their opponents are on more PED's than they are), except they're riding in the team car - not on the road. Vingegaard is just a pawn, i.e. he's not the man in control over there.
Armstrong was the 'boss'. Jumbo Visma's 'boss' is their collective set-up where riders become interchangeable cogs in a huge machine which steamrolls the Tour. Armstrong was 1 rider on the road, Jumbo is 8 Armstrongs on the road + the DS's who do their thinking for them.
Jonas Vingegaard simply rides to a watts delta, does whatever the radio tells him to do & then after the race he blows kisses & hugs his wife & child in front of the cameras.
- Jul 7, 2013
- 6,636
- 12,792
- 23,180
He went rogue when he mentioned his watts though. JV DS had to talk to him for sure.
Vingo is as much of a talent as Froome was
most likely doped based on his family history and being a footballer
well, what we do know for sure is that Fisherman was not a "generational talent", hell he wasnt even a talent to be a pro
so your claim is that both should be 3min ahead of all the rest on a 22km TT, good to knowI'm with you about being skeptical about cycling, especially after the dark years, 1990s-2011 (or so). And many are unhappy with the widescale use of TUEs in recent years.
Doping is certainly down. For example, here is a chart that is suggestive, but I would not say definitive. We can't say this is low percentage is how many people in Pro Cycling were doping, but we can say what percentage has been caught, admitted to doping, or refused the controles.
Infographic: Has Pro Cycling Cleaned Up Its Act?
This chart shows the share of Tour de France riders that have been involved in a doping case at some point in their career.
So I think cycling is doing much better keeping the sport clean. I and (judging from crowds) many others are more confident in our enjoyment of the sport. But who knows, maybe Lucy will pull the football from us yet again.
The question in the air is whether Jonas Vingegaard is involved in some kind of performance enhancing venture. The evidence that his detractors give is that his performance in the time trial was too good (not on any other stage, just in the time trial). But I do not know if we can say it was "too good" without more information from his biological passport. We do know that officials have looked at it and made a determination that it was not "too good," that it was in line with his fitness history.
A simpler explanation is that Pogačar should have been better on the time trial, maybe by as much as a minute, if he had been feeling better. And of course he should have been much better climbing and attacking la Loze.
Last edited:
- Mar 19, 2009
- 3,209
- 3,127
- 19,180
See the difference to Pogacar isn't the reason we're mad about the TT. It alone actually would suffice to make a statement, yet the actual madness comes when you look at the difference to the rest of the field. Outside of the Top 8 for example, every rider was at least 4 km/h slower than Vingegaard. To put this into perspective: this kind of stuff beats peak Indurain and Ullrich domination levels out of the water. The s/km gain to second was the highest in a TT since the 60ies and the second highest in the Tours history full stop.
Of course s/km is also influenced by the course, but if you take Lances demolition of Ullrich on stage 16 of the 2004 TdF, you come out at 0.7 seconds less gained per km and that course was more friendly to s/km gain, as it was a proper mountain TT. If you take seconds per minute gain, Vingegaard gained about 3 s/min on Pogacar, and a whopping 5,3 s/mi non WvA. Remco in his insane TT performance at last years Vuelta put 1,5 s/min into second place Roglic, in an effort that was basically identically long as Vingegaards yesterday when it comes to time taken to complete the course.
But all of this is only looking at the gaps to second place now, as I said the difference in performance to the rest of the field is even more insane. Vingegaard was miles better, to an extend that just does not make any sense.
But as has been pointed out by others in the meantime, it is really not the singular event of the TT, but the general jump in speed of the peloton out of nowhere that rings all the alarm bells. And with the jump in speed comes the jump in estimated watts/kg. This used to be the metric people went by. Back when the passport was introduced the magic threshold was 6 watts/kg of sustained effort that was deemed physically possible. And for years it wasn't touched many times. We are now getting close to the 7 watts/kg threshold again of what is needed to win a TdF, a number once famously pronounced by the Armstrong camp.
- Sep 26, 2020
- 24,103
- 25,779
- 22,180
There's no doubt that this guy's current level isn't a result of his natural abilities, but there's still no reason to say stuff like that. He had enough talent to become a pro. Otherwise JV wouldn't have been interested in him in the first place. JV wasn't the rider factory we all know and love/hate today back in 2018.
The promising results he had in 2019 were not due to him being on the most extreme doping program at the time, unlike what's he's been on since early 2021.
Sure he probably wouldn't be able to match Pogačar in a clean peloton (but who really knows?), but I don't think he would have been the worst climber in the world either.
- Feb 20, 2010
- 32,514
- 14,301
- 28,180
The sport is quite definitely NOT doing much better keeping the sport clean. Two major GC riders got their hands slapped last year, one testing positive and the other being detained by police for potentially being involved in trafficking doping products. Try including the pre-'98 data to see how important that big bust of the Festina affair was in that graph, and look at the only time there was a spike in increasing the number of riders caught is between 2009 and 2010, when riders caught in the 2007-8 period when cycling was cleaning up its act and following Operación Puerto would be returning from suspension (so the likes of Basso for example).I'm with you about being skeptical about cycling, especially after the dark years, 1990s-2011 (or so). And many are unhappy with the widescale use of TUEs in recent years.
Doping is certainly down. For example, here is a chart that is suggestive, but I would not say definitive. We can't say this is low percentage is how many people in Pro Cycling were doping, but we can say what percentage has been caught, admitted to doping, or refused the controles.
Infographic: Has Pro Cycling Cleaned Up Its Act?
This chart shows the share of Tour de France riders that have been involved in a doping case at some point in their career.
So I think cycling is doing much better keeping the sport clean. I and (judging from crowds) many others are more confident in our enjoyment of the sport. But who knows, maybe Lucy will pull the football from us yet again.
In 2006 through 2008 we made huge positive strides in anti-doping. The pièce de resistance was AFLD unveiling that they had a test for CERA in the middle of the 2008 Tour, which they had kept under wraps specifically to make sure they outed the dopers, because we were coming off a super-peaking era where riders would do little racing outside of targeted races, and so out of competition testing was harder to succeed with. That was all undone in 2009 with the UCI wresting control of testing back from AFLD and Pierre Bordry getting fired from his job. ASO got scared by the loss of the US audience following Armstrong's retirement and the demise of Landis, and then the German audience being lost after the TV channels refused to carry the race following successive scandals. The return of Armstrong was accepted at any price necessary, and a lot of the old veteran dopers who had been slowly filtering towards retirement suddenly had Indian summers. We also had a number of riders who were caught in that period (and into 2009) who talked, and resulted in other riders being busted or doping docs and distributors brought to heel. Patrik Sinkewitz, Emanuele Sella, Bernhard Kohl and Thomas Frei all were open about what they had done, and a few years down the line Floyd Landis and Michael Rasmussen would join them.
But we're now completely in the dark. The only time a big gun gets caught is when the police get involved like in Operation Aderlass or with Supermán or the W52 fiasco, or when the UCI kicks an own goal, and their lawyers have curled up in the corner and hid when faced with big money. Huge holes have been poked in the efficacy of the biopassport by cases such as Roman Kreuziger's, and the way minuscule probabilities have been able to be used to explain away positives and riders have been able to evade bans, such as in the cases of Daryl Impey and, yes, Chris Froome (whose medical history to explain the test via a combination of dehydration and illnesses sits in stark contrast to the actual performance on the day of the positive test), and nowadays it feels very much like the riders are only being pinged for minor things because it's all they can catch. Or maybe it's all they want to catch. After all, look at that graph: the sport is getting cleaner, or at least that's the perception, because there are no longer as many known dopers riding around. It doesn't matter that the speeds are up to what they were at the peak of the 90s EPO era, it doesn't matter that we're seeing riders achieving the kind of feats that fans baulked at even at the height of the Armstrong era (Wout van Aert's mountain performances, Pogačar's northern Classics, Geraint Thomas' rebirth as a GC rider in his 30s and winning the Tour de France). It doesn't matter that we now have people like Thomas and Vingegaard returning to the calendars of the super-peakers, entering few races and then emerging at the season's target at peak level in a manner that the biological passport was designed to prevent. It doesn't matter that these guys are putting out the exact same performance levels and behaviours that have had fans ironically enjoying the Volta a Portugal for years - the casual fan doesn't compare the climbing times to those of Pantani, Zülle, Rominger and their ilk.
Because riders aren't getting caught and nobody is talking, we don't know what's going on in the way we did 10-15 years ago. The Clinic may be overly paranoid and explain away everything via doping using some frivolous and at times ridiculous arguments ("Sagan ate loads of gummi bears, it must be a sign of replacing sugars because of doping!" for example), but a lot of the time, buried among the innuendos and accusations would be some genuine insight. And these guys who were elite athletic talents and who were doping up to their eyeballs are now minutes slower than the current guys. Sports science has only gone so far in that time though - the fact the UCI controls the message on doping is a huge conflict of interest because they have a vested interest in the sport not having the negative reputation that its doping history has brought it. The graph also raises some interesting queries, such as whether the graph would count somebody like, say, Giovanni Visconti, who was not sanctioned for doping but did serve a suspension for connections to Michele Ferrari? Known doping docs like Ibarguren are still in the sport. Hell, Marcos Maynar was involved in a bust last year, the guy responsible for LA-MSS in 2008! Top teams are coached and managed by known dopers and former managers of doped teams. Top riders are still being busted, we saw Miguel Ángel López and Nairo Quintana hounded out of the top level just this last off-season. They just aren't popping positive for EPO anymore - whether there is a new wonder-drug that is improving performances but is not yet banned, so everybody is taking it within the rules, whether the dopers and docs have got smarter to avoid tripping the wires, or whether the efficacy of the tests is less meaning fewer riders are caught (or the efficacy of the tests to stand up to legal scrutiny in the wake of cases like Kreuziger, Froome and Impey meaning that the cases against the riders have to be stronger now to trip the wire than they used to be so fewer riders are getting sanctioned publicly for their digressions) or whether the UCI is simply not targeting testing or announcing positives, that's the bit we don't know.
But I'm willing to put my hand in the fire and say there's a cocktail of some or all of those reasons that are why the number of positives and sanctioned riders is as low as it is, not that the péloton is almost totally paniagua now, because I don't believe for a second that what I've been watching in 2023 is cleaner than what I was watching in 2008 when the dopers who didn't get the memo about the sport trying to clean up were made to look like absolutely ridiculous outliers - and were going slower than the riders of today.
- Jul 17, 2022
- 66
- 173
- 1,880
I mean f***, back in 2004 they were already miles ahead of the basic WADA tests - "the practice of using a catheter or hiding a plastic container in an athlete’s body to expel “clean” urine during a drug test, or diluting a drug by drinking a lot of water, Videman says the possibilities of avoiding detection are endless."
It has only gotten worse ever since thanks to Armstrong and gang. It always has been, and always will be a race against the dopers who will perpetually have the upper hand.
Even the former head of WADA says you only catch the stupid ones - Article 2019
As for the blood passport, it is only required from :
You can't test for out-of-competition doping during the competition. Most of doping happens during training. Want a big heart? Efforts at VO2 max power/ heart rate, for recovery a measured dose of test-, growth- or which ever hormone you would like.
The athletes are even allowed to miss two out-of-competition tests in a 12-month period, with the third one earning them a suspension from competition for 12-18 months. So if you're glowing at the wrong time, you simply do not open the door.
Even in the rare case you do get a 'positive' test you can dispute it by claiming you kissed Therese Johaug whose lipstick contained the forbidden substances, leading to your positive test.
I think the speculations about the reasons all the big GC riders love Tenerife and Gran Canaria are valid. The hotel atop Teide must be one of the dirtiest hotels in Europe. ( For those who don't know, the speculations are about the remote locations of the Canaries making it easy to know who and when is entering or leaving the islands.)
It's a clown world and it will only get more clownish.
It has only gotten worse ever since thanks to Armstrong and gang. It always has been, and always will be a race against the dopers who will perpetually have the upper hand.
Even the former head of WADA says you only catch the stupid ones - Article 2019
As for the blood passport, it is only required from :
- all riders registered with a UCI WorldTeam;
- all riders registered with a UCI ProTeam;
- other riders from all disciplines as determined by the ITA, including any rider who wishes to attempt the Hour Record.
You can't test for out-of-competition doping during the competition. Most of doping happens during training. Want a big heart? Efforts at VO2 max power/ heart rate, for recovery a measured dose of test-, growth- or which ever hormone you would like.
The athletes are even allowed to miss two out-of-competition tests in a 12-month period, with the third one earning them a suspension from competition for 12-18 months. So if you're glowing at the wrong time, you simply do not open the door.
Even in the rare case you do get a 'positive' test you can dispute it by claiming you kissed Therese Johaug whose lipstick contained the forbidden substances, leading to your positive test.
I think the speculations about the reasons all the big GC riders love Tenerife and Gran Canaria are valid. The hotel atop Teide must be one of the dirtiest hotels in Europe. ( For those who don't know, the speculations are about the remote locations of the Canaries making it easy to know who and when is entering or leaving the islands.)
It's a clown world and it will only get more clownish.
Okay. I've been reading your comments the last few days and really enjoy the theories ranging from micro-dosing EPO to experimental mRNA-PED's and motor-doping. No real substance in the comments and i'm beginning to think it's just the same dozen of guys winding each other up and confirming crazy theories to one another.
Your biggest issue seem to be the fact that JV was 5% better on the ITT. That's a couple of standard deviations. Seems like much. There will always be outliers in sports. Guys that are better than the field. Look at this article.
www.significancemagazine.com
Tiger's dominance was unexplainable. Was he using experimental clubhead-PED's. What about Federer? Did he use mRNA-PEDs?
Fact is that riders in the Peloton does not believe JV is doping (at least the riders who have commented publicly don't):
1) Halland Johannessen to NRK (19/7): You look at the tempo, it's not just raw power, he (JV) is driving technically sound and doing everything else right. There's probably also some who say that i have been doping and i know that i havent touched anything. I don't belive he (JV) is doping i just believe he is in peak performance at the moment.
2) Bettiol as referenced several times earlier in this thread
3) Michael Rasmussen to EB 20/7: JV is the most aerodynamic rider in the field (...) We can't start to suspect someone just because they are fast, when there is no circumstantial evidence
I am personally not convinced and until there is some circumstantial evidence i will let him have the benefit of the doubt.
I hope time will not prove this wrong. Send me an e-mail when you get something concrete.
Your biggest issue seem to be the fact that JV was 5% better on the ITT. That's a couple of standard deviations. Seems like much. There will always be outliers in sports. Guys that are better than the field. Look at this article.
Did Don Bradman’s cricketing genius make him a statistical outlier? - Significance magazine
The test career batting average of Australian cricketer Sir Donald Bradman of 99.94 runs per innings is one of the most famous and iconic sporting performance statistics in history. Bradman...
www.significancemagazine.com
Tiger's dominance was unexplainable. Was he using experimental clubhead-PED's. What about Federer? Did he use mRNA-PEDs?
Fact is that riders in the Peloton does not believe JV is doping (at least the riders who have commented publicly don't):
1) Halland Johannessen to NRK (19/7): You look at the tempo, it's not just raw power, he (JV) is driving technically sound and doing everything else right. There's probably also some who say that i have been doping and i know that i havent touched anything. I don't belive he (JV) is doping i just believe he is in peak performance at the moment.
2) Bettiol as referenced several times earlier in this thread
3) Michael Rasmussen to EB 20/7: JV is the most aerodynamic rider in the field (...) We can't start to suspect someone just because they are fast, when there is no circumstantial evidence
I am personally not convinced and until there is some circumstantial evidence i will let him have the benefit of the doubt.
I hope time will not prove this wrong. Send me an e-mail when you get something concrete.
Hunchback Vingo suddenly is more aero than Evenepoel, sure!
Funny that it is all these new accounts coming in here, with diffuse articles and so on trying to play it down. Say that people are crazy. Come with something "concrete". You can only laugh at that.
I dont know how it really works. What does what and so on. I think me and most of the others, who have followed this for a while, are not off in our perspective though. You just gotta see whats right in front of you, read between the lines of what the folks are saying and who is still involved in the sport... despite all that has happened.
You gotta also be able to filter out a lot of stuff. What is real and what is not. A lot of things are for show or to send you in a different direction, when it probably is not very complicated at all. It is just well-organized and well-structured.
I dont know how it really works. What does what and so on. I think me and most of the others, who have followed this for a while, are not off in our perspective though. You just gotta see whats right in front of you, read between the lines of what the folks are saying and who is still involved in the sport... despite all that has happened.
You gotta also be able to filter out a lot of stuff. What is real and what is not. A lot of things are for show or to send you in a different direction, when it probably is not very complicated at all. It is just well-organized and well-structured.
- Jun 27, 2015
- 710
- 374
- 10,680
of course nobody has "molecular" proof here, otherwise the Clinic wouldn't be the naughty section of the forum. Usually comparisons with historical performances and different eras generates some good discussions though. Attributing everything to natural Vomax2 and aero factors is a bit naive when talking about cycling, considering the history of the sport. Let's say that the clinic subforum is where people track weird "suspect" performances and have fun.Okay. I've been reading your comments the last few days and really enjoy the theories ranging from micro-dosing EPO to experimental mRNA-PED's and motor-doping. No real substance in the comments and i'm beginning to think it's just the same dozen of guys winding each other up and confirming crazy theories to one another.
Your biggest issue seem to be the fact that JV was 5% better on the ITT. That's a couple of standard deviations. Seems like much. There will always be outliers in sports. Guys that are better than the field. Look at this article.
Did Don Bradman’s cricketing genius make him a statistical outlier? - Significance magazine
The test career batting average of Australian cricketer Sir Donald Bradman of 99.94 runs per innings is one of the most famous and iconic sporting performance statistics in history. Bradman...
Tiger's dominance was unexplainable. Was he using experimental clubhead-PED's. What about Federer? Did he use mRNA-PEDs?
Fact is that riders in the Peloton does not believe JV is doping (at least the riders who have commented publicly don't):
1) Halland Johannessen to NRK (19/7): You look at the tempo, it's not just raw power, he (JV) is driving technically sound and doing everything else right. There's probably also some who say that i have been doping and i know that i havent touched anything. I don't belive he (JV) is doping i just believe he is in peak performance at the moment.
2) Bettiol as referenced several times earlier in this thread
3) Michael Rasmussen to EB 20/7: JV is the most aerodynamic rider in the field (...) We can't start to suspect someone just because they are fast, when there is no circumstantial evidence
I am personally not convinced and until there is some circumstantial evidence i will let him have the benefit of the doubt.
I hope time will not prove this wrong. Send me an e-mail when you get something concrete.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Tour de Suisse 2025 - Men's (June 15- June 22)- Started by Tricycle Rider
- Replies: 1K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025 stage 20: Verrès – Sestrière, 205 km- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 1K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro D'italia 2025 Stage 16: Piazzola sul Brenta – San Valentino- Started by YavorD
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 31K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025 Stage 17: San Michele all’Adige – Bormio, 155 km
- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 742
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 32K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram