Yes - DIY blood doping after already being pinged seems more 'hardcore', to me, than being involved in a professionally run team programme.Mrs John Murphy said:More hardcore than having a motorcyclist carry your bloodbags around in a pannier?
What about getting a team mate to come over and watch your bloodbags in the fridge?
Ricco isn't the first or the last doper to almost kill themselves. Ricco was doing his doping DIY, Contador, Piti and Vroome have access and the money to the latest methods and support teams.
Dertie has Marti to sort out his drugs and blood for him, Vroome had Leinders, Yates and Ferrari to sort him out, and Piti just went back on the Banesto/Caisse program.
You just described exactly what I said. Went from 2008 Tour, 1st, Vuelta 3rd and then 2009 Giro with two stage wins and a major resurgence in the last week to come 4th. Okay, 2nd given Di Luca and Pellizotti were booted and we all know Di Luca was on another level. That is 3 GT's in a row and amazing results. Even Contador hasn't done anything like that.Pentacycle said:2009 Tour: exhausted due to riding the Giro
2010 Giro: crashed in 1st week, but too injured to get to the podium despite that breakaway
2010 Tour and Vuelta: Slight recovery, but still too much suffering from the Giro and showing signs of getting older(35)
2011: a year too much, age caught up with him.
What's not logical about that? The reason for his bad performances after 2009 were probably due to his decreased recovery capabilities, that's why he could put less training in his GT preparation. Guys like VdV, Basso and Menchov are having the same trouble imo.
I think it's a rather good idea to split the running of the sport per se from the running of it's highest professional competitions, from the running of its anti-doping and disciplinary arms - the risk however is that those who run the competitions thereby become too powerful to control.BroDeal said:Is the breakaway league officially dead? It would seem to be a great time to use the possibility of it as a way to exert pressure on the UCI. Without the world championships, there would be a huge hole in the UCI's budget.
this post deserves an answer.BroDeal said:Is the breakaway league officially dead? It would seem to be a great time to use the possibility of it as a way to exert pressure on the UCI. Without the world championships, there would be a huge hole in the UCI's budget.
Galic Ho said:You just described exactly what I said. Went from 2008 Tour, 1st, Vuelta 3rd and then 2009 Giro with two stage wins and a major resurgence in the last week to come 4th. Okay, 2nd given Di Luca and Pellizotti were booted and we all know Di Luca was on another level. That is 3 GT's in a row and amazing results. Even Contador hasn't done anything like that.
I wouldn't put Vande Velde in with Menchov. Mr Human Plasma. Dude nobody here on this forum thinks the Pope is clean. Check his 2009 Giro out. He's more than likely been running scared. He had a huge portion of his assets frozen for doping involvement. We all should know how much has been said about Rabobank and their doctors...Menchov won 3 GT's on that team. Basso, well not RoboBasso of 2006 Giro infamy, but 2010 he won one of the hardest GT's I've ever watched. My take is they were all doping and dropped it down. Whether they were obliged to by the UCI (Menchov may have been due to his super dodgy blood values) or out of the goodness of their hearts...either way, they stopped altogether or too scared to go back to the level they did 3 to 4 years back.
Sastre's results on their own speak enough volume. Watching him try and break away in the mountains in 2009 as the winner of the previous years Tour was sad. He was swamped. Totally different level of riding. The eyes don't lie. I thought he was clean that Tour, or if not, nowhere near he was in 2009. Age doesn't just rock up one GT later and suddenly becoming the deciding factor. Heck, I still think the cleanest Lance ever rode was in 2010 because he was scared of being caught after what Floyd said. Lance had Horner admit they couldn't keep up. Horner dropped their power numbers and the alarming thing for me is they are far lower than what Rogers was prattling on about at this years Tour. So I take it all with a massive load of salt and try and make something out of it all.
I never said anything about Carlos performances being illogical. I said his ride up Alpe d'Huez stretches the imagination too far if it is to be considered believable. Take what JV admitted about Hinault. Now take his natural successor LeMond. LeMond's best time is about 42 minutes flat up Alpe d'Huez that you can find numbers for. Rubiera in the 80s was the best time. Skinny Columbian climber. Carlos went 39'30" or a few seconds off. Where does he get 90 seconds, on the best climber from the pre epo era? It's an anomaly and why I don't think he was clean in 2008. I was simply highlighting the problem with Ricco. He's so easy to pick on it isn't funny.
Here's a better way of framing Ricco. David Millar rode for Saunier Duval in 2007 did he not? Do you really think he didn't or wouldn't have heard a peep about Ricco, Piepopli or Cobbo? Now do you think that came up in discussion at Garmin some time? I do. Perhaps this reasoning explains JV's perspective on Ricco. I can accept that from people who know. I can live with it. What I don't stomach is the journalists who were all over Lance and the way they sunk the boot into Ricco, but not Lance. That is disgusting and absolutely vile. I still remember Mike Tomolaris after Ricco was popped...most disgusting journalist commentary I have ever heard. Yet where are they now? So I do understand to a degree JV even David Millar slating Ricco, but not everyone. If anyone warrants some understand, it's the people who rode with him and knew and lost out because of it.
On that note I'd say make your posts more concise...seriously, half the time if someone posts a huge block of text like you tend to I scroll straight past.Galic Ho said:Thanks for the answer. I buy that. That filled in the blanks. I'd heard the talk about Christian before and always assumed he had to be at the top or near it. But that's only with basic info. That's all I needed to here. Always thought Christian was the most talented. Would explain your thoughts on the 2008 Tour as well. I'd heard an AIS rider pull similar VO2max figures to you. I don't here about him performing at all and his numbers are higher than Cadel's. Heck, I had to do a double take when I heard his. I'd also heard Floyd has some really high numbers...but never had them confirmed on the forum despite asking.
I think it was interesting and readable. There are some members I tend to schroll past, but thats because I know the content will not be interesting, not because of the size of the post.will10 said:On that note I'd say make your posts more concise...seriously, half the time if someone posts a huge block of text like you tend to I scroll straight past.
If and when I write a book, it won't be about cycling. More along the fantasy route.JV1973 said:You should write a book. Oh, wait, you just did.
Again, condescending towards you? Absolutely. Not because I have disdain for you, personally, how could I? i don't know you. But, apparently, you know me quite well. No, no disdain for you, disdain for the "by being an unbending skeptic unwilling to look at anything other than my own thoughts as being truthful, I am somehow being helpful to the sport of cycling"
It's pathetic and self aggrandizing. As was your novel above.
Not a personal attack. A statement of opinion.
The problem is that when you look at i) what cycling fans have been told in the past - after Festina, after Puerto, after Rasmussen etc that cycling was getting cleaner and ii) who is also telling us cycling is getting cleaner, you can understand why there is such a high degree of mistrust from fans.JV1973 said:First: This is the type of discussion that I am happy to engage in. So, thanks. You've listened to my points, now I need to listen to yours.
I cannot answer your question to your satisfaction but I can say, what you've read in the news regards my actions is perhaps not the full story. The behind the scenes has been pretty damned nasty at times.
Now, am I a radical, like Kimmage? No, absolutely not. I am in a certain role in cycling, which prevents me from taking his positions, unless I want to self immolate. Even if I could, I'm not as radical, at heart, as Paul. But, I listen to Paul, I take his suggestions to heart, I argue with him, and I respect him. I think he would say the same of me.
All of this said, I think we are fast approaching a time where my patience and temperance is less needed. I hope.
On to "cycling is cleaner"... I don't see how saying "I feel more races are being won by clean riders than at any point in cycling's history" is different from "cycling is cleaner"... In the end, if the talented and clean riders are winning over less talented and doped more than 50% of the time, I am doing fuggin backflips, because when I was racing it was 95% to 5%. And, quite frankly, that's what I see these days.
Ryder Hesjdal's blood profile and climbing rates in the 2012 Giro wouldn't have seen him in the top 10 of a GT in 1996,1999 or 2006...etc... That's progress. I am happy about the progress. that's all. I'm trying to express to you guys that there is real and tangible progress.
And I get flamed for that. such a bummer.
There are a whole raft of dopers who got pinged and went straight back to doping.martinvickers said:Yes - DIY blood doping after already being pinged seems more 'hardcore', to me, than being involved in a professionally run team programme.
It's clearly more dangerous. It clearly isn't because of peer pressure or team pressure. And it's singularly more stupid given his existing ping.
So, yes, it's more hardcore - it speaks clearly of desperation. Rather like that guy who recently got pinged for EPO because he was going out of contract...
Sounds like Tabata intervals on a bike. Sounds like fun. No really. It's be nice to know one's own personal attributes. See that is why I mentioned transparency. If the public had this explained to them, well it'd go a long way to debuffing all the confusion about power outputs, lactate threshold, oxygen uptake, fatigue and VO2 in general. As it is people have to fill in the blanks and some people clearly have a better framework for this base knowledge and could impart a lot of good.JV1973 said:btw - vo2 max is not a great indicator of ability. We don't test for it. We use a test that steps up every 10 minutes, from power level to power level. You never reach vo2 max with such long/fatiguing intervals. We measure v02 , but it never gets to max before the rider fails. This test is, however, a great indicator of on road performance, because it lasts an hour and a half and is very tough the whole time. The guys hate it.
This type of testing is more aligned with how your body adapts to and tolerates acidity. Which is far more interesting than v02 max.
That is the point though with using Ashenden's viewpoints. Hearing him speak or write, his language is succinct, fluent and straight to the point. It's very hard to argue against. Very hard so convincing is he in his assertions.hrotha said:Problem is, we don't have many other independent reference points. We have Ashenden, and then we have... the Captain, I guess?. There's also you, but obviously you're an interested party so we have to be more sceptical about what you say.
Perhaps if the new antidoping system that will hopefully emerge from the UCI's downfall allowed their hematologists to speak freely, and more profiles were made public, we'd have other expert opinions to rely on, and divergent analysis. Until then, you can pretty much treat every mention of "Ashenden" as a placeholder for "independent, uncompromised, believable external expert".
Pretty sure I just read it in Tyler's book, too.JV1973 said:Oh, I do owe you an answer:
Christian VDV was physiologically the best rider on Postal. You don't seem to understand my perspective on physiology. A high vo2 max does not make a great rider. I had a very high vo2. Higher than Bernard Hinaults, almost certainly. He was great, I was mediocre. Why? because while in a limited 30 minute laboratory test, i could reach very high points of shifting oxygen. He could do 95% of that for 6 hours on the road. I was a car with very big engine with a small gas tank and a driver with bad depth perception.
VDV proved more than once he had the best physiology. The best example is Jan camp 1999. We did a test up a big hill. VDV was the best, by far, with still low lactate. But the results got moved around a bit, so Lance wouldn't feel insecure. Read about it. it's a public story. Think hincapie may have told it.
That's my opinion. which is limited to 1999 and 1998. Floyd also had very good physiology, clean, as evidenced by his 3rd in tour d'lavenir, long before he doped.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree to an extent. For all our 'suspicions' about other members of the peleton, there can be no doubt that Ricco doped; and then, being caught, doped again, in a particularly insane way.Mrs John Murphy said:There are a whole raft of dopers who got pinged and went straight back to doping.
Some got caught, others weren't.
Is a DIY programme really more hardcore than a team organized, professionally run programme involving doctors, couriers, complex logistic operations and subterfuge?
Ricco is just an easy target. He's no different to a large chunk of the pro-peloton. Some are DIY, some are organized and some are super-organized.
I've long been aware that though you are not posting, you are reading the forum. Your name gets mentioned, you almost always respond that day, or the day after at latest. I was reading this forum when it first began...was it March 2009? I was one of the lurkers who decided to post, learn and contribute. I didn't see the point in not posting and the SBS run cycling central site was, well it still is a joke regarding cycling's dirty past and hidden secrets. So I made an account in August 2009. But I'd been reading for some time. The post I was referring to may not have been your first, but it was definitely the first post of yours I read. And you mentioned it more than once. I hear someone state their own worth again and again...instinct tells me they're bragging.acoggan said:Again with the ad hominem attacks...
Considering that my presence here predates yours and the search function will only call up someone's last ~500 posts, I'd say that you have no idea what was contained in my first posts.
I think you got it.It's all the pre and post dope behavior that people focus on. He is a bad,unlikable doper vs he is a really handsome,likable doper and so well spoken. He wasn't arrogant before getting caught so he is different.Mrs John Murphy said:He is a 'victim' in the sense that everyone piles into Ricco. The same with Rasmussen. He is the obvious whipping boy and an easy target - he is annoying, a doper and very stupid.
However, there are lots of annoying, doped and stupid members of the peloton. The only difference is they haven't been caught.
It is very easy to call out Ricco. Why not call out someone who is richer, more powerful and smarter, but also a doper/enabler. Why not call out Riis, or Brailsford, or Contador?
When Ricco got popped, Frodo Cavendish said that he hoped that Ricco was raped in jail, Millar jumped on the bandwagon. And yet, when it comes to Contador for example, Millar takes exactly the opposite approach.
Ricco shouldn't be in the sport but then 99.99% of those involved in the sport shouldn't be involved in the sport either. Singling out Ricco and ignoring other equally egregious dopers seems a little unfair on Ricco.