Kristoff

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 19, 2009
52
0
0
Re: Re:

sniper said:
Trond Vidar said:
olhell said:
Interview with Stein Ørn in todays VG (in Norwegian):
http://www.vg.no/sport/sykkel/sykkel/kr ... /23431930/

If he were a clean coach, why for f-sake did he allow his two brightest talents to sign for Katusha?
Well, which team should he have signed for? Which team is better? Etixx? Tinkoff? Sky? You find connections with doping in all teams in the sport. With your logic he shouldn't have let his stepson enter the sport of cycling at all.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

Balleballe said:
sniper said:
Trond Vidar said:
olhell said:
Interview with Stein Ørn in todays VG (in Norwegian):
http://www.vg.no/sport/sykkel/sykkel/kr ... /23431930/

If he were a clean coach, why for f-sake did he allow his two brightest talents to sign for Katusha?
Well, which team should he have signed for? Which team is better? Etixx? Tinkoff? Sky? You find connections with doping in all teams in the sport. With your logic he shouldn't have let his stepson enter the sport of cycling at all.
Yeah, Sky for instance. Assuming for the sake of the argument that Orn's observations are correct, and strictly based on scandals/doping positives, a team like Sky can at least be claimed to be clean. Nobody can claim Katusha has been, a team with several doping scandals and positive tests in recent years. (I'm just going along with Orn's logic here, not my own, I don't think Sky are clean.)
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
Balleballe said:
sniper said:
Trond Vidar said:
olhell said:
Interview with Stein Ørn in todays VG (in Norwegian):
http://www.vg.no/sport/sykkel/sykkel/kr ... /23431930/

If he were a clean coach, why for f-sake did he allow his two brightest talents to sign for Katusha?
Well, which team should he have signed for? Which team is better? Etixx? Tinkoff? Sky? You find connections with doping in all teams in the sport. With your logic he shouldn't have let his stepson enter the sport of cycling at all.
Yeah, Sky for instance. Assuming for the sake of the argument that Orn's observations are correct, and strictly based on scandals/doping positives, a team like Sky can at least be claimed to be clean. Nobody can claim Katusha has been, a team with several doping scandals and positive tests in recent years. (I'm just going along with Orn's logic here, not my own, I don't think Sky are clean.)
When Kristoff signed for Katusha in 2012 he had no other offers at WT-level.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

maltiv said:
When Kristoff signed for Katusha in 2012 he had no other offers at WT-level.
fair point. balleballe has a point as well. in the end there's hardly any team free of suspicion.
i shouldn't have brought this up as an argument, as it distracts from other issues.
 
Jul 19, 2009
52
0
0
Re: Re:

sniper said:
Balleballe said:
sniper said:
Trond Vidar said:
olhell said:
Interview with Stein Ørn in todays VG (in Norwegian):
http://www.vg.no/sport/sykkel/sykkel/kr ... /23431930/

If he were a clean coach, why for f-sake did he allow his two brightest talents to sign for Katusha?
Assuming for the sake of the argument that Orn's observations are correct, and strictly based on scandals/doping positives, a team like Sky can at least be claimed to be clean.
Which observations? Ørn is not saying that there is no doping i modern cycling. The only thing he's saying is that he believes many of the methods (like kortison, testosterone, growth hormone, steroids and micro-dose EPO) doesn't have an effect that is greater than the effect you get from long term targeted training. He believes that these methods gives a short term effect, but then the athlete stagnate and doesn't get to the next level (which sort of fits a lot of the cases we've seen lately). He thinks that the effect felt by the athlete is partly placebo.

Blood doping (extraction and reinjection) is the only case where he can be seen as naive. Because he thinks that the amount of administration needed to do this doesn't fit in a time where organised team doping doesn't seem that obvious (and when you se how mediocre the russians at Katusha is performing you wouldn't expect it to be more organised doping there than in other teams). This is maybe naive, but to go from there to insinuating that Ørn is doping minors is pretty far don't you think?

The only thing he says he really fears is large doses of EPO. And it's been a few years since those were the norm.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

Balleballe said:
Which observations? Ørn is not saying that there is no doping i modern cycling. The only thing he's saying is that he believes many of the methods (like kortison, testosterone, growth hormone, steroids and micro-dose EPO) doesn't have an effect that is greater than the effect you get from long term targeted training. He believes that these methods gives a short term effect, but then the athlete stagnate and doesn't get to the next level (which sort of fits a lot of the cases we've seen lately). He thinks that the effect felt by the athlete is partly placebo.

Blood doping (extraction and reinjection) is the only case where he can be seen as naive. Because he thinks that the amount of administration needed to do this doesn't fit in a time where organised team doping doesn't seem that obvious (and when you se how mediocre the russians at Katusha is performing you wouldn't expect it to be more organised doping there than in other teams). This is maybe naive, but to go from there to insinuating that Ørn is doping minors is pretty far don't you think?

The only thing he says he really fears is large doses of EPO. And it's been a few years since those were the norm.
those products Orn mentions used to help substantially in the naughties, as well as in the early and mid-2000s. Ask Ibarguren, for instance. And Lance not to mention.
Is Orn saying they somehow stopped working? And you're saying he's not naive?
(btw, you're still to address DearWiggo's post upstairs)

Imagine you have one race, two athletes:
one who trains the way Orn recommends,
a second who trains the way Orn recommends and uses steroids, growthhormones and microdose EPO.
who's gonna win the race?
 
Jul 19, 2009
52
0
0
Re: Re:

sniper said:
Balleballe said:
Which observations? Ørn is not saying that there is no doping i modern cycling. The only thing he's saying is that he believes many of the methods (like kortison, testosterone, growth hormone, steroids and micro-dose EPO) doesn't have an effect that is greater than the effect you get from long term targeted training. He believes that these methods gives a short term effect, but then the athlete stagnate and doesn't get to the next level (which sort of fits a lot of the cases we've seen lately). He thinks that the effect felt by the athlete is partly placebo.

Blood doping (extraction and reinjection) is the only case where he can be seen as naive. Because he thinks that the amount of administration needed to do this doesn't fit in a time where organised team doping doesn't seem that obvious (and when you se how mediocre the russians at Katusha is performing you wouldn't expect it to be more organised doping there than in other teams). This is maybe naive, but to go from there to insinuating that Ørn is doping minors is pretty far don't you think?

The only thing he says he really fears is large doses of EPO. And it's been a few years since those were the norm.
those products Orn mentions used to help substantially in the naughties, as well as in the early and mid-2000s. Ask Ibarguren, for instance. And Lance not to mention.
Is Orn saying they somehow stopped working? And you're saying he's not naive?
(btw, you're still to address DearWiggo's post upstairs)

Well I'm only writing what Ørn is saying, because what you wrote was not what he said. And if I think he is naive? I don't know. Probably he is. But as a man who works full time as a cardiologist at a hospital (not as a trainer, or a cycling doctor, he doesn't even get paid for the job he's doing for Kristoff and Bystrøm: http://www.procycling.no/kristof-trener ... rarbeidet/ ) he should know better than both you and I about the physical effects of these drugs.

So it boils down to whether you trust him or not. Where you obviously go for the clinic-norm of: "everyone is doping until proven otherwise, and everyone that disagrees with me are naive and stupid", I for my case can't se any other proof for that Stein Ørn is a doping doctor/coach besides that his stepson is winning everything at the moment. And that isn't enough for me.

I-m not ruling out that Kristoff is doping, but I can't quite see how his collaboration with his stepfather should be proof of anything.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Balleballe, Kristoff training with Orn is not proof of anything. Nobody says that.

The point we're addressing is this: the products Orn mentions as 'ineffective compared to good training', are the same products that helped to get dozens of very well-trained riders on the podiums of GTs and Monuments in the 70s, 80s, nineties, and 2000s. Their benefit to cyclists is pretty darn well-documented in books, scientific articles, etc. Ask Rasmussen, ask Ibarguren (caught with steroids in the early 2000s), ask Lance, hell, ask Froome.
Now Orn says they've become ineffective without showing a shred of evidence to that extent.If he wants to tackle traditional scientific wisdom, he has a burden of proof. Simple as.
 
Re:

sniper said:
Now Orn says they've become ineffective without showing a shred of evidence to that extent.If he wants to tackle traditional scientific wisdom, he has a burden of proof. Simple as.
Well, that's not what he is saying, is it? They are effective, but not the point that it's unmatched. That's what he is saying.
 
Jul 19, 2009
52
0
0
Re:

sniper said:
Balleballe, Kristoff training with Orn is not proof of anything. Nobody says that.

The point we're addressing is this: the products Orn mentions as 'ineffective compared to good training', are the same products that helped to get dozens of very well-trained riders on the podiums of GTs and Monuments in the 70s, 80s, nineties, and 2000s. Their benefit to cyclists is pretty darn well-documented in books, scientific articles, etc. Ask Rasmussen, ask Ibarguren (caught with steroids in the early 2000s), ask Lance, ask anybody with half a brain.
Now Orn says they've become ineffective without showing a shred of evidence to that extent.If he wants to tackle traditional scientific wisdom, he has a burden of proof. Simple as.
Well, you were insinuating that Ørn is doping minors. That is a pretty serious question.
And Ørn hasn't anywhere said that there is NO effect from the doping. Off course there are effects, but he thinks that in the long run the negative effects (which is also thoroughly documented) overshadows the positives. Therefore, in the long run hard, normal training (not overtraining on dope) will give at just as good or better effect than these forementioned methods. Maybe he is naive, i don't know. Probably yes as I can see it, but i don't have the competence to know, and neither do you.

But in all fairness; when you are insinuating that he is doping minors he deserves to get quoted correctly and he deserves that people actually knows who he is and what he stands for. This is not a Ferrari or Fuentes moneymaking doctor/trainer-dopingguru. This is a guy who works with his stepson, his stepsons trainingpartner and a local cycling team on a volunteer basis.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Ørn (how to you pronounce that btw, empty set-rn? :)) isn't naive when he says that. He knows full well it's nonsense, but he knows it's the sort of nonsense naive people love to hear. Hard, genuine, honest and honourable work, grit, and the right nationality overcoming the dirty foreign cheating cheaters. Wouldn't we love that to be true? We would. So easy to confuse wishful thinking with reality.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

Trond Vidar said:
sniper said:
Now Orn says they've become ineffective without showing a shred of evidence to that extent.If he wants to tackle traditional scientific wisdom, he has a burden of proof. Simple as.
Well, that's not what he is saying, is it? They are effective, but not the point that it's unmatched. That's what he is saying.
nitpicking.
in the same post i specified 'ineffective compared to good training'.
 
Jul 19, 2009
52
0
0
Re: Re:

sniper said:
Balleballe said:
Well, you were insinuating that Ørn is doping minors.
i was saying it is an urgent question. you disagree?
That is a pretty serious question.
ok, so you agree.

Troll.

You now what I mean. To accuse someone of such a thing you need to put more to the table. It's obvious for everyone that you don't know who Ørn is, what he do, and what he stands for. To allmost compare him with a Ferrari or a Fuentes type of guy is beyond paranoid even for clinic standards.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re:

SeriousSam said:
Ørn (how to you pronounce that btw, empty set-rn? :)) isn't naive when he says that. He knows full well it's nonsense, but he knows it's the sort of nonsense naive people love to hear. Hard, genuine, honest and honourable work, grit, and the right nationality overcoming the dirty foreign cheating cheaters. Wouldn't we love that to be true? We would. So easy to confuse wishful thinking with reality.
agreed...
Wouldn't we love that to be true? We would.
:D
 
Aug 20, 2009
76
0
0
Given the option that TGAK actually is clean, Ørn's comments make a whole lot of sense. The placebo/nocebo effect works both ways. If you believe the competition is better/stronger than you, you lose no matter how strong you are. If your athlete is clean in a dirty sport it makes perfect sense filling his head with "drugs don't work"-mantra.

Of course, if you are very cynical (why else would you be on this forum?), you may twist his comments into Ørn not believing in the mentioned drugs, but rather prefer using some other superior drugs/methods. But if that was the case, why discuss it with the press at all? You rather have the competition believe you do the same as them.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

Stein Orn goes way back in cycling. Went all throuhg the EPO era without doping his riders.
He did inject riders with vitamins in the 90s, claims he stopped doing it late 90s on his own initiative:
- In the nineties this was in use also in cycling, where I also put such injections. However I meant we found ourselves in a gray area, so I took the initiative to stop this at the end of the nineties. Now I think it is time that Norwegian sport takes this debate about the ethical guidelines should go. I believe that such injections should be used only for medicinal purposes. After I took my position on this around the millennium, I have never put syringes in athletes I coach, says Orn.
http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/sykk ... 8974_1.snd
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
...decided to post my brief comments on those 2 links posted about Ørn's training methods and his view of doping effects.

1st, on Ørn minimizing doping effects..perhaps surprising to most, but both Ørn and chicken have a point, however contradictory. b/c both speak half truth. and they both KNOW it. both realize full well the true story. which is - effective doping at the elite level is a fine individualized science which can either catapult you up (if done right in terms of dose, timing etc) or make you a dud/sick/cripple (if over/under dosed, mistimed etc). fine tuning a 'program' takes a battery of bio tests, time, and above all it tkes deep knowledge of sports physiology very few can boast...thus, Ørn sounds right if for ex. testo was overdosed and resulted in the useless bulk, just as the chicken is right that testo was indispensable for maintaining his his slander, low muscle mass body. same story with the other drugs that were mentioned - the devil is in the details most strive to protect.

but there is something common between the chicken and Ørn - their political/pr stance. both try to protect their CURRENT schtick that feeds them. Ørn - his successfull clean coach rep, and chicken - selling his book on doping. if they said something different than they did, they'd go hungry...

re. the the link posted by trond in reference to Ørn's another claim...not to diminish the issue, but there is virtually no news in using fat for fuel in endurance sports vs. the other substrates (sugars and protein). i've known about it (and experimented with) for at least 2 decades. it is a well known physiological fact, that the proportion of fat used as fuel is inversely proportional to the effort intensity. there are 'ancient' markers to measure the phenomena (RER) and more modern ones...indeed, the ability to use fat efficiently can be trained (or affected by the diet) but is largely determined by inborn muscle fiber type, just like the sprinting ability.

thus, Ørn again is talking code and half truths b/c he knows the norwegian journos will swallow anything.
 
Jul 19, 2009
104
0
0
Team Kristoff is about to sign and engage in lucrative contracts for the domestic market, the amounts are said to be just a bit lower than the parameters for our best XC-skiers, but in line with increasing popularity contract sums will follow. Ørn cannot jeopardize this so he will say anything that will suit this marketing strategy.

The same pattern can be found for Hushovd and Boasson Hagen btw.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Re:

Felice Gimondi said:
Team Kristoff is about to sign and engage in lucrative contracts for the domestic market, the amounts are said to be just a bit lower than the parameters for our best XC-skiers, but in line with increasing popularity contract sums will follow. Ørn cannot jeopardize this so he will say anything that will suit this marketing strategy.

The same pattern can be found for Hushovd and Boasson Hagen btw.
I love that norwegians always complain about how dirty russians are in XC skiing, but now that Kristoff is winning things their cycling team has magically become cleans.
 
Re: Re:

the sceptic said:
I love that norwegians always complain about how dirty russians are in XC skiing
Perhaps they only forgot their closer neighbour Finland. A whole A-team of XC skiers was caught doping some 10 years ago. That was really a sad story.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

the sceptic said:
I love that norwegians always complain about how dirty russians are in XC skiing, but now that Kristoff is winning things their cycling team has magically become cleans.
But, but, team wide doping doesn't exist no more.
In that interview upthread Stein Orn uses it as an argument why the peloton is so clean these days: now that teams don't organize it anymore, doping has become too complicated, too much of a hassle.
Walsh-esque stuff, although, as others have noted, undestandable from his pov.
 
Apr 5, 2015
165
0
0
Re: Re:

the sceptic said:
Felice Gimondi said:
Team Kristoff is about to sign and engage in lucrative contracts for the domestic market, the amounts are said to be just a bit lower than the parameters for our best XC-skiers, but in line with increasing popularity contract sums will follow. Ørn cannot jeopardize this so he will say anything that will suit this marketing strategy.

The same pattern can be found for Hushovd and Boasson Hagen btw.
I love that norwegians always complain about how dirty russians are in XC skiing, but now that Kristoff is winning things their cycling team has magically become cleans.
Nono.. I think myself and most of the other norwegians does not think that at all. I`ve been sceptical of russian atheletes for a couple of decades, and albeit I believe they are finally cleaning up their act in XC-skiing and possibly biathlon (The results suggests that), the jury is still out. However, I do believe that you can choose to be clean and cycle on Katusha, even though I think you will struggle getting a new contract if you`re clean, don`t get the results and are not russian...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY