Kristoff

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
The Hitch said:
Benotti69 said:
maltiv said:
Benotti69 said:
A clean Kristoff can win 3 in a row against dopers?

Wake up! FFS!!!!
Notorius dopers like Debuscchere, Greipel and Theuns.
The whole peloton dopes, duh!

Since when did everyone decide that no more doping. Must have missed that huge change in the sport!!!
Merely saying - everyone must dope therefore everyone dopes is a silly argument. It's one thing to argue that sport is dirty but to simply put down everyone with this flawed formula, helps no one.

What do you think it adds to the discussion to simply repeat as fact that 100% of cyclists are doping?
I call it a reality check, Hitch old sport. :)

Can you point to an athlete who is happy to be riding amongst the flotsam and jetsam of doping while they struggle along on bread and water?
A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

It guess its possible that 99% dope but there is very little to back that up.

The evidence DEFINATELY is there that the elite dope, that everyone who wins gts dopes, that everyone who competes for gts dope. There might even be strong evidence to say that many of the domestiques dope as well.

But to go from that to - 100% dope, is a bit of a stretch, especially since you aren't really making any arguments for it. You are just saying - everyone dopes, therefore
everyone dopes, argument over.

And you randomly throw that logic into several different threads.

Imo your argument is no different from those who say the sport is clean. Both of you use conveniently simple arguments to reach absolute conclusions.

Neither of you understand the simple fact that life is far more complicated than that.
 
Re:

manafana said:
so everyone is doping now? christ thats some thought, many are pushing limits like in 80s but not sure there are blood bags and mass epo anymore
Ah, the old - once people stop using epo, doping will be over for happily ever after, argument.

Because while a handful of 30k a year WADA employees can bring in better drug tests every year, the trillion dollar industry that created things like EPO and steroids to begin with, absolutely cannot create new drugs :eek:
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

It guess its possible that 99% dope but there is very little to back that up.

The evidence DEFINATELY is there that the elite dope, that everyone who wins gts dopes, that everyone who competes for gts dope. There might even be strong evidence to say that many of the domestiques dope as well.

But to go from that to - 100% dope, is a bit of a stretch, especially since you aren't really making any arguments for it. You are just saying - everyone dopes, therefore
everyone dopes, argument over.

And you randomly throw that logic into several different threads.

Imo your argument is no different from those who say the sport is clean. Both of you use conveniently simple arguments to reach absolute conclusions.

Neither of you understand the simple fact that life is far more complicated than that.
So you think a pro team that needs results will hire riders who are not prepared to dope? Since when?

So many sponsors leaving, so many teams having trouble finding sponsors so why hire a rider who wont dope?

The testing is a joke. It is an IQ test. Cookson has not changed anything in regards to improving the testing or regularity of tests.

The police are the true anti doping heroes of cycling. The UCI and the ADA are a joke, even USADA went after only 1 big fish, letting the rest swim free.

There are plenty of arguments to be made for a peloton that dopes 99.9999999% of the time.

I have repeated these arguments time and time again.

This biggest reason i dont see clean riders is the teams need riders to win and perform for the team. Therefore with so many willing to do what is necessary a clean rider will not get a place on a squad.

The culture of doping has not gone away. Look at team staff members. All former dopers and doping doctors.

Look at UCI, Zorzoli the go to man when a doping problem arrises for a team, he'll make it disappear.

Make an argument for a rider standing up to the sport and not participating in the doping. The rest would treat that rider with disdain, ensure he didn't win, ensure he was not 'better' than them. A rider who rode clean in a team would be viewed with derision, untrusted and would not last long in the sport.

So WT teams with clean riders with so much at stake. Not in my book. Pro conti teams with riders looking to get a move to a WT team, would they try and do it clean against guys doing anything and everything to get a WT ride? Not likely.

Never mind the huge psychological barrier a rider would have to overcome racing clean against so many doping. Kimmage couldn't do it.

Also too many new PEDs coming, too many variations available undetected. Over 100 variations of EPO. ABP is not being properly implemented. Was it Lars Boom did 2 blood tests in 10 months 1 year! How does ABP work with only 2 blood level numbers?? It doesn't. Blood testing is too expensive so rarely done.

So i am probably more correct with my guestimation about doping figures.

So is Kristoff clean, becuase he is 'trained' by his step father, a doctor? Nope. Doping is a game all the family can play :D
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Saint Unix said:
And thus we lay this thread to rest.

Now, where's the Degenkolb thread?
Don't be a nationalist baby.

Doubts surrounding Kristoff don't just die the second he eventually has a bad day. FFS he rides for the dodgiest team in the sport.
It was a joke. My other posts in this thread should prove I'm not a "nationalist baby". I don't believe that nationality has anything to do with how likely people are to dope, or that Norwegians are in any way as squeaky clean as some of my fellow countrymen will have you believe.
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
The Hitch said:
Saint Unix said:
And thus we lay this thread to rest.

Now, where's the Degenkolb thread?
Don't be a nationalist baby.

Doubts surrounding Kristoff don't just die the second he eventually has a bad day. FFS he rides for the dodgiest team in the sport.
It was a joke. My other posts in this thread should prove I'm not a "nationalist baby". I don't believe that nationality has anything to do with how likely people are to dope, or that Norwegians are in any way as squeaky clean as some of my fellow countrymen will have you believe.
My sincerest apologies for having confused you with others.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
The Hitch said:
A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

It guess its possible that 99% dope but there is very little to back that up.

The evidence DEFINATELY is there that the elite dope, that everyone who wins gts dopes, that everyone who competes for gts dope. There might even be strong evidence to say that many of the domestiques dope as well.

But to go from that to - 100% dope, is a bit of a stretch, especially since you aren't really making any arguments for it. You are just saying - everyone dopes, therefore
everyone dopes, argument over.

And you randomly throw that logic into several different threads.

Imo your argument is no different from those who say the sport is clean. Both of you use conveniently simple arguments to reach absolute conclusions.

Neither of you understand the simple fact that life is far more complicated than that.
So you think a pro team that needs results will hire riders who are not prepared to dope? Since when?

So many sponsors leaving, so many teams having trouble finding sponsors so why hire a rider who wont dope?

The testing is a joke. It is an IQ test. Cookson has not changed anything in regards to improving the testing or regularity of tests.

The police are the true anti doping heroes of cycling. The UCI and the ADA are a joke, even USADA went after only 1 big fish, letting the rest swim free.

There are plenty of arguments to be made for a peloton that dopes 99.9999999% of the time.

I have repeated these arguments time and time again.

This biggest reason i dont see clean riders is the teams need riders to win and perform for the team. Therefore with so many willing to do what is necessary a clean rider will not get a place on a squad.

The culture of doping has not gone away. Look at team staff members. All former dopers and doping doctors.

Look at UCI, Zorzoli the go to man when a doping problem arrises for a team, he'll make it disappear.

Make an argument for a rider standing up to the sport and not participating in the doping. The rest would treat that rider with disdain, ensure he didn't win, ensure he was not 'better' than them. A rider who rode clean in a team would be viewed with derision, untrusted and would not last long in the sport.

So WT teams with clean riders with so much at stake. Not in my book. Pro conti teams with riders looking to get a move to a WT team, would they try and do it clean against guys doing anything and everything to get a WT ride? Not likely.

Never mind the huge psychological barrier a rider would have to overcome racing clean against so many doping. Kimmage couldn't do it.

Also too many new PEDs coming, too many variations available undetected. Over 100 variations of EPO. ABP is not being properly implemented. Was it Lars Boom did 2 blood tests in 10 months 1 year! How does ABP work with only 2 blood level numbers?? It doesn't. Blood testing is too expensive so rarely done.

So i am probably more correct with my guestimation about doping figures.

So is Kristoff clean, becuase he is 'trained' by his step father, a doctor? Nope. Doping is a game all the family can play :D
Consider who you are talking to. Anti doping is inadequate to fight doping? No ***. I'm the guy who makes that argument 3 times a week.

Telling me about flaws in anti doping is like trying to tell a basketball fan who Michael Jordan was.
None of those things really explain how you got to 100%.

How you can know what everyone is doing.

Your argument is lazy. It saves you from having to consider any new information or variables. No matter what new info comes in, you are comfortable in your view that everyone dopes. Thats very unscientific. You also seem to pick and choose the info you do cite.
You have cited Ashenden in the past. I love Ashenden. As far as I am concerned he would be the second face on an anti doping Mount Rushmore behind *** Pound.

But Ashenden has said that he believes doping now takes place in "small pockets" on teams, definately not 100%. Do you have a counter to that. What makes you think Ashenden is wrong on that, yet right in the bits you like to cite?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Consider who you are talking to. Anti doping is inadequate to fight doping? No ****. I'm the guy who makes that argument 3 times a week.

Telling me about flaws in anti doping is like trying to tell a basketball fan who Michael Jordan was.
None of those things really explain how you got to 100%.

How you can know what everyone is doing.

Your argument is lazy. It saves you from having to consider any new information or variables. No matter what new info comes in, you are comfortable in your view that everyone dopes. Thats very unscientific. You also seem to pick and choose the info you do cite.
You have cited Ashenden in the past. I love Ashenden. As far as I am concerned he would be the second face on an anti doping Mount Rushmore behind **** Pound.

But Ashenden has said that he believes doping now takes place in "small pockets" on teams, definately not 100%. Do you have a counter to that. What makes you think Ashenden is wrong on that, yet right in the bits you like to cite?
Ashenden looked at blood profiles he was shown by UCI. Did he get to see them all? I doubt it. Did he see the big names profiles, maybe, if he did it was so UCI could squeeze some balls to get some more $$$$s

My argument is not lazy. What new information is there? A new UCI president? That hasn't changed anything IMO.

Todays Paris Roubaix was 3rd fastest since 1964.

i am not a scientist. Never claimed to be one. The 1998 Festina affair showed Bassons and maybe 1 or 2 others clean. I dont see anything that has changed that. The sport still closes shop when talking about doping. The sport is full of people who know that doping is integral to the sport of professional cycling.

I'll consider there are more clean riders out there when i see real change, not just talk that things have changed, when i see actions. Armstrong was caught because the Feds got involved, not because cycling wanted to clean up its act. Seen it so many times, Fuentes, Padova..... Look how many riders sought out the CIRC to try and make a change. That speaks volumes about the culture in the sport.
 
The Paris Roubaix was the 3rd fastest ever therefore everyone was doping? You do know the fastest refers only to the first rider crossing the line. There were a bunch of guys with him, a lot of guys in the groups behind. There were also guys who finished 10 mins back, 20 mins back, guys who didn't finish. They were all doping because the speed was so high for the winner?
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
The Paris Roubaix was the 3rd fastest ever therefore everyone was doping? You do know the fastest refers only to the first rider crossing the line. There were a bunch of guys with him, a lot of guys in the groups behind. There were also guys who finished 10 mins back, 20 mins back, guys who didn't finish. They were all doping because the speed was so high for the winner?
There was a very very large group at the front,out of the race. I would want to see times over several years plotted out as well as weather and wind factored, to make any kind of conclusion, but today was fast for a lot of guys. A whole lot. More so than in most other editions of the race.
 
Apr 10, 2015
4
0
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
The Hitch said:
The Paris Roubaix was the 3rd fastest ever therefore everyone was doping? You do know the fastest refers only to the first rider crossing the line. There were a bunch of guys with him, a lot of guys in the groups behind. There were also guys who finished 10 mins back, 20 mins back, guys who didn't finish. They were all doping because the speed was so high for the winner?
There was a very very large group at the front,out of the race. I would want to see times over several years plotted out as well as weather and wind factored, to make any kind of conclusion, but today was fast for a lot of guys. A whole lot. More so than in most other editions of the race.
Well considering the world moves on, that`s not all that strange....better bikes, better asphalt between cobbleparts, more teamwork. quicker service from cars and motorbikes when you have a mechanical. and probably several other things. And today, good weather and probably not all that much headwind. Even a guy on every drug known to man would struggle to keep up on a 1970`s/80`s bike and all the other "marginal gains". I do belive SKY`s marginal gains are bulls..., but the world does move forward. Or is that to naive of me?

As for Ashenden, i am not an expert on every statement he has done, but if he`s a guy with his head screwed on right would he not be able to see anomolies in the data he`s presented. Gaps in the data, too long periods without tests etc....if their screening the dataflow that is....i am not sure what kind of details he`s been able to see so only speculating.
 
Re: Re:

Mrnicknor said:
red_flanders said:
The Hitch said:
The Paris Roubaix was the 3rd fastest ever therefore everyone was doping? You do know the fastest refers only to the first rider crossing the line. There were a bunch of guys with him, a lot of guys in the groups behind. There were also guys who finished 10 mins back, 20 mins back, guys who didn't finish. They were all doping because the speed was so high for the winner?
There was a very very large group at the front,out of the race. I would want to see times over several years plotted out as well as weather and wind factored, to make any kind of conclusion, but today was fast for a lot of guys. A whole lot. More so than in most other editions of the race.
Well considering the world moves on, that`s not all that strange....better bikes, better asphalt between cobbleparts, more teamwork. quicker service from cars and motorbikes when you have a mechanical. and probably several other things. And today, good weather and probably not all that much headwind. Even a guy on every drug known to man would struggle to keep up on a 1970`s/80`s bike and all the other "marginal gains". I do belive SKY`s marginal gains are bulls..., but the world does move forward. Or is that to naive of me?

As for Ashenden, i am not an expert on every statement he has done, but if he`s a guy with his head screwed on right would he not be able to see anomolies in the data he`s presented. Gaps in the data, too long periods without tests etc....if their screening the dataflow that is....i am not sure what kind of details he`s been able to see so only speculating.
How are bikes better? Since when? Asphalt? Better since when. 1950? More teamwork? What?

Come on. These are microscopic, unmeasurable items. Not part of the discussion.
 
Mar 23, 2014
3
0
0
Re: Re:

bjorn said:
Pulp said:
i was talking of top performance skiers national team. a sport where the gain from doping is high.not one single one have been busted... for doping. that should not be possible if norways national team is like the other nations that have one or to of their top skiers taken every year.
Several norwegian skiers have been denied to start over the years due to high blood levels.
Kjærgård and Pedersen (cyclists) are also proven dopers.
And what nations get 1-2 skiers busted every year? Maybe, just maybe, you could argue Russia, but then again, they aren`t really fast anymore, are they..

That said, I think Kristoff is clean, but for other reasons than his nationality!
Mainly 3:
1. His talent was always there.. (NC champion already at the age of 19, only in Norway ofc, but he still had to beat Hushovd that quite liked to wear the national jersey in Tdf...)
2. His progression has been quite slow and linear, no sudden leaps.
3. I actually believe 80-90% of the current peloton is clean, which gives clean riders a chance..

From that follows that I also believe some of his strongest competitors (i.e Sagan, Degenkolb, Vanmarcke, GVA) are clean, so the last point probably makes me just naive..
even in norway we will have some who want to do short cuts. I am aware of the kjærgård tragedy. but what i am saing is that it can not be done organist doping i our biggest sport xc skiing with money from the tax payers.and certainly not for a so long time . year after year have we been the best nation in both womens and mens xc skiings.

it is commonly known that xc skiers ned even higher level of o2 than cycling. and we came to this higher lewl in skiing than other nations . is it not possible that this knowledge would be used even in cycling for our top cyclist?
the cyclist like boasson hagen kristoff and hushovd all are using the olympic centre for training to help them to be as god as possible.
Kristoff never trains at the olimpic centre
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
But Ashenden has said that he believes doping now takes place in "small pockets" on teams, definately not 100%. Do you have a counter to that. What makes you think Ashenden is wrong on that, yet right in the bits you like to cite?
he didn't say 'small', nor did he make any claims about how many riders are doping.
this is what he said:
First, there must be something to hide. Despite the self-serving data bending and associated propaganda to the contrary, I am led to believe that there are pockets of organised, highly sophisticated dopers even within ‘new age’ cycling teams. Personally, I don’t accept that the ‘dark era’ has ended, it has just morphed into a new guise.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/opinion-michael-ashenden-on-omerta-101

that said, i do agree with the thrust of your comments re: 100% doping.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re:

The Hitch said:
"pockets" means small groups.
i know, so why did you say "small pockets"? ;)
that bit is semantics, agreed, but he didn't make any statement about quantities of dopers in the peloton.
the only thing he said is he knows there are still dopers.
then there might be a whole group of riders about whom he simply doesn't have a clue either way.
Even Ashenden can't prove a negative.
 
Apr 6, 2015
24
0
0
Re: Re:

superstoni said:
bjorn said:
Pulp said:
i was talking of top performance skiers national team. a sport where the gain from doping is high.not one single one have been busted... for doping. that should not be possible if norways national team is like the other nations that have one or to of their top skiers taken every year.
Several norwegian skiers have been denied to start over the years due to high blood levels.
Kjærgård and Pedersen (cyclists) are also proven dopers.
And what nations get 1-2 skiers busted every year? Maybe, just maybe, you could argue Russia, but then again, they aren`t really fast anymore, are they..

That said, I think Kristoff is clean, but for other reasons than his nationality!
Mainly 3:
1. His talent was always there.. (NC champion already at the age of 19, only in Norway ofc, but he still had to beat Hushovd that quite liked to wear the national jersey in Tdf...)
2. His progression has been quite slow and linear, no sudden leaps.
3. I actually believe 80-90% of the current peloton is clean, which gives clean riders a chance..

From that follows that I also believe some of his strongest competitors (i.e Sagan, Degenkolb, Vanmarcke, GVA) are clean, so the last point probably makes me just naive..
even in norway we will have some who want to do short cuts. I am aware of the kjærgård tragedy. but what i am saing is that it can not be done organist doping i our biggest sport xc skiing with money from the tax payers.and certainly not for a so long time . year after year have we been the best nation in both womens and mens xc skiings.

it is commonly known that xc skiers ned even higher level of o2 than cycling. and we came to this higher lewl in skiing than other nations . is it not possible that this knowledge would be used even in cycling for our top cyclist?
the cyclist like boasson hagen kristoff and hushovd all are using the olympic centre for training to help them to be as god as possible.
Kristoff never trains at the olimpic centre

Thats correct... but stein Ørn have been working with the olympic centre earlier .

i notice now that the centre want to know about the training methods used by Kristoff.
His way using training to learning to burn fat .
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

bjorn said:
superstoni said:
bjorn said:
Pulp said:
i was talking of top performance skiers national team. a sport where the gain from doping is high.not one single one have been busted... for doping. that should not be possible if norways national team is like the other nations that have one or to of their top skiers taken every year.
Several norwegian skiers have been denied to start over the years due to high blood levels.
Kjærgård and Pedersen (cyclists) are also proven dopers.
And what nations get 1-2 skiers busted every year? Maybe, just maybe, you could argue Russia, but then again, they aren`t really fast anymore, are they..

That said, I think Kristoff is clean, but for other reasons than his nationality!
Mainly 3:
1. His talent was always there.. (NC champion already at the age of 19, only in Norway ofc, but he still had to beat Hushovd that quite liked to wear the national jersey in Tdf...)
2. His progression has been quite slow and linear, no sudden leaps.
3. I actually believe 80-90% of the current peloton is clean, which gives clean riders a chance..

From that follows that I also believe some of his strongest competitors (i.e Sagan, Degenkolb, Vanmarcke, GVA) are clean, so the last point probably makes me just naive..
even in norway we will have some who want to do short cuts. I am aware of the kjærgård tragedy. but what i am saing is that it can not be done organist doping i our biggest sport xc skiing with money from the tax payers.and certainly not for a so long time . year after year have we been the best nation in both womens and mens xc skiings.

it is commonly known that xc skiers ned even higher level of o2 than cycling. and we came to this higher lewl in skiing than other nations . is it not possible that this knowledge would be used even in cycling for our top cyclist?
the cyclist like boasson hagen kristoff and hushovd all are using the olympic centre for training to help them to be as god as possible.
Kristoff never trains at the olimpic centre

Thats correct... but stein Ørn have been working with the olympic centre earlier .

i notice now that the centre want to know about the training methods used by Kristoff.
His way using training to learning to burn fat .
We can tell them. It is called AICAR or a new undetectable by anti doping version of AICAR. Your welcome :D
 
Hmmmm....Kristoff...yeah, but has he sprinted and gone up against any top sprinter? Cav? Kittel of course lately? I don't recall. Last year he had a break through on a few stages in the TDF...but Kittel smoked everybody, who has been sick.

He has ridden well the past few months for sure, but he has a strong team. Hushovd comes to mind as Norwegian who went from pretty amazing, then all of the sudden, "virus" and other things came up when he finished with Garmin/Might Thor, then BMC he went into the abyss. Maybe got tired of riding/competing all of those years. He still won the Norwegian races they had in sprints with ease at the end of his career.

Anyway, Kristoff...well, Katousha has a crappy track record that is for sure..so being suspicious isn't out of the question.
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Zam_Olyas said:
I dont speak norweigein so i don't know but grounds for suspicion are there.
I don't think you need to speak norweigein to be suspicious of a rider that won as much as Kristoff has won in the past month and is a member of Katusha Pro Cycling team. Those would be 'red flags' in real life, but in cycling (UCI) those 'red flags' mysteriously disappear.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY