-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
I pity the lot of you, honestly. By your standards, anyone within the top 30-40 of every race is doping. Why do you even bother watching?
Realistically, doping occurs in a much bigger degree in GT's, given the total strain of three weeks on the bike, along with climbs and steep hills day after day. I'd credit doping for smaller races and classics to about 5%? Maybe less. There weren't any heroic performances today. Keeping a ~20 second lead over two chaser (2v2), with a disorganized peloton behind is hardly astonishing. Also, someone has got to be better. The only merit I see anyone accusing anyone on, is winning.
Has it really come to that? You win = you're doping, defacto?
Realistically, doping occurs in a much bigger degree in GT's, given the total strain of three weeks on the bike, along with climbs and steep hills day after day. I'd credit doping for smaller races and classics to about 5%? Maybe less. There weren't any heroic performances today. Keeping a ~20 second lead over two chaser (2v2), with a disorganized peloton behind is hardly astonishing. Also, someone has got to be better. The only merit I see anyone accusing anyone on, is winning.
Has it really come to that? You win = you're doping, defacto?
Re:
Do some research on cycling, the UCI, the testing, the team doctors, the DS, then the riders attitudes towards doping and this will paint a picture of doping as being an acceptable fabric of the sport and those who dont agree dont understand the sport.
Fans who think a minority dope are only kidding themselves.
Christopher S said:
Do some research on cycling, the UCI, the testing, the team doctors, the DS, then the riders attitudes towards doping and this will paint a picture of doping as being an acceptable fabric of the sport and those who dont agree dont understand the sport.
Fans who think a minority dope are only kidding themselves.
Re:
Winners, btw are always the most likely to dope everything else equal
You seem to think those poor grand tour riders are almost forced to resort to peds to cope with tue demands of thr gruellin schedule. Not so. As in every other sport, they dope for performane gains. Dope works really well im one day races. If detection can be avoided there is no reason self interested classic riders would not dope.Christopher S said:
Winners, btw are always the most likely to dope everything else equal
Re: Re:
If that's what you choose to believe, I honestly can't see why you bother watching.
Realistically, half of the peloton has doped at some point, perhaps for a longer period of time. It's proven beyond doubt that the effects of doping doesn't wear off totally, and any muscular and/or chardiovascular gains you've achieved are likely to stay, giving a permanent advantage even after you stop doping. I do, however, choose to believe that the minority of our new generation of riders, coming through in the last 3-4 years in the pro circus, choose not to dope. There will always be some, many possibly, but >50%? Hardly.
Now, if you choose to attribute the steady and incredibly linear physical and technical evolution of Alexander Kristoff to doping, that's your thing. However, no one in here has up to this point managed to come even close to actually prove, indicate and/or even specify anything based on facts or legit merits.
Benotti69 said:
If that's what you choose to believe, I honestly can't see why you bother watching.
Realistically, half of the peloton has doped at some point, perhaps for a longer period of time. It's proven beyond doubt that the effects of doping doesn't wear off totally, and any muscular and/or chardiovascular gains you've achieved are likely to stay, giving a permanent advantage even after you stop doping. I do, however, choose to believe that the minority of our new generation of riders, coming through in the last 3-4 years in the pro circus, choose not to dope. There will always be some, many possibly, but >50%? Hardly.
Now, if you choose to attribute the steady and incredibly linear physical and technical evolution of Alexander Kristoff to doping, that's your thing. However, no one in here has up to this point managed to come even close to actually prove, indicate and/or even specify anything based on facts or legit merits.
Re: Re:
Nope. I don't think they are forced to do anything. However, I think a rider is more likely to resort to doping to "keep the form" in a more demanding race situation - or to close the gap to a competing rider. The small difference in quality/ability in a rider is more evident over three weeks than over on day (i.e. performance gains).
You might not think there are no reasons, however, I don't think you understand the culture surrounding sports and ethics in Norway.
SeriousSam said:
Nope. I don't think they are forced to do anything. However, I think a rider is more likely to resort to doping to "keep the form" in a more demanding race situation - or to close the gap to a competing rider. The small difference in quality/ability in a rider is more evident over three weeks than over on day (i.e. performance gains).
You might not think there are no reasons, however, I don't think you understand the culture surrounding sports and ethics in Norway.
Everybody agrees there were lots more than 50% in the 90s. Did you bother watching back then? If someone could prove to you that most riders dope right now, would you stop watching? By saying sceptics shouldn't bother watching, you're saying you can only enjoy the sport by convincing yourself it's not so bad, regardless of the evidence.
We don't have proof that Kristoff dopes, but we do have an understanding of the history of the sport (not just ancient history, either). Since this isn't a court, that's more than enough to form an educated opinion.
We don't have proof that Kristoff dopes, but we do have an understanding of the history of the sport (not just ancient history, either). Since this isn't a court, that's more than enough to form an educated opinion.
Like Johan Olav Koss? Liket those cross country skyers with a VO2 max of 115?
Good grief, we have a Norvegian bot.
Welcome, skoll.
Re: Re:
Oh we understand it alright. It's far shadier than in most other countries. Drugs, drugs and more drugs.
Christopher S said:
Oh we understand it alright. It's far shadier than in most other countries. Drugs, drugs and more drugs.
Re: Re:
I was waiting for something like this, and you delivered...
And as for the "why bother watcing part"...
If you have to believe what you see is "au naturelle" then you aren't cut out for pro cycling..
Only dissapontments ahead...
Christopher S said:
I was waiting for something like this, and you delivered...
And as for the "why bother watcing part"...
If you have to believe what you see is "au naturelle" then you aren't cut out for pro cycling..
Only dissapontments ahead...
By all means, not denying Norwegians dope. However, statistically and historically, Norwegians dope less than countries like Italy, Russia, Ukraine, etc. Was just trying to point out using general numbers might not apply.
Fair enough. The 90s were really bad, and I mostly didn't watch back then. I don't have to convince myself it's "not so bad", simply because there is no concrete evidence saying the majority of the peloton is crunching steroids and epinephrine for breakfast.
If someone indeed could prove most riders doped right now, I would stop watching. I would basically lose interest.
Fair enough. The 90s were really bad, and I mostly didn't watch back then. I don't have to convince myself it's "not so bad", simply because there is no concrete evidence saying the majority of the peloton is crunching steroids and epinephrine for breakfast.
If someone indeed could prove most riders doped right now, I would stop watching. I would basically lose interest.
Re:
Bold claim. Show any data to back that up.
You mean aside from the statements of people on the blood passport panel like Ashenden or guys like Parisotto?
Or the UCI's own recent report?
But you're right, it's not so much steroids and epinephrine. It's rather EPO and blood bags.
Christopher S said:
Bold claim. Show any data to back that up.
Christopher S said:
You mean aside from the statements of people on the blood passport panel like Ashenden or guys like Parisotto?
Or the UCI's own recent report?
But you're right, it's not so much steroids and epinephrine. It's rather EPO and blood bags.
Re:
Here's the thing though: if the 90s were really bad, but nowadays it's mostly fine, what evidence do you have of such a cataclysmic transformation (and it would be cataclysmic, world-shattering, absolutely huge) of the sport and its culture?Christopher S said:
Katusha currently employs three doping doctors:
Andrei Mikhailov (http://www.dopeology.org/people/Andrei_Mikhailov/)
Massimo Besnati (http://www.dopeology.org/people/Massimo_Besnati/)
Thomas Klimaschka (http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/is-th ... the-house/)
Katusha = dirty team.
Kristoff = leader on dirty team = obvious doper.
Andrei Mikhailov (http://www.dopeology.org/people/Andrei_Mikhailov/)
Massimo Besnati (http://www.dopeology.org/people/Massimo_Besnati/)
Thomas Klimaschka (http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/is-th ... the-house/)
Katusha = dirty team.
Kristoff = leader on dirty team = obvious doper.
Re: Re:
I didn't mean steroids and Epi literally, was just the two first things that popped into my head.
I don't mean to say doping isn't a thing. This has spun a bit out of control. My point was, to begin with, that accusing a rider with 3 classics wins, 2 stage wins in TDF and a good handful of 2.1 and 2.HC wins, over 9 years over steady and linear evolution and improvement, is a far stretch. Historical knowledge and sceptisism is all good, but if one wants to suspect someone, Kristoff should be quite far down the list.
Have a go at Benoot or something instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_do ... in_cyclingGuyIncognito said:
I didn't mean steroids and Epi literally, was just the two first things that popped into my head.
I don't mean to say doping isn't a thing. This has spun a bit out of control. My point was, to begin with, that accusing a rider with 3 classics wins, 2 stage wins in TDF and a good handful of 2.1 and 2.HC wins, over 9 years over steady and linear evolution and improvement, is a far stretch. Historical knowledge and sceptisism is all good, but if one wants to suspect someone, Kristoff should be quite far down the list.
Have a go at Benoot or something instead.
Bronstein said:
The Gewiss doctor from the 90s, one who was convicted for EPO possession and another one who did blood transfusions according to athlete testimony.
Clearly a clean team
Re: Re:
I don't, in the same way you haven't got any evidence 100+ of 200 riders in a peloton is in fact doped.
Do I think doping is an issue? Yes, of course. Do I bother with accusing spesific riders of doping? Nope.
hrotha said:
I don't, in the same way you haven't got any evidence 100+ of 200 riders in a peloton is in fact doped.
Do I think doping is an issue? Yes, of course. Do I bother with accusing spesific riders of doping? Nope.
Was linked here by a friend. Just wanted to put my two cents in, and see what the fuzz was about.
Re:
Dude this is the clinic. This is all about accusations and not logic. Kristoff won, ergo he is a doper, since someone in the peloton dopes, and it's impossible for someone clean to beat a doper.
This is more or less the logic in the clinic. There might be opportunities for logical and sound argumentation sometimes, but it's often more about winning arguments, and not acquiring new knowledge or new perspectives.
Just think off this place as the Wailing Wall of the forum.
Christopher S said:
Dude this is the clinic. This is all about accusations and not logic. Kristoff won, ergo he is a doper, since someone in the peloton dopes, and it's impossible for someone clean to beat a doper.
This is more or less the logic in the clinic. There might be opportunities for logical and sound argumentation sometimes, but it's often more about winning arguments, and not acquiring new knowledge or new perspectives.
Just think off this place as the Wailing Wall of the forum.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Record stands at 97.5 (cyclist Oskar Svendsen, 2012).
Best cross country skier is Bjærn Dæhli, measured to 96 (some sources say 90). If you're gonna go on the aggressive, you might aswell check your facts.
http://www.topendsports.com/testing/records/vo2max.htm
Also, VO2-max is merely an indicator of potential performance in sports, not a guarantee.
Armchair cyclist
Moderator
Re: Re:
But whose cadence and style? All we see are knuckles and knees.Dazed and Confused said:Armchair cyclist said:Dazed and Confused said:His tt'ing reminds me of this guy:
As comparisons go, that is pretty cryptic.
Does he remind you of anybody with a face or name?
no, just the cadence and style.
Re:
Well all you've done is come into the section of the forum dedicated to discussing doping and moaned about people people doing exactly that and demanded evidence while making up random numbers to back up your own flimsy position.
If you don't want to read about doping, don't come in. If you don't like people accusing your favourite rider of doping then don't read those threads or back up your position with more than numbers you've randomly plucked out of the air (and a wikipedia link to doping cases is frankly laughable, where have we heard the "never tested positive" line before..?). History has shown us time and again that winners are linked to doping, particularly winners who perform over and above what you might expect in multiple types of race.
It's really simple, doping gets discussed here. There's a nice, non-doping discussion thread in the PRR section, I think it's even the first thread as I type this.
Christopher S said:
Well all you've done is come into the section of the forum dedicated to discussing doping and moaned about people people doing exactly that and demanded evidence while making up random numbers to back up your own flimsy position.
If you don't want to read about doping, don't come in. If you don't like people accusing your favourite rider of doping then don't read those threads or back up your position with more than numbers you've randomly plucked out of the air (and a wikipedia link to doping cases is frankly laughable, where have we heard the "never tested positive" line before..?). History has shown us time and again that winners are linked to doping, particularly winners who perform over and above what you might expect in multiple types of race.
It's really simple, doping gets discussed here. There's a nice, non-doping discussion thread in the PRR section, I think it's even the first thread as I type this.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram