Ferminal said:So a doper is now the benchmark for what is possible "undoped" ?
It's called evolution, doesn't usually happen quite this fast though.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!
Ferminal said:So a doper is now the benchmark for what is possible "undoped" ?
Krebs cycle said:blah blah blah same old story again and again. Do you even ride a bike? Have you ever trained in your entire life? Do you realise that someone with the potential to become a GT winner would not show that potential at a young age if they were not trained appropriately at that young age, or indeed if they were clean and competing against doped up riders?
Hugh Januss said:Why do the clinic crazies seem to have a much better track record of detecting doping frauds than the science guys have?![]()
Ferminal said:So a doper is now the benchmark for what is possible "undoped" ?
Alex Simmons/RST said:Such as?
![]()
Hugh Januss said:Why do the clinic crazies seem to have a much better track record of detecting doping frauds than the science guys have?![]()
Turner29 said:No "science guy" here that I know of is denying that any specific rider is doping. All the science guys are trying to do is: a) explain plausible performance limits; 2) and the practical problems of using such to detect doping.
Krebs cycle said:blah blah blah same old story again and again. Do you even ride a bike? Have you ever trained in your entire life? Do you realise that someone with the potential to become a GT winner would not show that potential at a young age if they were not trained appropriately at that young age, or indeed if they were clean and competing against doped up riders?
Krebs cycle said:In fact, to use your own argument, since future GT winners have been spotted at a relatively young TRAINING AGE (ie: years of full-time training) in the past, this suggests that it may not require as many years of full time training for a highly talented athlete to develop into top 10 GT material.
Krebs cycle said:blah blah blah same old story again and again. Do you even ride a bike? Have you ever trained in your entire life? Do you realise that someone with the potential to become a GT winner would not show that potential at a young age if they were not trained appropriately at that young age, or indeed if they were clean and competing against doped up riders?
ChewbaccaD said:You science guys seem to think the subtext to your posts isn't obvious to us commoners.
Nor do you appear to appreciate the fact that science guys like Mr. Verified Facts was defending a study (with all of his usual humility) on a subject who was doped to the gills, and yet somehow the science guy conducting the study missed that the subject was doped to the gills...he attributed it to pork shoulder sized hearts and a smooth pedal stroke...
Yea, you science guys have been a weathervane that's thick on the pointy end.
BroDeal said:Nice try. Froome did not start out competing against doped up riders. He started competing against low-level amateurs like everyone else starts. If he had the potential to top out at a 90+ VO2Max then his talent would have been obvious right from the beginning, just like it is when everyone starts out racing and notices those who naturally have a large engine despite limited training.
Wow. Really. You think? The biggest gains come with initial training? Who would've thought? Brilliant.
Of course, it does not seem to have worked that way for Froome.
ChewbaccaD said:You science guys seem to think the subtext to your posts isn't obvious to us commoners.
Nor do you appear to appreciate the fact that science guys like Mr. Verified Facts was defending a study (with all of his usual humility) on a subject who was doped to the gills, and yet somehow the science guy conducting the study missed that the subject was doped to the gills...he attributed it to pork shoulder sized hearts and a smooth pedal stroke...
Yea, you science guys have been a weathervane that's thick on the pointy end.
Turner29 said:To which study are you referring, so I can give an educated response, not babble...
ChewbaccaD said:Hey, if you want to slag off on the guy who got 5th place in the TT at the 2010 Commonwealth games, you go ahead.
I'm changing my tune. Obviously, the ride Froome put in is indicative of a clean rider because every single variable that could possibly be measured isn't known. Sure they don't recognize that people aren't suggesting that Froome test positive for such a ride, only that it smells a lot like rides we've seen by other guys we know were doped to the gills...riders who showed more potential than 5th in a TT at the Commonwealth games a year before he was leader of the Vuelta, but that doesn't diminish their points in the slightest...
Nothing to see here, move on. The science guys have this all figured out, so we should retreat to our common homes, in our common neighborhoods, and teach our children the brilliance of cream filled snack cakes.
Turner29 said:You don't have to believe his numbers if you do not want to...
Then, I ask you what is the benchmark that you propose to accuse riders by?
Turner29 said:To which study are you referring, so I can give an educated response, not babble...
Turner29 said:Do you all "commoners" lack short-term memory or is it just you? For the nth time, I am not defending any rider of doping. In addition, for the nth time, I am pretty skeptical of all professional athletes and PEDs, not just cyclists.
And, for the nth time, I have no problem addressing my doping concerns to a rider, as I did to Landis, in front of a large audience.
You really don't get it, do you?![]()
Turner29 said:Unreal how lost in the forest you are.
Turner29 said:Do you all "commoners" lack short-term memory or is it just you? For the nth time, I am not defending any rider of doping. In addition, for the nth time, I am pretty skeptical of all professional athletes and PEDs, not just cyclists.
And, for the nth time, I have no problem addressing my doping concerns to a rider, as I did to Landis, in front of a large audience.
You really don't get it, do you?![]()
BroDeal said:Dr. Coyle, the researcher, if you can call his shoddy methods research, who was either blissfully unaware (stupid) or willfully ignorant (incompetent) that his research subject was the biggest doper in a sport rife with doping.
ChewbaccaD said:Look Oppenheimer, you don't seem to get that I addressed Mr. Verifiable Facts and not you. If you are going to take things I write to him and about him personally, I would suggest therapy.
I don't know who you are.
Hugh Januss said:Why do the clinic crazies seem to have a much better track record of detecting doping frauds than the science guys have?![]()
Turner29 said:You are the one who needs therapy.
peterst6906 said:I wouldn't go that far.
Every positive test is the result of some science guy working in a lab somewhere and the tests that help detect the occurrence of doping result from the work of science guys to develop and validate them.
There are a hell of a lot of science guys out there doing good science in order to catch cheats and to do so in a way that is verifiable.
In that regard, they are more conservative than the 'clinic crazies', but no less successful in detecting doping.