bianchigirl said:hektoren, I guess you have never read the Anderson report otherwise you'd know that it's all too easy to make claims of foul play at AIS stick
Oh, you mean "Mark French's work of fiction"? Have you actually read the Anderson report yourself? Only people with the name Mark French had egg on their faces after the Anderson report.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
night rider said:
+1 + 2 +3 .
Mambo95 said:
You CAN not be serious. So Cadel is clean because Tom Boonen said so?
I think you can find lots of similar comments about Lance Armstrong. I guess that must mean he was clean then. Someone get the message to Novitsky please.
Also the sentence itself is a bit of a fail because he says Cadel proves the Tour can be won without doping, but Cadel never won the tour
auscyclefan94 said:Yes, I'd certainly trust two former dopers and one who has come back to the sport and succeeding straight away. Coming back better than he was. Signs of a guy who has comeback clean to the sport and is transperent.
Oh how true!
ACF, sometimes i feel you confuse "dopers" with "Mafia bosses". They just doped. Its not like their evil geniuses constantly, stroking evil cats, kicking dogs, loving their mamas and plotting to bring down the good guys. Though admitedly many of them do have the "bad guy" habbit of speaking with a foreign accent
According to the book of exodus doping isn even a sin. I think you just get 5 minutes in pergatory for every vial of epo or something. Why would they be untrustworthy. Theyve got no reason to lie about this and they are not career criminals or anything.That doesnt mean they are telling the truth. But there is no reason to see them as somehow far less trustworthy then anyone else.
As a kid i sold counterfit dvds to my classmates. Thats a crime, so does that make me untrustworthy in everything i say. It doesnt, because i always tell the truth. Even when i lie.
The Hitch said:You CAN not be serious. So Cadel is clean because Tom Boonen said so?
I think you can find lots of similar comments about Lance Armstrong. I guess that must mean he was clean then. Someone get the message to Novitsky please.
Also the sentence itself is a bit of a fail because he says Cadel proves the Tour can be won without doping, but Cadel never won the tour
I was responding to the post which said as Frei and Leukemans what they think of Evans (maybe they think he's clean too), which an actual quote from another rider. Boonen's opinion is not necessarily worth any more than any other rider, but he did single him out, which to me is worth something.
However it doesn't fit in with the CN forum cult standard of 'their all doping, it's not possible to ride a bike without drugs, it's not getting cleaner, I know everything' - so therefore it must be dismissed as rubbish. Clean riders succeeding is an abhorant idea to many on here.
(And Evans got within 23 seconds (20 of which where time bonuses) of winning the Tour, so saying it was possible for him to win the Tour is quite right.)
Richie Porte's Results From The 2010 Giro d' Italia---Individual Time Trial's----+Mountain stages
http://www.steephill.tv
Stage 1 ITT results:
1 Bradley Wiggins (Sky) ----------------10:18 (8.4 km @ 48.9 km/h)
2 Brent Bookwalter (BMC)--------------10:20 + 0:02
3 Cadel Evans (BMC)--------------------10:20 + 0:02
4 Alexandre Vinokourov (Astana)------10:23 + 0:05
5 Greg Henderson (Team Sky)---------10:23 + 0:05
6 Richie Porte (Saxo Bank)-------------10:23 + 0:05
7 David Millar (Garmin--------------------10:24 + 0:06
8 Gustav Larsson (Saxo Bank)---------10:25 + 0:07
9 Jos Van Emden (Rabobank)----------10:27 + 0:09
10 Marco Pinotti (HTC-Columbia)-------10:27 + 0:09
http://www.steephill.tv
Stage 1 ITT results:
1 Bradley Wiggins (Sky) ----------------10:18 (8.4 km @ 48.9 km/h)
2 Brent Bookwalter (BMC)--------------10:20 + 0:02
3 Cadel Evans (BMC)--------------------10:20 + 0:02
4 Alexandre Vinokourov (Astana)------10:23 + 0:05
5 Greg Henderson (Team Sky)---------10:23 + 0:05
6 Richie Porte (Saxo Bank)-------------10:23 + 0:05
7 David Millar (Garmin--------------------10:24 + 0:06
8 Gustav Larsson (Saxo Bank)---------10:25 + 0:07
9 Jos Van Emden (Rabobank)----------10:27 + 0:09
10 Marco Pinotti (HTC-Columbia)-------10:27 + 0:09
Night Rider said:
No, the only possible explanation for a lower incidence of positives would be that the dopers get better at it. No other possibilities exist!
You'n Hitch give misanthropy a name and face indeed. I seem to remember a Montana cabin-dweller with a similar attitude. Should I X-ray my mail?
- Jun 16, 2009
- 19,654
- 2
- 0
Tom Boonen was caught with some Cocaine. He wanted a bit of a puff. I don'tlike people doing that stuff but it is far better than taking PED'sbianchigirl said:So the word of one doper is better than that of another?
Personally I know whose word I'd trust here & it aint Tom Boonen's....
hektoren, I guess you have never read the Anderson report otherwise you'd know that it's all too easy to make claims of foul play at AIS stick
The Hitch said:You CAN not be serious. So Cadel is clean because Tom Boonen said so?
I think you can find lots of similar comments about Lance Armstrong. I guess that must mean he was clean then. Someone get the message to Novitsky please.
Also the sentence itself is a bit of a fail because he says Cadel proves the Tour can be won without doping, but Cadel never won the tour
ACF, sometimes i feel you confuse "dopers" with "Mafia bosses". They just doped. Its not like their evil geniuses constantly, stroking evil cats, kicking dogs, loving their mamas and plotting to bring down the good guys. Though admitedly many of them do have the "bad guy" habbit of speaking with a foreign accent
According to the book of exodus doping isn even a sin. I think you just get 5 minutes in pergatory for every vial of epo or something. Why would they be untrustworthy. Theyve got no reason to lie about this and they are not career criminals or anything.That doesnt mean they are telling the truth. But there is no reason to see them as somehow far less trustworthy then anyone else.
As a kid i sold counterfit dvds to my classmates. Thats a crime, so does that make me untrustworthy in everything i say. It doesnt, because i always tell the truth. Even when i lie.
I understand they are not criminals but the manipulation and lying really gets to me. I don't like it. Yes you may have counterfit dvds in the past but the intention was good. When you have good intentions it is not as bad of a crime.
When you dope you don't have good intentions because you cheat, lie and manipulate people to do so. That is why I take a strong stamce against doping.
btw, the book of exodus was written around 10 BC so i don't think you can really compare the morality of doping from then to now. Society is much different.
btw, The Hitch, I am banishing you from the ACF Mafia!
- Jun 16, 2009
- 19,654
- 2
- 0
The Hitch said:Thats not me in the avatar
Earlier than that matey
That will teach me to not trust twitter. Still ptoves my point! 1450 BC - 1410 BC
hektoren said:
I'm not sure that was what Night Rider was saying. The sport could very well be cleaner, but fewer positives (is this actually the case?) is not a metric which can clearly be used on its own in such an assessment.
What I think he/she meant is that the statement "There are fewer positives therefore the spot must be cleaner" is a fallacy, which I'm sure someone as rational as yourself would agree with (that it's a false statement).
If we want to argue the point though, I'd like someone to explain to me how it is possible to get positive tests from microdosing EPO and its variants/substitutes, using hGH, and administering autologous blood transfusions.
Ferminal said:
Well, if he'd only have said that "The lower incidence of positive tests doesn’t necessarily mean that the sport is any cleaner", or "there's no 1:1 relationship between a lower incidence of positive tests and a cleaner sport", I wouldn't have objected. As he wrote it, however, it paints a picture that's far too gloomy.
As for your question, it is really three separate questions, and three different answers. Autologous blood-transfusions will, until a substitute for current blood-pouches is employed, show traces of plasticizers, and a WADA-approved test protocol for this is imminent. Microdosing EPO means there is a time-window for testing where the substance could be detected. You'd have a few hours, typically, which is why the idea of tests in the dead of night popped up. hGH shows up in both blood- and urine-samples, but it's mostly tested for on bloodsamples these days, and the tests are quite refined indeed. (Research for millions of euros.) The degree of refinement in a multitude of tests has increased quite radically, and the ability to detect the most minute quantities of illegal substances is very much improved through vastly improved labs. New equipment paints a more complete picture. It's like getting a new pair of binoculars with higher magnification. Details pop out that previously melted into the background. That's why I'd like to paint a somewhat less gloomy picture than some people in here. It is indeed possible that a lower incidence of positives could come about as a result of a cleaner peloton (when you take into consideration that the total number of tests are increased and you also strategically target certain individuals on the basis of intel and suspicious values in previous tests). Remember the success with testing for CERA as a result of cooperation with the pharma companies? You shouldn't be too surprised if that success is repeated with other substances. On an official level it's definitely in pharma's interest to be seen as "working with WADA".
Meh, I don't think we will see a sanction coming from plasticizers test or the hGH markers test (the only reasonable way to detect it) for some time.
I haven't actually heard any official word as to the hGH markers test being officially sanctioned by WADA and being legally defensible (but I knew they were trying to achieve this).
I haven't actually heard any official word as to the hGH markers test being officially sanctioned by WADA and being legally defensible (but I knew they were trying to achieve this).
Ferminal said:
Duh! There's been two uncontested sanctions as a result of positive out-of-competition immunoassay-tests for hGH in the autumn of 2010, one in the UK, one in Canada.
http://www.cces.ca/en/news-137-cces-announces-four-anti-doping-rule-violations
http://www.ukad.org.uk/news/newton-gets-two-years-for-world-first-hgh-finding
The biomarker-method is "close" to implementation, but definitely isn't the "only reasonable way for detection".
hektoren said:
Mmmm... I very much remember the UK League player, we had a thread here at the time (which I can't seem to find now..!)
There's no real way of telling how long and how frequent the immunoassay test has been applied in cycling (or any sport for that matter). We can only guess that a combination of high threshold and not a huge detection window make the test largely unsuccessful. Either that or hGH is just not that popular anymore.
Two AAFs in the past 12 months is hardly Earth shattering. I'm sure we had more AAFs for EPO in 2001-2002 when the test went mainstream. Even then, we know that the EPO test really only made athletes alter the dose, not give it up altogether.
The biomarkers test could also fail in the same way (high thresholds).
My view on it is that I don't count "less of the same substance being used" as a win for anti-doping efforts. Clean is using no prohibited substances/methods. So whilst these tests, and the biopassport, all with high thresholds may reduce the amount of drugs being taken, are they really making the sport clean(er).
I guess the hope is that with lots of "thresholds" keeping the range of doping "lower" then those who do not resort to doping may have more of a chance. Make the reward (performance gain) from doping so low that it isn't worth the financial costs.
Ferminal said:
Antidoping efforts is for the most part an evolutionary, incremental process, and the high thresholds you mention is in part a reflection of the problem one has setting standards that all accredited labs should be able to detect, in part a result of a consensus-policy driven process where a large group of scientists have to concur and be satisfied in order to make positives stick, legally. As more and more experience is gained and the lab equipment/testing procedures is refined you'll see lower thresholds. Eventually. The ability to retro-test on up to 8 year old samples is a boon, and valuable insight into the state of the art of doping is gained. Info from convicted dopers has also been valuable (diLuca, Landis etc.)
The EU will play an important and positive role in the antidoping efforts in the coming years, and I really do believe that Richie Porte was right. It is and will be a cleaner peloton. There's no need to paint an all-black picture.
Must be reminded though of the 1998 Festina Scandal after which professional Cycling hit an all time low. Subsequent to this. The general consensus amongst the fan's was that Professional Cycling was at last cleaning it's act up with new testing method's being introduced such as the test for EPO.
In 2010 cycling once again hit he headlines with the Floyd Landis allegation's and Alberto Contador's positive test for clenbuterol being the main points of focus.
The biological passport system is not full proof. And is not without it's flaws.
At this time no test exists for autologous blood transfusions. Although research is underway to introduce such a test for future testing amongst athletes. Will it work ?
In the past the dopers have alway's been one step ahead of the tester's.
New drug's are being introduced all the time by pharmaceutical company's for certain medical purposes.
With the amount of prize Money on offer now, the temptation for the athlete to dope is greater than ever.
Those who provide the drugs for doping stand to gain financially.
All these testing procedures and the introduction of new testing method's to keep up the the forever growing ways athletes discover and choose to dope is very time consuming and cost's alot of Money.
Doping practices in Professional Cycling is not as widespread as it once was.
But history has a habit of repeating itself.
Gene doping in the future could play a major role cheating amongst athletes.
New drugs will inevitably come along that cannot be detected.
In 2010 cycling once again hit he headlines with the Floyd Landis allegation's and Alberto Contador's positive test for clenbuterol being the main points of focus.
The biological passport system is not full proof. And is not without it's flaws.
At this time no test exists for autologous blood transfusions. Although research is underway to introduce such a test for future testing amongst athletes. Will it work ?
In the past the dopers have alway's been one step ahead of the tester's.
New drug's are being introduced all the time by pharmaceutical company's for certain medical purposes.
With the amount of prize Money on offer now, the temptation for the athlete to dope is greater than ever.
Those who provide the drugs for doping stand to gain financially.
All these testing procedures and the introduction of new testing method's to keep up the the forever growing ways athletes discover and choose to dope is very time consuming and cost's alot of Money.
Doping practices in Professional Cycling is not as widespread as it once was.
But history has a habit of repeating itself.
Gene doping in the future could play a major role cheating amongst athletes.
New drugs will inevitably come along that cannot be detected.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
Monte Zoncolon said:
These are good points and ive raised them before.
Does anyone know how long after the introduction of EPO into the peloton, the media and fans found out about it. Was it immediate or was it a few years later that they realised many cyclists were taking the drug?
Monte Zoncolon said:
A frequently cited theory among the more conspiracy-inclined lot is just that, a theory. Inevitably? Cannot be detected? Don't bet on it!
Personally, I'd rather try to invent a universal acid, able to dissolve all known chemical compounds, (even though finding a suitable container for it will be a beetch.)
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
hektoren said:
Conspiracy?
That there is dope in the peloton? that is a conspiracy theory?
Perhaps this can be of some assistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
Id like to think we have more evidence behind this than the illuminati idea, but ill let others judge.
The Hitch said:
It definately took a long time, it wasn't until '96/'97 until it became apparent how widespread EPO use was, and how effective it was. There were some riders complaining, some journalists doing their jobs, but it was mostly 'see no evil, hear no evil'. Kind of like soccer and tennis now, why ruin the sport you love by talk about doping.
But you have to keep in mind though that before the Tour of '98, most of the public didn't care about doping at all. The Festina debacle was the first time that doping abuse really started to influence the general audience (teams taken out of the Tour, people thrown in prison, riders revusing to start), that really has been the defining moment in public perception.
That's why I think a similar situation is unlikely to reappear. People want to know about doping now (of course, they don't want to know their compatriots are using anything
), just look at this forum. And if there is a demand for certain stories, there will always be a journalist or insider who will provide it.The Hitch said:Conspiracy?
That there is dope in the peloton? that is a conspiracy theory?
Perhaps this can be of some assistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
Id like to think we have more evidence behind this than the illuminati idea, but ill let others judge.
No, but "it's inevitable that a drug will come along that cannot be detected" is a theory that very well could have its origin in a "semi-literate 24-year-old-still-living-with-his-mum-spending-his-days-cooped-up-in-front-of-his-computer-finding-evidence-for-conspiracies" or from a semi literate journo' wanting to create headlines/sell papers.
Remember the "undetectable" drug AICAR or GW1516 that would "threaten the Beijing Olympics"? Well, it turns out to be detectable and there's a test for it. Back in 2003 the big story was that hGH was undetectable, well it isn't, and there are tests for it. Do a search for "undetectable drugs", and invariably you'll find that it is "undetectable now", but later there's developed a test for it, whether it's done through chromatographic, immunological or biochemical means. The latest scare was Myo-inositol-trispyrophosphate (ITPP). Wanna bet that there'll be a test for it?
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
Lanark said:It definately took a long time, it wasn't until '96/'97 until it became apparent how widespread EPO use was, and how effective it was. There were some riders complaining, some journalists doing their jobs, but it was mostly 'see no evil, hear no evil'. Kind of like soccer and tennis now, why ruin the sport you love by talk about doping.
But you have to keep in mind though that before the Tour of '98, most of the public didn't care about doping at all. The Festina debacle was the first time that doping abuse really started to influence the general audience (teams taken out of the Tour, people thrown in prison, riders revusing to start), that really has been the defining moment in public perception.
That's why I think a similar situation is unlikely to reappear. People want to know about doping now (of course, they don't want to know their compatriots are using anything
Well said. So it is possible that some cyclists are now on drugs that we the fans dont know much about. Or in the age of forums and blogs and 24 hour media crap, is that less likely.
I dont know myself, im wondering about the possibility that if it took years for epo to be discovered, maybe the next drug is being used right now.
Some say the next generation is gene doping. I have no idea how close or far they are to being able to do gene doping. Is it possible that theyve started? Usain Bolt per chance
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram