Basically Nomad doesn't know those are doping docs. Therefore Sagan has no ties to doping docs.
- Jun 13, 2016
- 447
- 1
- 0
Sagan is the best cyclist on a peloton dominated by dopers. That has to put him up there. He was also racing for tinkoff, ffs.
However, that's it. He isn't more suspicious than any other top rider.
Kokoso's irrational hatred comes only from the fact that Sagan is better on any single aspect of racing than wheelsuckers like Stybar. That's why you see these "facts" coming from his/her's keyboard.
However, that's it. He isn't more suspicious than any other top rider.
Kokoso's irrational hatred comes only from the fact that Sagan is better on any single aspect of racing than wheelsuckers like Stybar. That's why you see these "facts" coming from his/her's keyboard.
Agreed.
I would even say he's less suspicious than many other top riders.
But that's still a long friggin way from saying he's not suspicious.
I would even say he's less suspicious than many other top riders.
But that's still a long friggin way from saying he's not suspicious.
Re:
Also consider that Sagan has a VO2max of 83...that's getting up there with the best endurance athletes in the world. If LeMond has a natural VO2max of 92+ (I know you don't agree...I'm using this simply as an example), then why can't Sagan be an extremely naturally talented rider who wouldn't need PEDs in an era of the *ABP* and better drug controls? LeMond beat dopers right & left, so why can't Sagan? Lesser talented riders Sagan competes against might use whatever PEDs they can get away with in the ABP era. But it's all very *restricted* doping now anyway where the risk/benefit ratio, IMO, is changing more in favor of the testers. If this was the pre-ABP dope fest of the 90s & 00s, I would say no way could he "not" be using PEDs and being successful like he is.
Just a personal opinion; nothing more...nothing less. We'll agree to disagree.
Fine...go ahead and explain to me my deficiencies in evaluating the evidence. However, you haven't provided any significant evidence of proof of doping for Sagan, other than maybe he's a pro rider, rides fast and wins. And anyone can characterize any rider as being more/less suspicious to fit their belief or bias (i.e. "everyone" is doped). I'm speaking in terms of evidence.sniper said:
Also consider that Sagan has a VO2max of 83...that's getting up there with the best endurance athletes in the world. If LeMond has a natural VO2max of 92+ (I know you don't agree...I'm using this simply as an example), then why can't Sagan be an extremely naturally talented rider who wouldn't need PEDs in an era of the *ABP* and better drug controls? LeMond beat dopers right & left, so why can't Sagan? Lesser talented riders Sagan competes against might use whatever PEDs they can get away with in the ABP era. But it's all very *restricted* doping now anyway where the risk/benefit ratio, IMO, is changing more in favor of the testers. If this was the pre-ABP dope fest of the 90s & 00s, I would say no way could he "not" be using PEDs and being successful like he is.
Just a personal opinion; nothing more...nothing less. We'll agree to disagree.
Re:
Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the cleanest of them all?Benotti69 said:Sagan a doper, no way.
The sport was cleaned up after Armstrong!
Cookson came in and made big changes to clean up the sport.
Sagan is a unicorn, he is the son of Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny.
Re:
IMO, GT contenders are desperate with massive weight loss to improve performance as 02-vector doping has been significantly restricted with the ABP & improved drug controls. I think Sagan's just happy to get that big body of his over the high mountains of the Tour within the time limits.
All those guys could be most anyone using corticosteroids OOC where no TUE is even needed. Same with the Tramadol abuse which isn't prohibited at all. There's plenty of information that GC riders are using high doses of corticosteroids as part of their weight loss program (for one it's mentioned in the CIRC report). And that's exactly what we're seeing with some of the top contenders; massive weight loss and an anorexic look (did you see what Porte looked liked last year?). Can you imagine LA showing up at the Tour back in his day at 130lbs or so and looking like some of today's anorexic GT contenders. Lol.sniper said:
IMO, GT contenders are desperate with massive weight loss to improve performance as 02-vector doping has been significantly restricted with the ABP & improved drug controls. I think Sagan's just happy to get that big body of his over the high mountains of the Tour within the time limits.
- Jul 6, 2014
- 1,645
- 318
- 11,180
Re:
I can see your posts are driven by hatred against me coming from the fact that I am better than you on any single aspect of...whatever you can think of.
Edit do you actually have some answer to my "facts" or are you just spitting your hatred? So far it's quite clear
See MacBair, page 6 of this thread. Is that you MacBair or is that different MacBair?MacBAir said:
I can see your posts are driven by hatred against me coming from the fact that I am better than you on any single aspect of...whatever you can think of.
Edit do you actually have some answer to my "facts" or are you just spitting your hatred? So far it's quite clear
@kokoso
maybe one aspect you are not good :geek: is to verify which members are suspended, so wait until december 8th for an answer from MacBair.
maybe one aspect you are not good :geek: is to verify which members are suspended, so wait until december 8th for an answer from MacBair.
Many people said that Ullrich was the greatest natural talent of the Armstrong era.........maybe but he was still doping. If Sagan is a doper then at least he is an entertaining one.
Re:
for sure
but I wonder how people dont understand that he´s as protected as Froome (actuall I think people do understand, but the guy has such a strong personality and marketing power, so people dont want to understand....)
instead there´s endless wailing about the Dawg, while Sagan strolls to his wins
at least, if people claim riders are protected by the Uci, slam them both, cause they are both getting a special treatment from the Uci.
movingtarget said:
for sure
but I wonder how people dont understand that he´s as protected as Froome (actuall I think people do understand, but the guy has such a strong personality and marketing power, so people dont want to understand....)
instead there´s endless wailing about the Dawg, while Sagan strolls to his wins
at least, if people claim riders are protected by the Uci, slam them both, cause they are both getting a special treatment from the Uci.
Re:
On Sagan: I agree...he's very entertaining. I think it's possible he could be clean, as well as other single-day racers and sprinters with the more improved drug controls that have been implemented in the latter part of the ABP era. OTOH, it's been pointed out by veteran Clinic posters that it's unlikely that he's clean, but is not any more supicious than anyone else. Throwing out the "hard evidence" criteria (positive drug test/passport violation/scandal...which doesn't seem to occur with anyone anymore), I just don't see anything that screams of doping, other than riding fast and winning. Some here have said LeMond was an outlier and won clean. So, why can't other outliers come around from time to time. They don't all have to be GC contenders, do they?
I've heard that before about Ullrich. However, I think there's insufficient evidence to support such a claim. He's a career doper...so how could anyone ever begin to determine how naturally talented he was? He finishes 2nd by less than 2 mins to high-octane Riis at 22 yoa in the 96 Tour, and then comes back to win it all the next year at 23. Team organized doping at Telekom starting in the mid-90s...no surprises there. If he, as well as the rest of the field in 97, were clean...would he have won? We simply don't know since a lot of these guys were never clean to begin with. He may have had a low baseline Hct and been a good responder to EPO like LA & Pantani...he did very well in the 50% Hct era like those two.movingtarget said:
On Sagan: I agree...he's very entertaining. I think it's possible he could be clean, as well as other single-day racers and sprinters with the more improved drug controls that have been implemented in the latter part of the ABP era. OTOH, it's been pointed out by veteran Clinic posters that it's unlikely that he's clean, but is not any more supicious than anyone else. Throwing out the "hard evidence" criteria (positive drug test/passport violation/scandal...which doesn't seem to occur with anyone anymore), I just don't see anything that screams of doping, other than riding fast and winning. Some here have said LeMond was an outlier and won clean. So, why can't other outliers come around from time to time. They don't all have to be GC contenders, do they?
Nomad, whilst you may have shown that there have been some improvements in the area of antidoping *research*,
you haven't come anywhere remotely close to showing that "more improved drug controls (...) have been implemented in the latter part of the ABP era". That's really just a fiction of your imagination. If you are not living under a rock, you should know that antidoping (as carried out by WADA, UCI, IAAF, and different ADAs) at present is going through its worst PR crisis ever. More and more people don't trust it anymore and for good friggin reasons.
Also, the minimal improvements in antidoping research that you keep pointing out are almost certainly overshadowed by simultaneous improvements in doping and masking methods. That's a simple financial equation. There is much more money to be made in doping than in antidoping.
you haven't come anywhere remotely close to showing that "more improved drug controls (...) have been implemented in the latter part of the ABP era". That's really just a fiction of your imagination. If you are not living under a rock, you should know that antidoping (as carried out by WADA, UCI, IAAF, and different ADAs) at present is going through its worst PR crisis ever. More and more people don't trust it anymore and for good friggin reasons.
Also, the minimal improvements in antidoping research that you keep pointing out are almost certainly overshadowed by simultaneous improvements in doping and masking methods. That's a simple financial equation. There is much more money to be made in doping than in antidoping.
Re: Re:
So how is Sagan a "protected" rider? What "special trestment" is Sagan supposedly getting? Do you have any evidence for that or just an assumption? If he wasn't winning as often as he is, then he wouldn't be a protected rider? Is it only certain riders that the UCI deem favorable that get this special "protection" status. If that’s the case, that must explain why a guy like TJV is so lousy these days. Lol.pastronef said:
Re: Re:
It's an assumption based on historical and comparative evidence from procycling and other topsport. The sports milk cows are usually protected. For good reasons.Nomad said:
Re:
I'm not suggesting that these improved drug testing methods have stopped doping in anyway. But surely they must have some impact and may act as a deterrent for some riders. And to my other point, if an outlier were come around why couldn't they be successful without doping. Again, if LeMond fits that example, then why not Sagan?
The WADA corruption and all that...I don’t follow you. Maybe it's just a cycling thing. For example, with T&F and distance running that I'm more familiar with, I don't see any of that happening. For example, there's been *41* doping positives with the Kenyans in the last several years. If WADA's so corrupt, why didn't they just ignore these positives? The Kenyans, who are presently "not" part of the ABP, seem to be an IOC favorite as they were allowed to compete at Rio while banning those "dreaded" Russians. Why not complete the picture and ignore all those 41 positives, since as you say more money is to be made in doping? Also, Russian runners lead the World in passport sanctions (28) from the 800m up to the marathon. Some of the passport sanctions covered the time periods where Olympic and World Championship medals were won and course records were set. Why not ignore those passport anomalies if more money is to be made in doping?
So, if you keep postulating on how corrupt WADA and anti-doping is, they better quit finding Kenyans positive for dope and Russians blowing their passports off the charts...it doesn't look good for their reputation. Lol.
What? I've posted scientific literature on the new steriodal and endocrine modules of the ABP that was implemented in 2014, the improved sensitivity for the testing of microdosing EPO, and the new detection technology for the HIFs (e.g., FG4592). Have you read the literature on any of these?sniper said:
I'm not suggesting that these improved drug testing methods have stopped doping in anyway. But surely they must have some impact and may act as a deterrent for some riders. And to my other point, if an outlier were come around why couldn't they be successful without doping. Again, if LeMond fits that example, then why not Sagan?
The WADA corruption and all that...I don’t follow you. Maybe it's just a cycling thing. For example, with T&F and distance running that I'm more familiar with, I don't see any of that happening. For example, there's been *41* doping positives with the Kenyans in the last several years. If WADA's so corrupt, why didn't they just ignore these positives? The Kenyans, who are presently "not" part of the ABP, seem to be an IOC favorite as they were allowed to compete at Rio while banning those "dreaded" Russians. Why not complete the picture and ignore all those 41 positives, since as you say more money is to be made in doping? Also, Russian runners lead the World in passport sanctions (28) from the 800m up to the marathon. Some of the passport sanctions covered the time periods where Olympic and World Championship medals were won and course records were set. Why not ignore those passport anomalies if more money is to be made in doping?
So, if you keep postulating on how corrupt WADA and anti-doping is, they better quit finding Kenyans positive for dope and Russians blowing their passports off the charts...it doesn't look good for their reputation. Lol.
Re: Re:
Again though, you haven't come anywhere close to showing that the implementation of those findings into the actual antidoping testing has similarly improved. And again, whilst some of those antidoping improvements may be there, you have to take into account the likelihood that actual doping and masking methods are improving at a much higher pace.
Your Lemond argument, no matter how often you repeat it, is circular.
We don't know if Lemond was clean. You don't, I don't. Simples.
The rest of your post is a rather black and white portrayel of the antidoping industry.
It's not that simple. There are things playing in the background. Investigations. Funding issues, etc. You should really read up.
Those Kenyan positives don't change the overall well-known, and widely acknowledged, tendency for sports governing bodies to protect the cash cows.
There are always exceptions (Contador, Floyd, Marion Jones, and a few others), but those merely prove the rule. And for those exceptions there are often particular explanations (Contador came to light through a leak prompted by Seppelt; Floyd was possibly a set up by Lance/Verbruggen to *** over ASO; Marion Jones was caught up in the Balco investigation, etc.).
I've already acknowledged the scientific literature you've posted.Nomad said:What? I've posted scientific literature on the new steriodal and endocrine modules of the ABP that was implemented in 2014, the improved sensitivity for the testing of microdosing EPO, and the new detection technology for the HIFs (e.g., FG4592). Have you read the literature on any of these?sniper said:
I'm not suggesting that these improved drug testing methods have stopped doping in anyway. But surely they must have some impact and may act as a deterrent for some riders. And to my other point, if an outlier were come around why couldn't they be successful without doping. Again, if LeMond fits that example, then why not Sagan?
The WADA corruption and all that...I don’t follow you. Maybe it's just a cycling thing. For example, with T&F and distance running that I'm more familiar with, I don't see any of that happening. For example, there's been *41* doping positives with the Kenyans in the last several years. If WADA's so corrupt, why didn't they just ignore these positives? The Kenyans, who are presently "not" part of the ABP, seem to be an IOC favorite as they were allowed to compete at Rio while banning those "dreaded" Russians. Why not complete the picture and ignore all those 41 positives, since as you say more money is to be made in doping? Also, Russian runners lead the World in passport sanctions (28) from the 800m up to the marathon. Some of the passport sanctions covered the time periods where Olympic and World Championship medals were won and course records were set. Why not ignore those passport anomalies if more money is to be made in doping?
So, if you keep postulating on how corrupt WADA and anti-doping is, they better quit finding Kenyans positive for dope and Russians blowing their passports off the charts...it doesn't look good for their reputation. Lol.
Again though, you haven't come anywhere close to showing that the implementation of those findings into the actual antidoping testing has similarly improved. And again, whilst some of those antidoping improvements may be there, you have to take into account the likelihood that actual doping and masking methods are improving at a much higher pace.
Your Lemond argument, no matter how often you repeat it, is circular.
We don't know if Lemond was clean. You don't, I don't. Simples.
The rest of your post is a rather black and white portrayel of the antidoping industry.
It's not that simple. There are things playing in the background. Investigations. Funding issues, etc. You should really read up.
Those Kenyan positives don't change the overall well-known, and widely acknowledged, tendency for sports governing bodies to protect the cash cows.
There are always exceptions (Contador, Floyd, Marion Jones, and a few others), but those merely prove the rule. And for those exceptions there are often particular explanations (Contador came to light through a leak prompted by Seppelt; Floyd was possibly a set up by Lance/Verbruggen to *** over ASO; Marion Jones was caught up in the Balco investigation, etc.).
Re: Re:
Secondly, those Kenyan positives are meaningful and I think, undermine, the WADA corruption conspiracy theories. *41* positives for everything from EPO to steriods to masking agents. Same with the Russians - you know how hard it is to put together a passport case against an athlete, and you have *28* against their runners over the last several years. No other country even comes close (Morocco with 10 and Turkey with 9). So where's all the undetectable stuff with these athletes? Why doesn't WADA ignore these positives and passport anomalies? Maybe WADA is doing their job and catching the Kenyans who think they can outsmart the system. And with the Russians, I would guess they weren't getting the benefits they wanted with just maintaining a stable passport and decided to go full throttle beyond the parameters and got caught. I think it's commendable of WADA for taking action in these cases. Otherwise, it looks real bad that an agency embroiled in conspiracy to "not" catch dopers is actually "catching" dopers.
And keep in mind the ABP can be effective. The Kenyans & Ethiopians are not part of it (no WADA-accredited labs in the area to conduct the blood tests), and notice how they're the ones setting all the Olympic and World records...no surprises there.
Your first paragraph makes no sense. How do you know those improvement methods into antidoping haven't had an effect as a deterrent? Just because athletes aren't testing positive doesn't mean they've all found a way to beat the tests. I do agree that's one possibility - assuming "everyone" has the resources and right contacts. But in the absence of positives, it can also suggest that antidoping measures can deter. For example, how do you know that the Danielson positive under the new steriodal module didn't get the attention of other riders to where it acted as a deterrent for some riders in their decision to experiment with androgens? (i.e. not worth the risk of a 4 yr whack and disgrace for such a small potential benefit).sniper said:I've already acknowledged the scientific literature you've posted.Nomad said:What? I've posted scientific literature on the new steriodal and endocrine modules of the ABP that was implemented in 2014, the improved sensitivity for the testing of microdosing EPO, and the new detection technology for the HIFs (e.g., FG4592). Have you read the literature on any of these?sniper said:
I'm not suggesting that these improved drug testing methods have stopped doping in anyway. But surely they must have some impact and may act as a deterrent for some riders. And to my other point, if an outlier were come around why couldn't they be successful without doping. Again, if LeMond fits that example, then why not Sagan?
The WADA corruption and all that...I don’t follow you. Maybe it's just a cycling thing. For example, with T&F and distance running that I'm more familiar with, I don't see any of that happening. For example, there's been *41* doping positives with the Kenyans in the last several years. If WADA's so corrupt, why didn't they just ignore these positives? The Kenyans, who are presently "not" part of the ABP, seem to be an IOC favorite as they were allowed to compete at Rio while banning those "dreaded" Russians. Why not complete the picture and ignore all those 41 positives, since as you say more money is to be made in doping? Also, Russian runners lead the World in passport sanctions (28) from the 800m up to the marathon. Some of the passport sanctions covered the time periods where Olympic and World Championship medals were won and course records were set. Why not ignore those passport anomalies if more money is to be made in doping?
So, if you keep postulating on how corrupt WADA and anti-doping is, they better quit finding Kenyans positive for dope and Russians blowing their passports off the charts...it doesn't look good for their reputation. Lol.
Again though, you haven't come anywhere close to showing that the implementation of those findings into the actual antidoping testing has similarly improved. And again, whilst some of those antidoping improvements may be there, you have to take into account the likelihood that actual doping and masking methods are improving at a much higher pace.
Your Lemond argument, no matter how often you repeat it, is circular.
We don't know if Lemond was clean. You don't, I don't. Simples.
The rest of your post is a rather poor attempt to paint the whole industry with a black and white brush.
It's not that simple. There are things playing in the background. Investigations. Funding issues, etc. You should really read up.
Those Kenyan positives don't change the overall well-known, and widely acknowledged, tendency for sports governing bodies to protect the cash cows.
There are always exceptions (Contador, Floyd, Marion Jones, and a few others), but those merely prove the rule. And for those exceptions there are often particular explanations (Contador came to light through a leak prompted by Seppelt; Floyd was possibly a set up by Lance/Verbruggen to **** over ASO; Marion Jones was caught up in the Balco investigation, etc.).
Secondly, those Kenyan positives are meaningful and I think, undermine, the WADA corruption conspiracy theories. *41* positives for everything from EPO to steriods to masking agents. Same with the Russians - you know how hard it is to put together a passport case against an athlete, and you have *28* against their runners over the last several years. No other country even comes close (Morocco with 10 and Turkey with 9). So where's all the undetectable stuff with these athletes? Why doesn't WADA ignore these positives and passport anomalies? Maybe WADA is doing their job and catching the Kenyans who think they can outsmart the system. And with the Russians, I would guess they weren't getting the benefits they wanted with just maintaining a stable passport and decided to go full throttle beyond the parameters and got caught. I think it's commendable of WADA for taking action in these cases. Otherwise, it looks real bad that an agency embroiled in conspiracy to "not" catch dopers is actually "catching" dopers.
And keep in mind the ABP can be effective. The Kenyans & Ethiopians are not part of it (no WADA-accredited labs in the area to conduct the blood tests), and notice how they're the ones setting all the Olympic and World records...no surprises there.
Re: Re:
Sniper answered for me
wow Snipy, it´s the 2nd time this week we agree about something
sniper said:
Sniper answered for me
wow Snipy, it´s the 2nd time this week we agree about something
Re: Re:
I know that Armstrong always had good things to say about Ullrich maybe because he kept beating him ! And of course the natural talent comments are impossible to prove as Ullrich went through the East German system as you refer to it as an amateur and many other great riders came out of the Soviet programs and of course it was like the Wild West at that time as riders from all over were doping and that probably hasn't changed. Armstrong must have known that Ullrich was doping or assumed he was so the natural talent comments were curious and Armstrong always asserted that most riders were doping, whether he is being honest or whether that is just to get some sympathy who would know with such a character. And of course others within the pro ranks said the same thing about Ullrich. The only other reason for Armstrong saying such a thing is that he thought Ullrich was clean which is even more unbelievable.
Nomad said:
I know that Armstrong always had good things to say about Ullrich maybe because he kept beating him ! And of course the natural talent comments are impossible to prove as Ullrich went through the East German system as you refer to it as an amateur and many other great riders came out of the Soviet programs and of course it was like the Wild West at that time as riders from all over were doping and that probably hasn't changed. Armstrong must have known that Ullrich was doping or assumed he was so the natural talent comments were curious and Armstrong always asserted that most riders were doping, whether he is being honest or whether that is just to get some sympathy who would know with such a character. And of course others within the pro ranks said the same thing about Ullrich. The only other reason for Armstrong saying such a thing is that he thought Ullrich was clean which is even more unbelievable.
- Mar 20, 2009
- 387
- 5
- 9,285
sniper said:
check out this new proof...
https://www.facebook.com/PeterSagan...69505964466/10154719856904467/?type=3&theater
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram