Santambrogio tests positive for EPO

[frenchfry]

yeah apparently if you have puffy cheeks you're a doper, but also if you are as thin as a rake then you're also doping.

So when you take the dope that causes puffy cheeks and combine it with the dope that helps you lose weight, the effects cancel each other out and thus if you appear normal looking on the "looks like quacks like" anti-doping test, you are a doper.

Since all cyclists are either thin, or normal looking, or have puffy cheeks this means that everyone is still doping and nothing has changed. And since Lance never tested positive you can't actually catch anyone with the test, therefore, it's sole purpose is to promote interweb mass debate.

You have summed up the situation perfectly.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Since all cyclists are either thin, or normal looking, or have puffy cheeks this means that everyone is still doping and nothing has changed. And since Lance never tested positive you can't actually catch anyone with the test, therefore, it's sole purpose is to promote interweb mass debate.

Let's take your tactic the opposite direction. There is no "proof" so riders are not doping. Your position advocates no discussion of doping baring an AAF. And, then we're supposed to check with you to see what can/cannot be discussed.

All of which breaks down to simple denial because we know historically doping is/was rife in pro cycling. There is no choice but to disregard your comment as it does not approximate what's actually happening in pro cycling.

The real intent is to marginalize/shame anyone who participates in the discussion. I'm not sure why you are so invested in shutting down discussion, but, it's pretty obvious that's your goal with the above comment.

We are supposed to pretend skinny isn't happening like these two photos. http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/50324725645/the-rail-thin-phonak-rider-started-the-vueltas

Okay Krebs, cleanest peloton ever.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Let's take your tactic the opposite direction. There is no "proof" so riders are not doping.

DW you make some good quality posts so I'm confused as to why you continually make such illogical replies to what I post in this forum?

I NEVER said that lack of "proof" of doping = no doping. YOU said that, not me. What you wrote above makes no sense whatsoever.

Okay Krebs, cleanest peloton ever.

I NEVER said this either.

Get it? Never. Nada.

What I have been saying for the last 12 months is a matter of clear cut historical fact, in the past 2yrs there has been a general upwards trend, ie: slower ascent times on major climbs. For example, for 2yrs now, Contador has been unable to replicate the level of performance he experienced from 2007-2009. He simply cannot climb mountains as fast now as he could back then. Prior to 2007, numerous dopers could climb that fast (or almost), but now, nobody can get within minutes.

There are only three possible reasons for this, 1) the world's best cyclists are not making the same performance gains from doping as previously, 2) the world's best cyclists forgot how to train properly, or 3) doping hasn't changed, but after about 1977 or so there was a worldwide bad batch of genetics, so nobody was born with the potential to go as fast as Pantani or Armstrong or Contador (2007-2009) even though they are juiced to the eyeballs.

IMO, reasons 2 and 3 are highly unlikely.

What I have also been pointing out is that many people within the anti-doping community have been saying that it is much more difficult to achieve the same performance gains now compared with up to and including 2009, maybe even 2010. I have contacts that work for professional cycling teams and one that sits on the UCI blood doping panel. They believe that change is occurring. Nobody ever said cycling was clean. I never said that cycling was clean.

I'm going to categorically state for the record that cycling will NEVER be clean. I'm happy though that it is beginning to enter an era in which we no longer see huge gains from doping as were commonplace in the past. This opens the window of opportunity for the best clean riders to be successful. It also means the days when we could simply watch TV and know that whoever was winning the TdF must be doping are over. This is the #1 problem that many in this forum have. You still seem to think it is 2003.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Funny how Krebs "do you have their power meter files" Cycle suddenly claims Contador's performance has dropped, yet can't produce any said power files.

Funny how slight drops in performance for some cyclists produce miraculous increases in performance in others.

Looking at you, Bradley Wiggins.

First Krebs sarastically says everyone is doping. By implication, noone, or very few are.

Then changes his tune - doesn't know how many are but the benefit is not as great.

Way to completely mess up your argument, Krebs.

 

[Ripper]

We are supposed to pretend skinny isn't happening like these two photos. http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/50324725645/the-rail-thin-phonak-rider-started-the-vueltas

I've never understood why those two photos are together?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Funny how Krebs "do you have their power meter files" Cycle suddenly claims Contador's performance has dropped, yet can't produce any said power files.

Funny how slight drops in performance for some cyclists produce miraculous increases in performance in others.

Looking at you, Bradley Wiggins.

First Krebs sarastically says everyone is doping. By implication, noone, or very few are.

Then changes his tune - doesn't know how many are but the benefit is not as great.

Way to completely mess up your argument, Krebs.

Oh look its one of those "I'm just here to win the internet" posts.

How original.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Oh look its one of those "I'm just here to win the internet" posts.

How original.

Dude you can't even keep your story straight. Don't strawman it with a personal attack.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Dude you can't even keep your story straight. Don't strawman it with a personal attack.

Just like DW, you've got no argument so you play the victim card. Every time I post in this forum I do so with the intent of stimulating proper and decent discussion of the facts, but without fail, you and others come along and derail the discussion with idiotic troll rubbish almost every time. It is childish and stupid.

My argument has never changed. It has always been the same. The fastest ascent times up major climbs are minutes slower compared to the 90s and early 2000s. There is a clear trend occurring here and it is a plain and simple fact.

1 37' 35" Marco Pantani 1997
2* 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004
3 38' 00" Marco Pantani 1994
4 38' 01" Lance Armstrong 2001
5 38' 04" Marco Pantani 1995
6 38' 23" Jan Ullrich 1997
7 38' 34" Floyd Landis 2006
8 38' 35" Andreas Klöden 2006
9* 38' 37" Jan Ullrich 2004
10 39' 02" Richard Virenque 1997
11 39' 06" Iban Mayo 2003
12* 39' 17" Andreas Klöden 2004
13* 39' 21" Jose Azevedo 2004
14 39' 28" Miguel Induráin 1995
15 39' 28" Alex Zülle 1995
16 39' 30" Bjarne Riis 1995
17 39' 31" Carlos Sastre 2008
18 39' 44" Gianni Bugno 1991
19 39' 45" Miguel Induráin 1991
20 40' 00" Jan Ullrich 2001
21 40' 46" Fränk Schleck 2006
22 40' 51" Alexander Vinokourov 2003
23 41' 18" Lance Armstrong 2003
24 41' 21" Samuel Sánchez 2011
25 41' 30" Alberto Contador 2011
26 41' 46" Cadel Evans 2008
27 41' 50" Laurent Fignon 1989
28 41' 50" Luis Herrera 1987
29 41' 57" Pierre Rolland 2011
30 42' 15" Pedro Delgado 1989
31 43' 12" Ryder Hesjedal 2011
32 43' 12" Thomas Danielson 2011
33 45' 20" Gert-Jan Theunisse 1989
34 45' 22" Fausto Coppi 1952
35 48' 00" Bernard Hinault 1986
36 48' 00" Greg LeMond 1986

There are 13 names on that list who went under 40mins. Several of those never won a GT. Azevedo's best result was 5th, but nowadays even GT winners can't get within 2 minutes of his time. I'm not the one who looks at a single rider in isolation and cherry picks one result here or there to fit the numbers to some preconceived bias.

I don't know what to make of Sastre's time in 2008 except this, either he was doping, we are underestimating what a clean rider is capable of, or we are overestimating the effects of PEDs on maximal hill climbing performance. No matter what, the trend is still there.

 

[notrolfsorensen]

(...)

1 37' 35" Marco Pantani 1997
2* 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004
3 38' 00" Marco Pantani 1994
4 38' 01" Lance Armstrong 2001
5 38' 04" Marco Pantani 1995
6 38' 23" Jan Ullrich 1997
7 38' 34" Floyd Landis 2006
8 38' 35" Andreas Klöden 2006
9* 38' 37" Jan Ullrich 2004
10 39' 02" Richard Virenque 1997
11 39' 06" Iban Mayo 2003
12* 39' 17" Andreas Klöden 2004
13* 39' 21" Jose Azevedo 2004
14 39' 28" Miguel Induráin 1995
15 39' 28" Alex Zülle 1995
16 39' 30" Bjarne Riis 1995
17 39' 31" Carlos Sastre 2008
18 39' 44" Gianni Bugno 1991
19 39' 45" Miguel Induráin 1991
20 40' 00" Jan Ullrich 2001
21 40' 46" Fränk Schleck 2006
22 40' 51" Alexander Vinokourov 2003
23 41' 18" Lance Armstrong 2003
24 41' 21" Samuel Sánchez 2011
25 41' 30" Alberto Contador 2011
26 41' 46" Cadel Evans 2008
27 41' 50" Laurent Fignon 1989
28 41' 50" Luis Herrera 1987
29 41' 57" Pierre Rolland 2011
30 42' 15" Pedro Delgado 1989
31 43' 12" Ryder Hesjedal 2011
32 43' 12" Thomas Danielson 2011
33 45' 20" Gert-Jan Theunisse 1989
34 45' 22" Fausto Coppi 1952
35 48' 00" Bernard Hinault 1986
36 48' 00" Greg LeMond 1986

This list is not correct. In fact all of the 2011 guys a way further down the list - like something around 150th best time ever. So your list is incorrect - but that does not devalue your argument. In fact it only gets stronger by that. Noval, for instance is only 7 secs slower than Contador in 2005 or 4 or whenever it was. If you follow @ammattipyoraily on twitter you can find the top 200. Contador's time in 2011 was actually pretty close to Lemond's best, so maybe we are seeing a a cleaner (if such a thing exists) peleton. The problem with such a list is that in does not tell you anything. It only tells you that Pantani and Armstrong went up real fast, but you cannot draw other conclusions than the peleton is marginally slower today. And I mean marginally. We still see records on other mountains compared to the 90's. Doesn't Wiggo have the record on Col d'Eze? With Porte in second. You cannot say anything definitive anyway. Does that mean that the peloton are going faster now? No it means that Wiggins was going faster that day.

 

[Eshnar]

Noval, for instance is only 7 secs slower than Contador in 2005 or 4 or whenever it was. If you follow @ammattipyoraily on twitter you can find the top 200. Contador's time in 2011 was actually pretty close to Lemond's best, so maybe we are seeing a a cleaner (if such a thing exists) peleton.

ofc the fact that Contador that day was attacking from the Telegraphe can't possibly matter

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Every time I post in this forum I do so with the intent of stimulating proper and decent discussion of the facts, but without fail, you and others come along and derail the discussion with idiotic troll rubbish almost every time. It is childish and stupid.

uh huh...

yeah apparently if you have puffy cheeks you're a doper, but also if you are as thin as a rake then you're also doping.

So when you take the dope that causes puffy cheeks and combine it with the dope that helps you lose weight, the effects cancel each other out and thus if you appear normal looking on the "looks like quacks like" anti-doping test, you are a doper.

Since all cyclists are either thin, or normal looking, or have puffy cheeks this means that everyone is still doping and nothing has changed. And since Lance never tested positive you can't actually catch anyone with the test, therefore, it's sole purpose is to promote interweb mass debate.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

My argument has never changed. It has always been the same. The fastest ascent times up major climbs are minutes slower compared to the 90s and early 2000s. There is a clear trend occurring here and it is a plain and simple fact.

1 37' 35" Marco Pantani 1997

28 41' 50" Luis Herrera 1987
29 41' 57" Pierre Rolland 2011
30 42' 15" Pedro Delgado 1989
31 43' 12" Ryder Hesjedal 2011
32 43' 12" Thomas Danielson 2011
33 45' 20" Gert-Jan Theunisse 1989
34 45' 22" Fausto Coppi 1952
35 48' 00" Bernard Hinault 1986
36 48' 00" Greg LeMond 1986

Did you ask Robin Parisotto for these times or did you just use Wikipedia?

Wikiscience.

Do note the Herrera time. Put that into context next time you tell us the peloton is so much slower now. Your countryman Cadel did a 40 minute 15 in 2006, how does that relate to Herrera?

Must have been the heavier bike. Yep, those solid 2.7kg heavier Vitus bikes of Herrera made the difference. Ever seen him ride Krebs? It is even rumoured Lucho used also a carbon frame in those days, so, the weight of the bike could even be comparable.

But hey, what the hell do others know.

 

[del1962]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-santambrogio-could-be-cleared-of-doping

B sample not tested yet?

 

[ToreBear]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-santambrogio-could-be-cleared-of-doping

B sample not tested yet?

I think there are some new procedures or something, so I would'nt be to worried just yet. When something is new everyone is confused because someone up the chain of information didn't realize something is different and that pollutes the whole chain of information due to someone making a wrong assumption.

 

[IndianCyclist]

If Santa walks it will be the pits.

 

[thehog]

If Santa walks it will be the pits.

No it would be good.

He needs to come back and do a Cobo. Take Porte in the Giro next year.

Seriously that would actually be more believable than what we've seen this year.

 

[doperhopper]

the moral: microdosing officially "allowed" (by being indetectable like autologous bloodboost and plenty of other orange juice varieties)

 

[IndianCyclist]

On second thought, this the rule of Emperor McQuaid. So any rat stupid enough to get caught is drawn, quartered and usually hung out to dry.

 

[BroDeal]

the moral: microdosing officially "allowed" (by being indetectable like autologous bloodboost and plenty of other orange juice varieties)

The moral is that when the UCI does not get the result it wants from a test then it tests the sample again until it gets the desired result.

 

[Benotti69]

The moral is that when the UCI does not get the result it wants from a test then it tests the sample again until it gets the desired result.

This


10chara...

 

[JimmyFingers]

The circus rolls on and the clown is still in charge

 

[del1962]

The circus rolls on and the clown is still in charge

Hopefully that will change at the worlds

 

[roundabout]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-santambrogio-could-be-cleared-of-doping

B sample not tested yet?

cyclingpro.it now says that the B sample is positive as well

 

[gooner]

mauro santambrogio ‏@maurosanta84 2h
@evicennati nn c'è la faccio più

mauro santambrogio ‏@maurosanta84 3h
Addio mondo

This seems to be hitting him hard. Hope things are OK for him.

 

[JRTinMA]

This seems to be hitting him hard. Hope things are OK for him.

Goodbye world as his first tweet in months. Not good.