Sergio Henao

[Don't be late Pedro]

Benotti, there has to be a good reason for you believing that 99.9% of the riders dope? That seems to be much exaggerated. Based on what?

That probably works out to about half of one rider being clean in the WT peloton.

 

[Benotti69]

Benotti, there has to be a good reason for you believing that 99.9% of the riders dope? That seems to be much exaggerated. Based on what? Basically all the busts and scandals that we have heard have almost certainly catched riders that matter in the GC of races. But that leaves a lot of room for the rest of the riders, don't you think?

The sport has no time for morality, it never did.

Why would a team hire a rider who was not going to get with the program when they can get 10 guys who will and maybe find out they have a Froome?

Anti doping is a joke. Those enablers of doping are still running the teams, from DS, Docs, Soignuers, mechanics and winning has never been seen as so important. Cookson has shown no moves to make dope testing a well funded independent entity. Bans have not increased. Plenty of logic there to show that in cycling plus ca change.

The idea that only GC riders dope again makes no sense. Teams need doms to be able to do the work and while they might not be on the same programs as GC riders they need to be able to do their work every day.

 

[Catwhoorg]

That probably works out to about half of one rider being clean in the WT peloton.

18 teams
max of 24 riders/team
Max 432

So 0.432 of a clean rider.

Half wasn't a bad estimate.

Phinney is generally acknowledged as clean, so that's a max of 99.7% doping

 

[Benotti69]

18 teams
max of 24 riders/team
Max 432

So 0.432 of a clean rider.

Half wasn't a bad estimate.

Phinney is generally acknowledged as clean, so that's a max of 99.7% doping

Phinney trains/ed with Allen Lim in Colorado. Not a ringing endorsement.

 

[Netserk]

18 teams
max of 24 riders/team
Max 432

So 0.432 of a clean rider.

Half wasn't a bad estimate.

Phinney is generally acknowledged as clean, so that's a max of 99.7% doping

Max of 28 riders plus two neo-pros.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Max of 28 riders plus two neo-pros.

Aw crap

540 riders then

so 0.54 of a rider

Maybe with Phinney its only 99.8% clean then.

 

[Benotti69]

Aw crap

540 riders then

so 0.54 of a rider

Maybe with Phinney its only 99.8% clean then.

Good to see you are getting closer to the 99.9% i allegedly spout.....

 

[froooome]

If almost every rider dopes, what's the problem? It would be a bigger problem if it was possible only for a few riders.

 

[Benotti69]

If almost every rider dopes, what's the problem? It would be a bigger problem if it was possible only for a few riders.

If it is not a problem for you then move along nothing to see here..

 

[Catwhoorg]

Good to see you are getting closer to the 99.9% i allegedly spout.....

Yeah, but I don't think its only Phinney that's not doping.

 

[gospina]

If almost every rider dopes, what's the problem? It would be a bigger problem if it was possible only for a few riders.

The problem would be that some people benefit a lot more from doping than others, although I think you already knew that.

 

[gospina]

Yeah, but I don't think its only Phinney that's not doping.

I think that both of you are playing too much with numbers. Let's assume Phinney doesn't dope. Let's assume that Nairo doesn't dope. Therefore, to meet your numbers, someone must dope 2x more than others to make the numbers match. I nominate Betancur, since he is twice the size of most Colombians now. There are other big guys out there that must be at least 1.5 dopers. Take 10 of those, we get 5 more guys that aren't dopers but statistically stay within your 99% threshold.
We have Phinney
We have Nairo
Arredondo is my next vote since he bonked heavily a few times and almost couldn't make it, had to zigzag, when he won his stage.
Number 4 would be Andy Shleck. By Clinic rules, you are good when you dope, you suck when you don't. Andy Shleck sucks, therefore, he doesn't dope.
Cadel Evans bonked heavily the last 2 Giros. One would argue that you don't have to dope to do good in the Tour down under.
That's 5 guys.
Any more nominations for super-dopers? any more nominations for clean riders?

 

[Benotti69]

I think that both of you are playing too much with numbers. Let's assume Phinney doesn't dope. Let's assume that Nairo doesn't dope. Therefore, to meet your numbers, someone must dope 2x more than others to make the numbers match. I nominate Betancur, since he is twice the size of most Colombians now. There are other big guys out there that must be at least 1.5 dopers. Take 10 of those, we get 5 more guys that aren't dopers but statistically stay within your 99% threshold.
We have Phinney
We have Nairo
Arredondo is my next vote since he bonked heavily a few times and almost couldn't make it, had to zigzag, when he won his stage.
Number 4 would be Andy Shleck. By Clinic rules, you are good when you dope, you suck when you don't. Andy Shleck sucks, therefore, he doesn't dope.
Cadel Evans bonked heavily the last 2 Giros. One would argue that you don't have to dope to do good in the Tour down under.
That's 5 guys.
Any more nominations for super-dopers? any more nominations for clean riders?

to blow your analogy out of the water, Armstrong sucked on motorola pretty much, while doping

Nairo clean? I doubt it. Evans not a chance, Schleck aint clean not matter what his performances say his problem is a mental one, not physical. Arredondo clean riding for Trek, sure and pigs fly.

Phinney talks a good talk but then trains with a guy like Lim. Hmmmm.

 

[blackcat]

Yeah, but I don't think its only Phinney that's not doping.

yeah but i dint think it is only phinney that is not not doping.

that double negative is not supposed to leave the ambiguity that a double negative can. And it was not a pleonasm.

i was just buying from the page of benotti

 

[simo1733]

I think that both of you are playing too much with numbers. Let's assume Phinney doesn't dope. Let's assume that Nairo doesn't dope. Therefore, to meet your numbers, someone must dope 2x more than others to make the numbers match. I nominate Betancur, since he is twice the size of most Colombians now. There are other big guys out there that must be at least 1.5 dopers. Take 10 of those, we get 5 more guys that aren't dopers but statistically stay within your 99% threshold.
We have Phinney
We have Nairo
Arredondo is my next vote since he bonked heavily a few times and almost couldn't make it, had to zigzag, when he won his stage.
Number 4 would be Andy Shleck. By Clinic rules, you are good when you dope, you suck when you don't. Andy Shleck sucks, therefore, he doesn't dope.
Cadel Evans bonked heavily the last 2 Giros. One would argue that you don't have to dope to do good in the Tour down under.
That's 5 guys.
Any more nominations for super-dopers? any more nominations for clean riders?

You bonk because you didn't eat, not because you didn't dope.

 

[Granville57]

That probably works out to about half of one rider being clean in the WT peloton.

Which half?

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

In the Rasmussen court case against Rabo.

that was in 2013? sky hired him in 2009

 

[Benotti69]

yeah but i dint think it is only phinney that is not not doping.

that double negative is not supposed to leave the ambiguity that a double negative can. And it was not a pleonasm.

i was just buying from the page of benotti

You shall be invoiced

 

[Fzotrlool]

He's definitely back.

 

[Netserk]

Just like Rogers. I see a pattern.

 

[Netserk]

that was in 2013? sky hired him in 2009

2008 or '09 IIRC (though very much in doubt). They hired Lienders in late '10.

 

[Gloin22]

He's definitely back.

A punchy finish. He's amazing at them. WTF is your problem..

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

2008 or '09 IIRC (though very much in doubt). They hired Lienders in late '10.

leinders wasn't convicted in 2008 or 2009 for sure. the whole rasmussen trial came to court decision only last year or even this year I can't remember

 

[Fzotrlool]

Just like Rogers. I see a pattern.

During the period of the ban they take even more drugs? In this idiosyncratic sport of cycling, it might even make sense.

 

[Netserk]

leinders wasn't convicted in 2008 or 2009 for sure. the whole rasmussen trial came to court decision only last year or even this year I can't remember

He (MR) already got the first court ruling in 2008.