Sinkewitz, positive for rHGH

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 17, 2009
98
0
0
Andynonomous said:
The performance enhancing effects are long term (usually used in conjunction with a faster acting substance). The window for testing positive is very short term (less than 3 days, with some types clearing the system in less than 1 day). Although it "clears the system" quickly, it's Performance enhancing effects lasts weeks, or months.

Used by itself during competition, it will have limited, or no effect, so no, I don't believe that it will help in 1 day races (unless it is used with a "booster" just before competition).
Perhaps you could explain how you know this? I personally believe none of it.

Looking forward to your reply.
 
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
Do your owned darned research !

WD-40. said:
Perhaps you could explain how you know this? I personally believe none of it.

Looking forward to your reply.


I am not here to do your work for you.

Do your own research, and state YOUR opinion.
 
Sasquatch said:
95% of the peloton is on the juice. If you were unlucky to be caught the first time, you have a decision to make. Stay on the juice and remain competitive or don't take it and be out the back every race? Easy choice to make if you are in the position.

This shouldnt' be a surprise to anyone. You can't learn from your mistakes because you have to use to be competitive and keep your job.
Not only that, but he was caught for HGH a drug that is practically undetectable if used properly. Let's say he was blood doping before and now come back to the peloton doping with HGH which in his mind was never going to be detected anyway.

Come on people, didn't we say in this forum long time ago that the most abused drugs were Testosterone and HGH and that is not as bad as the EPO or blood doping because it helps you recuperate, especially in those harsh three week tours? I know doping is doping, but in the mind of these riders HGH is probably considered to be a lesser evil. I am not here to excuse Patrick but trying to explain why he did it but was extremely unlucky according to the odds.

What is the definition of cleanish in this forum? I bet there was a thread on this long time ago.

Previously posted like 1.5 years ago by Alpe d’huez.

http://outsideonline.com/outside/bodywork/200311/200311_drug_test_1.html

This clean guy took everything he could from the doping program and came back saying HGH was the only one he considered doing again. He was not even a pro.
 
Mar 17, 2009
98
0
0
Andynonomous said:
I am not here to do your work for you.

Do your own research, and state YOUR opinion.
I have been interested in anti aging and athletic performance enhancement for many years. I research a great deal, knowing a thing or two. You are obviously new to this and if you are not not making stuff up (which I believe you are like some do) then you might as well be.

You have stated complete garbage info in this thread regarding HGH. HGH is absolutely used by cyclists in competition, and no steroid "booster" as you put it (lol) is used just before or during competition unless you are referring to cortico steroids which are rarely referred to as steroids.

You had also stated just yesterday that you are "no expert" as seen below
Andynonomous said:
I am no expert, but from what I have read :

- HGH has "steroid like effects" on the body (builds strength)
- HGH works more slowly than steroids to build strength
- HGH is usually used in tandem with steroids to maximize the effects
- To catch an athlete using HGH is VERY difficult, as it is only detectable for a couple of days after administration (and is normally used outside of competition ,where there isn't as much testing)
Yet you seem to have convinced yourself that you now are an expert in a very short space of time as seen below.
Andynonomous said:
The performance enhancing effects are long term (usually used in conjunction with a faster acting substance). The window for testing positive is very short term (less than 3 days, with some types clearing the system in less than 1 day). Although it "clears the system" quickly, it's Performance enhancing effects lasts weeks, or months.

Used by itself during competition, it will have limited, or no effect, so no, I don't believe that it will help in 1 day races (unless it is used with a "booster" just before competition).

The BS that flies around on this forum is terrible at times. It sometimes doesn't take much for nonsense to become fact here. If you are going to state something then make sure that it is at true.
 
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
WD-40. said:
I have been interested in anti aging and athletic performance enhancement for many years. I research a great deal, knowing a thing or two. You are obviously new to this and if you are not not making stuff up (which I believe you are like some do) then you might as well be.

You have stated complete garbage info in this thread regarding HGH. HGH is absolutely used by cyclists in competition, and no steroid "booster" as you put it (lol) is used just before or during competition unless you are referring to cortico steroids which are rarely referred to as steroids.

You had also stated just yesterday that you are "no expert" as seen below
Yet you seem to have convinced yourself that you now are an expert in a very short space of time as seen below.



The BS that flies around on this forum is terrible at times. It sometimes doesn't take much for nonsense to become fact here. If you are going to state something then make sure that it is at true.


So, before I state what I believe to be true, I admit that I am no expert. Then you accuse me of subsequently pretending to be an expert.

There has been a number of issues that have broken in tennis with regards to growth hormones in the last year and a half, so I am somewhat informed, and not talking out of my a??.

I will be darned if I am going to go back to the research and "prove" what I have said here to someone who says everything I have said is BS, without even stating his own opinion.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Andynonomous said:
So, before I state what I believe to be true, I admit that I am no expert. Then you accuse me of subsequently pretending to be an expert.

There has been a number of issues that have broken in tennis with regards to growth hormones in the last year and a half, so I am somewhat informed, and not talking out of my a??.

I will be darned if I am going to go back to the research and "prove" what I have said here to someone who says everything I have said is BS, without even stating his own opinion.
Come on! You can defend your undefensible position better than that!!!
 
Yes, you're either clean or you're doping, but we've often talked about riders being cleanish here. Cleanish belongs in the doping category, but that category is still a continuum, from cleanish to so doped you scare Ferrari.

In that light, cleanish might well mean doing recovery therapy only, which is probably not even perceived as actual doping among the ranks of the dopers.
 
Clean: Moncoutié
Cleanish: those who are getting away with a little bit here and there
Less Clean: Duval, Bastianelli
Unclean: Blanco, Zaballa, Bernabéu, Vicioso, Pellizotti, Fränk Schleck, Mosquera
Dirty: Sella, Valverde, Colóm, Sevilla
Really Dirty: di Luca, Rebellin, Riccò, Cabreira, García

Where does Sinky belong? Probably somewhere between the last two. He's most definitely dirty; he's not as in your face as some of them and his existence isn't as outright galling as some of them. He has been honest and open about his doping in the past, which is something we need more riders to be; but that doesn't excuse his being dirty in the first place.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
Sasquatch said:
95% of the peloton is on the juice. If you were unlucky to be caught the first time, you have a decision to make. Stay on the juice and remain competitive or don't take it and be out the back every race? Easy choice to make if you are in the position.

This shouldnt' be a surprise to anyone. You can't learn from your mistakes because you have to use to be competitive and keep your job.
You are inventing numbers because if you actually knew what you are talking about we could come over to your house with a list of riders and you could just tell us who the %5 are. If you believe in statistical analysis you might know the 80/20 rule. %80 of the problems come from %20 of the people. In another view %80 of your business comes from %20 of your customers. Maybe %80 of the doping posts come from %20 of the members?

Looking for your proof.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Master50 said:
You are inventing numbers because if you actually knew what you are talking about we could come over to your house with a list of riders and you could just tell us who the %5 are. If you believe in statistical analysis you might know the 80/20 rule. %80 of the problems come from %20 of the people. In another view %80 of your business comes from %20 of your customers. Maybe %80 of the doping posts come from %20 of the members?

Looking for your proof.
good post, master50.

it's more than reasonable to be suspicious of the uci claims that the peloton has been 'cleaned'. it's quite another matter to make an outlandish or pretentious numerical claim.

the fact is, no one knows the accurate numbers of the still doping rider vs. the non-doping.

however, there are reasonable estimates out there by the people who, at least based on what they've doing for living, should be in the ball park.

for example, if memory serves, several years ago a scientist from the swiss wada lab estimated that 70% of the peloton was blood doping during a certain period. that 'doping incidence' (a technical term for how wide-spread the doping is) goes up and down depending, mainly but not only, on the introduction of new tests.

btw, it's well publicized but largely ignored by the clinic regulars, the uci bio-passport calculates the doping incidence every time a rider gives his blood sample. it's part of the biopass methodology as it was accredited

in other words, some people do 'know', how many still dope but they wont drop themselves to the level of claiming the nonsense one can read in the clinic.:eek:
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
Master50 said:
You are inventing numbers because if you actually knew what you are talking about we could come over to your house with a list of riders and you could just tell us who the %5 are. If you believe in statistical analysis you might know the 80/20 rule. %80 of the problems come from %20 of the people. In another view %80 of your business comes from %20 of your customers. Maybe %80 of the doping posts come from %20 of the members?

Looking for your proof.
the 80/20 rule only applies as a very rough estimate when you can safely assume randomness, a near normal distribution, and a quantifiable variable. you've got a an either/or which may be a prerequisite for employment. there's NO solid reason to think this "rule" applies to PED use.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Firstly -this is cyclings first HGH positive, so its good that it is detecatable.
we knew that, tho there is a rule of thumb of 24 hours, and a blood test. Are the blood tests more expensive, like the special testo one?
Second - here is a rider who was previously caught, after Ricco and Di Luca it looks as though the riders have not learnt from previous mistakes.
drop this meme quicksmart, it only highlights ones ignorance. This is a myth. Frame the debate, with starting premise "one needs dope to compete". Then u will quickly understand that those who return to the peloton with ambition to compete (see: @pointy end) will use the only means available to them. Rice cakes, lowGI foods, gluten free, well, u choose what to believe. Ignroance is bliss.[/QUOTE]

Thirdly - Sinkerwitz was told tis morning about his A sample, this is quite a different scenario than was afforded to Contador.
Vested interests. Power structures. Come on, u dont see this as the way things happen. Be a realist.

Thing is, there is a big barrier to entry, u are liable to get taken down, until you reach the heights of mythology like StrongArm and Contador, where you will have all political sources, marshalled behind you. If Andy small Schleck was one ounce the sociopath and strategic player StrongArm was, he would be bribing some players in the UCI and in Spanish governance, to pull down Contador. Contador is banned, Andy wins Tour, his income will jump to circa 5 mill euro, so he could put a down payment of 2 million greenbacks on it, to bribe the respective parties, and get Contador sitting on his @ss
 
Master50 said:
You are inventing numbers because if you actually knew what you are talking about we could come over to your house with a list of riders and you could just tell us who the %5 are. If you believe in statistical analysis you might know the 80/20 rule. %80 of the problems come from %20 of the people. In another view %80 of your business comes from %20 of your customers. Maybe %80 of the doping posts come from %20 of the members?

Looking for your proof.
Maybe 80% of the doping is done by 20% or the riders, but the other 80% could still all be doping. Just like 80% of the customers are still customers, even if they only account for 20% of sales.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
python said:
for example, if memory serves, several years ago a scientist from the swiss wada lab estimated that 70% of the peloton was blood doping during a certain period. that 'doping incidence' (a technical term for how wide-spread the doping is) goes up and down depending, mainly but not only, on the introduction of new tests.

I do remember this.

But I think that was the number for growth hormone I believe you will find. The blood doping, was remarkably lower, may have been aroun the teens, or perhaps 30, for an entire peloton (of circa 190 med checks).

I assume we are talking one and the same "period". The larger, considerably larger number, nigh on all the peloton, were growth hormone I do believe. There was a significantly smaller number, around 20% of the former number (which may have come in at around 4/5ths of the peloton).

One and the same study no?
 
thingswelike said:
Wow - whoever said he would come quietly was wrong.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sinkewitz-denies-doping-and-wants-his-b-sample-tested

Also - it seems there isn't much love for him. Even the guy who defended him before seems to place Sinky nicely under the first passing bus!
The guy who defended him is hardly throwing him under a bus. He’s being pragmatic.

I can see this being another long draw out case. I think Victor Conte was right about one thing… “testing positive is really testing positive for stupidity – not stupidity for using drugs but for getting caught”.

Time will tell. I’d like to think no one is that stupid… but he’d been out of the sport for a long time and was riding for a crappy Czech team until ISD signed him. Can’t see him doing it but sometimes if you’ve missed training and need the results and the cookies jar looks awfully tempting…
 
thehog said:
The guy who defended him is hardly throwing him under a bus. He’s being pragmatic.

I can see this being another long draw out case. I think Victor Conte was right about one thing… “testing positive is really testing positive for stupidity – not stupidity for using drugs but for getting caught”.

Time will tell. I’d like to think no one is that stupid… but he’d been out of the sport for a long time and was riding for a crappy Czech team until ISD signed him. Can’t see him doing it but sometimes if you’ve missed training and need the results and the cookies jar looks awfully tempting…
I'm not convinced it'll be long and drawn out. I remember him sounding like (in the Spiegel interview I quoted earlier in this thread) the most agonising bit of the testo process was the cost of the lawyers. He was still paying them off long after his suspension began.

They start running a test for HGH on the quiet and he's the first to ping it. Stupidity, targeting or just horrendous luck? Unfortunately though he's the bona fide poster boy for antique doping circa 2007, a milestone from which to mark the distance to our more sophisticated todays. The unrepentant, isolated creep living in an empty flat with nothing but a frying pan and a blood centrifuge for company. Only thing left for him now is a tabloid tie-in and a book deal that'll end up in the bargain bin inside of six months.
 
Small flat and frying pan? The Sink wisely invested well in the property market. He'd paid off his first property before the The T-Mobile positive and then began investing in land and building new properties to rent. He's good with his hands and has done extremely well with his investments. He made good money from cycling but more importantly was very wise with his money. Germans are not big on property purchases but he capitalised well on the rental market. He's far from stupid and far from poor.


L'arriviste said:
I'm not convinced it'll be long and drawn out. I remember him sounding like (in the Spiegel interview I quoted earlier in this thread) the most agonising bit of the testo process was the cost of the lawyers. He was still paying them off long after his suspension began.

They start running a test for HGH on the quiet and he's the first to ping it. Stupidity, targeting or just horrendous luck? Unfortunately though he's the bona fide poster boy for antique doping circa 2007, a milestone from which to mark the distance to our more sophisticated todays. The unrepentant, isolated creep living in an empty flat with nothing but a frying pan and a blood centrifuge for company. Only thing left for him now is a tabloid tie-in and a book deal that'll end up in the bargain bin inside of six months.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
What does Aldag mean about Sinkevitz

Rolf Aldags comments are mystifying.

Perhaps the media should ask why for a long time there was no team willing to sign Sinkewitz after his doping violation

I cant work out whether he is saying:

(a) That Sinkevitz didnt get a ride for while cos he broke the rules of Omerta or
(b) It was well known within the peleton that he was well into his prep and was likely to get caught again should he return.

If Omerta still is a problem then I dont know why people like Aldag dont come out and say it rather than giving cryptic soundbites to the assembled Journos.
 
No, he's clearly saying (b), here's the original German quote

Ex-Profi Rolf Aldag hat der erneute positive Test beim Doping-Kronzeugen von 2008 nicht umgehauen. "Für mich kam das nicht wirklich überraschend. Der hat es eben nicht kapiert. Vielleicht sollten sich auch die Medien mal hinterfragen, die immer lamentiert haben, warum es lange kein Team gab, das Sinkewitz nach seinem Doping-Verstoß wieder einstellen wollte. Das lag nicht daran, das er als 'Nestbeschmutzer' galt", sagte Sinkewitz' ehemaliger Teamchef, der 2007 selbst Doping zu Telekom-Zeiten zugegeben hatte.
Whether or not you should think Aldag has any credibility on this is a different topic though.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY