most doped riders in this Tour:
- Van Aert
- Cavendish
- Pogacar
Van Aert & Pogacar definitely but I was hoping that Cavendish wasn't. Is that just wishful thinking on my part? Does everyone think he is doped?
most doped riders in this Tour:
- Van Aert
- Cavendish
- Pogacar
I think everyone is thinking the transformation back after a number of years is just too suspicious and too linked with DQS. Perhaps his is the least, given history with EBV and recovery and he is sprinting only (lolz at Colbrelli)Van Aert & Pogacar definitely but I was hoping that Cavendish wasn't. Is that just wishful thinking on my part? Does everyone think he is doped?
I think everyone is thinking the transformation back after a number of years is just too suspicious and too linked with DQS. Perhaps his is the least, given history with EBV and recovery and he is sprinting only (lolz at Colbrelli)
Another feelz good story from the Tour!
I am guessing you needed to keep it to 3 and that is why no vdP? Because I think it is a toss up between vdP, vA, Cav and TP. WvA might even be the least suspicious of these four (lol at even reading that out loud!)
its hard to gauge doping in sprinters (except van aert obviously), its just always suspiscious when a sprinter transforms overnight - colbrelli into a climber and cavendish into fastest guy in the peloton - double that if he gets "after joining quickstep" buff (also this QS stuff needs to be mentioned more often, there is fast growing evidence of guys either joining or leaving QS and their performance does 180)Van Aert & Pogacar definitely but I was hoping that Cavendish wasn't. Is that just wishful thinking on my part? Does everyone think he is doped?
Sorry but no, I disagree with this, or what I think you're saying, and calling it a "grey area" just feels like synonym for "legal doping". Looking for an edge within the rules is absolutely fine and teams do it in lots of different ways. Of course, a lot of the time it seems that teams use this as cover for doping, but the rules are clear here and it doesn't help to conflate things that are against the rules with things that are winthin the rules.Indeed. There are legal ergogenic methods of improving performance. There is doping. Legal methods are not doping. WADA has made a good attempt to also capture subgroups/methods of doping, so even if a particular product or method is not specifically called out, if it falls in that territory, it is still doping.
This is why so-called 'grey areas' where teams will use supplements or medications that are not addressed in WADA as doping might be ethically grey, but are considered 'legal' insofar as banned substances. And this is where teams time and time again "push the envelope".
its hard to gauge doping in sprinters (except van aert obviously), its just always suspiscious when a sprinter transforms overnight - colbrelli into a climber and cavendish into fastest guy in the peloton - double that if he gets "after joining quickstep" buff (also this QS stuff needs to be mentioned more often, there is fast growing evidence of guys either joining or leaving QS and their performance does 180)
Is there some catch all rule that basically forbids any performance enhancing drugs in some overarching way anyway?
The weirdest thing about this though is, that there aren't any "disgruntled" Ex-Steppers who blow the whistle, especially considering the way Lefevre habitually treats riders who fall out of favour.
Sorry, I don't think I made that really clear. I called it so-called grey area and put it in quotes to try and emphasize that it is completely legal, ie not doping. I think sometimes there is a moral or ethical issue at play that draws people's attention, but it's not actually doping.Sorry but no, I disagree with this, or what I think you're saying, and calling it a "grey area" just feels like synonym for "legal doping". Looking for an edge within the rules is absolutely fine and teams do it in lots of different ways. Of course, a lot of the time it seems that teams use this as cover for doping, but the rules are clear here and it doesn't help to conflate things that are against the rules with things that are winthin the rules.
I think the one that comes close is the one about the manipulation of blood in any way if I am not mistaken. I read it here but you probably know this since you know the information very well.Not a single rule that I'm aware of. There's a rule banning anything that is unapproved for human use and then, once approved, things either fall under the Prohibited List or they don't. There's no "You can't use any substance to enhance your performance" rule as it would likely be impossible to enforce. There is a rule like that for TUEs I believe, but I can't remember if it's a specific rule or if the TUE rules just effectively outlaw TUEs for performance enhancement (and we all know that it's possible those rules could be easily gamed).
Is there some catch all rule that basically forbids any performance enhancing drugs in some overarching way anyway?
Not a single rule that I'm aware of. There's a rule banning anything that is unapproved for human use and then, once approved, things either fall under the Prohibited List or they don't. There's no "You can't use any substance to enhance your performance" rule as it would likely be impossible to enforce. There is a rule like that for TUEs I believe, but I can't remember if it's a specific rule or if the TUE rules just effectively outlaw TUEs for performance enhancement (and we all know that it's possible those rules could be easily gamed).
I have not been under any illusion that cycling is a clean sport post-Lance, but the TdF right now is so crazy that I've even stopped watching 5 minute stage highlights. I just don't care enough.
To be fair, I've lost interest in watching most sports at this point. Not just doping, but a combination of things. I'd actually say the whipped up personal interest stories prevelant in many pro American sports, and the Olympics for someone in the U.S., turn me off the most. Soap operas aren't my thing.
Does the fact that Froome and Thomas (and most of team INEOS/former Team INEOS) appear to suck now make the doping appear more obvious? Of course there are other examples, but it seems like more riders are taking steps backwards than those who have significantly improved, thus making riders like Pogacar appear as if they are doing something shady. I highly doubt Froome would be racing if he was not healthy (due to the injuries he sustained in his crash (or fake crash)). Since INEOS appears to be "cleaner" then why is it so strange that Carapaz can't hang with Pogacar when he makes a move?
Does the fact that Froome and Thomas (and most of team INEOS) appear to suck now make the doping appear more obvious? Of course there are other examples, but it seems like more riders are taking steps backwards than those who have significantly improved, thus making riders like Pogacar appear as if they are doing something shady. I highly doubt Froome would be racing if he was not healthy (due to the injuries he sustained in his crash (or fake crash)). Since INEOS appears to be "cleaner" then why is it so strange that Carapaz can't hang with Pogacar when he makes a move?
Does the fact that Froome and Thomas (and most of team INEOS) appear to suck now make the doping appear more obvious? Of course there are other examples, but it seems like more riders are taking steps backwards than those who have significantly improved, thus making riders like Pogacar appear as if they are doing something shady. I highly doubt Froome would be racing if he was not healthy (due to the injuries he sustained in his crash (or fake crash)). Since INEOS appears to be "cleaner" then why is it so strange that Carapaz can't hang with Pogacar when he makes a move?
Thomas dislocated his shoulder and Froome had a potentially career ending injury, I don't get why that is so hard to comprehend.
So, what you're seeing, imo, if the real Froome...and the real Thomas.