Question Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

Page 78 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Yes, the clue is in the nameWhich might explain three tests in one day: first thing in the morning, before the start, after the end),Not particularly new, Gianetti himself was playing with something similar when he had his 'incident', but sufficiently different to be a potential cause for concern.No idea where you're getting thatAgain, no idea where you're coming from with that.

Two things you've missed: unlike EPO, it works immediately (and so could be administered much closer to race time); and as a form of blood doping you might think it would leave some kind of mark on the ABP, which makes WADA withdrawing athletes' access to their ABP profile another interesting development.
So I believe night time tests are allowed now during in-competition, but are they actually performed much at all? I know there was a 'raid' on the Bahrain team at the Tour, but I believe the report I read just said evening, so not sure if it occurred late at night. And for the pre-race tests, how much before the race are they administered? Obviously the windows for doping are getting smaller, but they are still there.
 
So I believe night time tests are allowed now during in-competition, but are they actually performed much at all? I know there was a 'raid' on the Bahrain team at the Tour, but I believe the report I read just said evening, so not sure if it occurred late at night. And for the pre-race tests, how much before the race are they administered? Obviously the windows for doping are getting smaller, but they are still there.
You seem to have confused a lot of different thigs here.

Night time tests are allowed, but only in exceptional circumstances.

The Bahrain 'raid' had nothing to do with testing.

WRT pre-race tests, the details have already been given: first thing in the morning and before the stage start.
 
You seem to have confused a lot of different thigs here.

Night time tests are allowed, but only in exceptional circumstances.

The Bahrain 'raid' had nothing to do with testing.

WRT pre-race tests, the details have already been given: first thing in the morning and before the stage start.
Nope, not confused, just unsure of whether the night time tests actually occur, and if so to what extent. As you say, exceptional circumstances, so I guess the main deterrent effect there is that it could happen. I know the Bahrain situation was completely different, but it's one of the only recent reports I recall of anything happening in the evening. But yes, obviously not a testing protocol and thus not a good example by me!

Regarding the timing of tests, I guess my main curiosity regarding the testing before the stage is how controlled it is and how immediately before the stage it is. I'm thinking of the pre-race staging area and if they pull racers out to test them and if that delays the start. If there's a risk you'll get tested right at the start line, then that is an interesting deterrent.

At some past races I have been to there's quite the consumption of small bottled beverages being consumed (often in a unmarked bottle), or asthma inhalers being puffed on repeatedly. Much of that was related to stimulant overkill, but the interesting thing was how much activity was obviously going on, so I wonder about pre-race prep happening more behind the scenes. You would need to be really bold and well resourced to do anything really dodgy pre-race.
 
This isn't tried on humans yet as far as I can see, and I can't find any more results than what they got in this article either.

I wonder if this would even be illegal since it's not used yet.

I doubt this is what's going on but I could imagine it being used in the future.

For a healthy person it would basically mean you'd have two sources for blood cells. No transfusions, no epo, no nothing.
 
This isn't tried on humans yet as far as I can see, and I can't find any more results than what they got in this article either.

I wonder if this would even be illegal since it's not used yet.

I doubt this is what's going on but I could imagine it being used in the future.

For a healthy person it would basically mean you'd have two sources for blood cells. No transfusions, no epo, no nothing.
I think it would come under that catch-all rule about "other methods or substances with an intention to improve performance" or whatever the wording it.
 
Reactions: noob
Plan A was not to get dropped, not to take yellow and to finish it off on ITT. Yes that is what i am saying.

Hence what UAE executed at TDF 2020 is their plan A.

As for things like punctures and losing some time. They didn't need 2 minutes. They needed one minute to win. All in all yes, likely they believed they have that covered. One minute.

Considering the way they raced the whole race and based on the data and measurements that bring certainty in modern cycling. I feel that they were rather confident one minute is doable.
Sure.

In my opinion the plan was to just next level juice him before that ITT. No secret numbers or anything. They looked in disbelief themselves at that ITT.

I think Dumoulins reaction said it all. It didn't feel like getting beaten regularly.
 
I just read this very old article about Peiper. His way of seeing doping at that time...

"Given the era he rode in, Peiper was at the sharp end of doping, a subject he is non-judgemental about. He frequently offers the excuse that the problem is two-fold: first, drugs have always been part of the sport; second, there is so much pressure on riders that it's inevitable that they dope. Of his own experience with doping he says "I tried to ride clean, most of the time."

Of the times that he didn't ride clean he talks of dosing up on amphetamines a couple of times, in Chaudieres, races where there were no controls. Mostly he avoided amphetamines though, fearing addiction. He talks of being given testosterone by a Peugeot team doctor: "I think that dose made me so strong that my own muscles actually tore the tendon [in my knee]." Curiously he never mentions cortisone. He does talk of a Dr Janssen - presumably Eugène Janssen, of the PDM Intralipid affair - who worked with Panasonic and believed in hormone rebalancing, which Peiper seems to think is fair dinkum.
"

I guess he never changed either.
 
Last edited:
Why?

And I represent your use of the word 'old' for an article I wrote less than a dozen years ago. It's not even entered its teens yet.
Did you write it? :) Old as in "if linking it without stating it's old someone is going to comment on it being old". It's a good article though :)

Anyhow: Why I guess Peiper never changed is because he didn´t have a reason to.
Edit: now I see you did indeed write it. Sorry I didn´t notice. I don´t know any real people in this forum so it passed me by :)
 
Again, I have to ask, why do you say that? That book covered just one part of his career. What evidence beyond that period are you basing this opinion on? Is your argument simply that people don't change?
People change all the time. But he's describing a structure he cannot change himself. That's quite another thing. He's describing how you cannot win without doping, while still trying to stay as clean as possible. I think this is still true for a lot of guys in the peleton and the DS has to keep up as it's the only thing they can do. So maybe I shouldn´t say he hasn´t changed. But his situation is still the same. We could moralize and say he still has a choice, of course he does, but if he wants to stay relevant he doesn´t.
 
Reactions: TourOfSardinia
He's describing how you cannot win without doping, while still trying to stay as clean as possible.
Actually, he described how (he felt) you could not win without doping. What you are depicting is a world that doesn't change, a world in which people are incapable of change. Which makes one wonder what the hell you're doing: looking for affirmation of your own beliefs?
 
The only thing that changes is performance, which keeps getting higher and higher...and now at lower ages. The red flag for me is that not one of these guys when asked how he feels about doping suspiscions reacts with a jolly, untroubled "it just makes me laugh...they can't find anything in me, because there is nothing in me." Instead we get this litany of "it hurts...I've been tested a thousand times...we work in a clean way...etc. etc."
 
Last edited:
Dec 2, 2020
73
70
280
The only thing that changes is performance, which keeps getting higher and higher...and now at lower ages. The red flag for me is that not one of these guys when asked how he feels about doping suspiscions reacts with a jolly, untroubled "it just makes me laugh...they can't find anything in me, because there is nothing in me." Instead we get this litany of "it hurts...I've been tested a thousand times...we work in a clean way...etc. etc."
I think the fact that there’s not a peep about anything from 99% of the peloton speaks volumes. If the sport really were mostly clean there would be no hesitation in complaining about the few who are doping, but instead everyone is either in on it or afraid of being ostracized.

I follow a couple niche sports (powerlifting etc) that have both tested and untested federations and I’ve found that people tend to be very outspoken against PEDs in the tested ones because they actually are trying to compete clean and the untested feds exist purely for people who want to go all out on PEDs, so there is a mutual understanding among everyone to be honorable about it. In sports like cycling where that’s not the option, you end up with no option to truly compete clean and then you get the omertà situation.
 
Reactions: noob and Extinction
I think the fact that there’s not a peep about anything from 99% of the peloton speaks volumes. If the sport really were mostly clean there would be no hesitation in complaining about the few who are doping, but instead everyone is either in on it or afraid of being ostracized.

I follow a couple niche sports (powerlifting etc) that have both tested and untested federations and I’ve found that people tend to be very outspoken against PEDs in the tested ones because they actually are trying to compete clean and the untested feds exist purely for people who want to go all out on PEDs, so there is a mutual understanding among everyone to be honorable about it. In sports like cycling where that’s not the option, you end up with no option to truly compete clean and then you get the omertà situation.
Some French staff complained during TdF but they were criticized because they have no proof. Same cover as Pogacar uses, as he's clean because he's tested and they can't find anything. This is the problem, you can speak about it but if you don't know specifics or have any proof nothing can be done against them.

Basically teams are using substances that are not banned yet, just like the one was found at Bahrain. But what to use and in what doses is a complicated task where doctors with extensive doping knowledge come in. Why do you think Movistar took Ibarguren and Piepoli? Because they are barely winning anything these days and they can't keep up with the teams which have better stuff.

Cycling is different from other sports in terms of doping, the impact of doping scandals can affect the entire sport, not just the party involved. There is a lot of omerta in cycling because cycling needs private sponsors while the other sports don't. In order for sponsors to give money cycling needs a clean image. Sadly we got these state-run teams which don't care about their reputation or cycling's reputation, with huge amounts of money and will do anything to win.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Nick2413 and noob
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 8

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS