Taking PEDS when not sick is not the right thing. You have already let people down
really higher stds of how to circumvent rules.
SKY = hypocrites. These people donot know when to shut up
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
SKY = hypocrites. These people donot know when to shut up
Re: Sky
Maybe they can write a scientific paper about it. The effects of publicizing TUE's on cycling natives.coinneach said:
Re:
These people are fighting to keep the golden goose alive. They have won 4 of the last 5 TdFs and want to continue cashing those golden eggs.
IndianCyclist said:Taking PEDS when not sick is not the right thing. You have already let people down
really higher stds of how to circumvent rules.
SKY = hypocrites. These people donot know when to shut up
These people are fighting to keep the golden goose alive. They have won 4 of the last 5 TdFs and want to continue cashing those golden eggs.
Re: Re:
How much of an actual benefit to Sky as a company is winning the TDF? I don't just mean in comparison to other cycling sponsors, but overall to the companies bottom line. I've always wondered that and don't recall ever seeing the numbers. It's obviously a massive benefit to the employees of the team, I'm just wondering how much of a dog in the fight Sky as a company has or if it's just James Murdoch's plaything?
Benotti69 said:IndianCyclist said:Taking PEDS when not sick is not the right thing. You have already let people down
really higher stds of how to circumvent rules.
SKY = hypocrites. These people donot know when to shut up
These people are fighting to keep the golden goose alive. They have won 4 of the last 5 TdFs and want to continue cashing those golden eggs.
How much of an actual benefit to Sky as a company is winning the TDF? I don't just mean in comparison to other cycling sponsors, but overall to the companies bottom line. I've always wondered that and don't recall ever seeing the numbers. It's obviously a massive benefit to the employees of the team, I'm just wondering how much of a dog in the fight Sky as a company has or if it's just James Murdoch's plaything?
Re: Re:
Team provides something like $550 million in advertising for the $20 miilion or so they spend on the team.
King Boonen said:Benotti69 said:IndianCyclist said:Taking PEDS when not sick is not the right thing. You have already let people down
really higher stds of how to circumvent rules.
SKY = hypocrites. These people donot know when to shut up
These people are fighting to keep the golden goose alive. They have won 4 of the last 5 TdFs and want to continue cashing those golden eggs.
How much of an actual benefit to Sky as a company is winning the TDF? I don't just mean in comparison to other cycling sponsors, but overall to the companies bottom line. I've always wondered that and don't recall ever seeing the numbers. It's obviously a massive benefit to the employees of the team, I'm just wondering how much of a dog in the fight Sky as a company has or if it's just James Murdoch's plaything?
Team provides something like $550 million in advertising for the $20 miilion or so they spend on the team.
Re: Re:
That's great, thanks. I'm assuming that stacks up highly favourably against other forms of advertising/sponsorship, so certainly worth them maintaining.
MatParker117 said:King Boonen said:Benotti69 said:IndianCyclist said:Taking PEDS when not sick is not the right thing. You have already let people down
really higher stds of how to circumvent rules.
SKY = hypocrites. These people donot know when to shut up
These people are fighting to keep the golden goose alive. They have won 4 of the last 5 TdFs and want to continue cashing those golden eggs.
How much of an actual benefit to Sky as a company is winning the TDF? I don't just mean in comparison to other cycling sponsors, but overall to the companies bottom line. I've always wondered that and don't recall ever seeing the numbers. It's obviously a massive benefit to the employees of the team, I'm just wondering how much of a dog in the fight Sky as a company has or if it's just James Murdoch's plaything?
Team provides something like $550 million in advertising for the $20 miilion or so they spend on the team.
That's great, thanks. I'm assuming that stacks up highly favourably against other forms of advertising/sponsorship, so certainly worth them maintaining.
A great article on Tramadol.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/tramadol-the-opioid-crisis-for-the-rest-of-the-world-1476887401
http://www.wsj.com/articles/tramadol-the-opioid-crisis-for-the-rest-of-the-world-1476887401
I'm always late with these things, so maybe someone brought it up way back. But I was cruising down the internet and bumped up against this little ditty:
Can I propose we switch out references to a "marginal gains" with "slightest smidges"?The Seattle Times (external) said:
Re: Re:
To put it into marketing perspective, Sky UK's annual marketing budget is around £1.1 billion. 2% of that goes to owning 85% of Team Sky and the other 15% of the team is owned by 21st Century Fox. The team gets a combined £15.6m from Sky UK and 21st Century Fox. The other £5m comes from Shimano, Ford, Pinarello etc.
MatParker117 said:King Boonen said:Benotti69 said:IndianCyclist said:Taking PEDS when not sick is not the right thing. You have already let people down
really higher stds of how to circumvent rules.
SKY = hypocrites. These people donot know when to shut up
These people are fighting to keep the golden goose alive. They have won 4 of the last 5 TdFs and want to continue cashing those golden eggs.
How much of an actual benefit to Sky as a company is winning the TDF? I don't just mean in comparison to other cycling sponsors, but overall to the companies bottom line. I've always wondered that and don't recall ever seeing the numbers. It's obviously a massive benefit to the employees of the team, I'm just wondering how much of a dog in the fight Sky as a company has or if it's just James Murdoch's plaything?
Team provides something like $550 million in advertising for the $20 miilion or so they spend on the team.
To put it into marketing perspective, Sky UK's annual marketing budget is around £1.1 billion. 2% of that goes to owning 85% of Team Sky and the other 15% of the team is owned by 21st Century Fox. The team gets a combined £15.6m from Sky UK and 21st Century Fox. The other £5m comes from Shimano, Ford, Pinarello etc.
thehog
BANNED
Re:
No funds required. They are all interns. Their posts identify them as such.
V3R1T4S said:
No funds required. They are all interns. Their posts identify them as such.
Re: Sky
That's difficult to tell, because at least part of the transport and logistics is funded by BC.thehog said:
Re: Re:
Well then don't state it as fact.
You're collecting facepalms Matt.
You're at the double now.
Link?MatParker117 said:
Well then don't state it as fact.
You're collecting facepalms Matt.
You're at the double now.
Re:
On the women's team dime. Because, you know, screw the women's team seems to be a BC mantra.
sniper said:
On the women's team dime. Because, you know, screw the women's team seems to be a BC mantra.
Tramadol is a non story.
Perfectly legal prescription med in the UK, I took it for years for shoulder injuries....made me a little stoned if I took it on an empty stomach....quite how that helps in a bike race is beyond me....but don't let the Clinic get the facts in the way of a good Sky bashing.
Perfectly legal prescription med in the UK, I took it for years for shoulder injuries....made me a little stoned if I took it on an empty stomach....quite how that helps in a bike race is beyond me....but don't let the Clinic get the facts in the way of a good Sky bashing.
Re:
No one is claiming using Tramadol is against the rules. There are much more serious issues with Tramadol abuse in cycling, one which you have highlighted perfectly.
deviant said:
No one is claiming using Tramadol is against the rules. There are much more serious issues with Tramadol abuse in cycling, one which you have highlighted perfectly.
Re: Sky
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/di-luca-90-per-cent-of-riders-in-giro-ditalia-were-doping/
I would think that any team-organized doping would be very risky in this current climate given the catastrophic consequences and fallout if exposed. Perhaps teams may still encourage doping and provide doctors for advice on what methods/products to use, avoiding detection, etc.? Maybe some teams closely monitor their rider's ABPs and preemptively intervene at the first sign of a problem? However, I would think they would just "wash their hands" of any rider caught doping and not risk any evidence supporting a team-organized doping scandal.
It's also my understanding that the current paradigm of O2-vector doping/PED use has shifted from an industrial-strength model to one of a microdosing strategy aimed at achieving performance benefits while avoiding detection. Dr. Joyner of the Mayo Clinic has done some interesting research in this area:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/20/doping-world-athletics-championships-cheats
Curious: Is team-organized doping at Sky (or any team for that fact) pretty much the general consensus here? The reason why I'm wondering is the CIRC report states that a culture of doping still exists but that it's been primarily pushed underground, and mentions that doping doctors are being used as a resource. Also, Di Luca in a CN interview has said no team-sanctioned doping exists anymore, however, riders are given advice from doctors but must source their own doping products:sniper said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/di-luca-90-per-cent-of-riders-in-giro-ditalia-were-doping/
I would think that any team-organized doping would be very risky in this current climate given the catastrophic consequences and fallout if exposed. Perhaps teams may still encourage doping and provide doctors for advice on what methods/products to use, avoiding detection, etc.? Maybe some teams closely monitor their rider's ABPs and preemptively intervene at the first sign of a problem? However, I would think they would just "wash their hands" of any rider caught doping and not risk any evidence supporting a team-organized doping scandal.
It's also my understanding that the current paradigm of O2-vector doping/PED use has shifted from an industrial-strength model to one of a microdosing strategy aimed at achieving performance benefits while avoiding detection. Dr. Joyner of the Mayo Clinic has done some interesting research in this area:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/20/doping-world-athletics-championships-cheats
Re: Sky
But that is due in the first place to the fact that there is no consensus on how to *define* 'team doping'.
What Di Luca describes, that can indeed be called a consensus, sort of, the trend supposedly being: the rider dopes up on his own account, and the team docs ensure s/he doesn't trip the wire (which is common sense, really, and a decades old procedure).
Needless to say, there'll be tons of exceptions where team docs and soigneurs and other staff members do actually help the rider(s) purchase and administer drugs.
In that context, whether and when we can speak of 'team doping' becomes a bit of a moot point.
I don't think there is a consensus on 'team doping'.Nomad said:
But that is due in the first place to the fact that there is no consensus on how to *define* 'team doping'.
What Di Luca describes, that can indeed be called a consensus, sort of, the trend supposedly being: the rider dopes up on his own account, and the team docs ensure s/he doesn't trip the wire (which is common sense, really, and a decades old procedure).
Needless to say, there'll be tons of exceptions where team docs and soigneurs and other staff members do actually help the rider(s) purchase and administer drugs.
In that context, whether and when we can speak of 'team doping' becomes a bit of a moot point.
Negative. UCI are catching fewer athletes than ever before in the modern history of procycling. Why? (a) Because they don't want to; (b) because they don't have to. They control the testing. WADA is more corrupt than ever. The WADA labs are corrupt, too. The only risk comes from potential police and/or federal interference, but when does that really happen.Nomad said:
A pedantic yet adequate response would be "duh".Nomad said:
That shift happened at least a decade ago, if not earlier.Nomad said:
Re: Sky
I posted info on the steriodal module that was implemented in 2014 (it was effective in nailing Danielson). I also posted info on the WADA improved testing sensitivity of microdosing EPO in which the detection opportunity has been improved several hours beyond the 7-9 hr "safe nighttime window." This makes using EPO microdosing in-competition more difficult.
Did you ever think that maybe WADA is "catching fewer riders than ever before" because the improved drug testing is actually a deterrent to some riders?...riders can't dope like it's 1999. IMO, 02-vector doping has been significantly impacted with the improved EPO microdosing testing as riders are looking more fatigue than ever and many can barley finish GTs anymore.
I mentioned in the Sagan thread that I thought he was relatively clean and maybe only using TUEs. You say he's mechanically doping because he's winning too much (or something along those lines). Not everyone in the peleton may be doping sniper.
What's the evidence that WADA is more corrupt than ever? (isn't that a little insulting to the many lab workers?). And why wouldn't they want to catch dopers? Seems like an awful waste of money. Lol.sniper said:
I posted info on the steriodal module that was implemented in 2014 (it was effective in nailing Danielson). I also posted info on the WADA improved testing sensitivity of microdosing EPO in which the detection opportunity has been improved several hours beyond the 7-9 hr "safe nighttime window." This makes using EPO microdosing in-competition more difficult.
Did you ever think that maybe WADA is "catching fewer riders than ever before" because the improved drug testing is actually a deterrent to some riders?...riders can't dope like it's 1999. IMO, 02-vector doping has been significantly impacted with the improved EPO microdosing testing as riders are looking more fatigue than ever and many can barley finish GTs anymore.
I mentioned in the Sagan thread that I thought he was relatively clean and maybe only using TUEs. You say he's mechanically doping because he's winning too much (or something along those lines). Not everyone in the peleton may be doping sniper.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Latest posts
-
-
Vuelta a España La Vuelta Femenina 2024 (April 28th-May 5th)- Latest: Samu Cuenca
-
-
Live coverage of Sprint Finishes: Head-on camera or Helicam shot?- Latest: Logic-is-your-friend
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram