The Yates (AKA the TUE Brothers)

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
We haven't got a proper look at a top-level doping program since 2010 or thereabouts. We don't know for certain how much or how little they rely on EPO, steroids, blood bags or weight-loss drugs these days. Our inability to say how exactly he's getting his boost and getting away with it doesn't make the boost any less real.
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re:

Sestriere said:
He is probably doing all the same everybody else does (except UAE it seems), which means TUEs, using grey areas whatever that means. But you guys seem to suggest he is on the real hard stuff. However, as the leader of a GT you are tested everyday so it's surely out of the question that he is on some kind of EPO or steroids. Don't really know how the situation reagarding blood bags and Biopass is, but a sudden rise of hematocrit after a rest day should be noticed easily also it would be difficult to keep the level below 50% by consuming a lot of liquid when you are tested after the stage.
I'm not an expert, but what do you expect him to be on if his performance is so incredibly unbelievable (leading a GT by 2 minutes apparantly is)? Btw, I'm not interested in some kind of conspiracy theories à la he's covered by UCI or whatever.
The everyday testing did wonders to catch Horner at the Vuelta, an EPO test has existed since 2001 and we know that EPO use didn't stop in 2001, testosterone is still usable has long as you don't go over the (very high) 4/1 T/E ratio which trigger the isotope ratio test, there's still no approved test for AICAR... What makes you think that it's impossible to take "hard stuff" exactly? And that's just talking about good old stuff, who knows what new substances are out there...
 
Re: Re:

ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Sestriere said:
He is probably doing all the same everybody else does (except UAE it seems), which means TUEs, using grey areas whatever that means. But you guys seem to suggest he is on the real hard stuff. However, as the leader of a GT you are tested everyday so it's surely out of the question that he is on some kind of EPO or steroids. Don't really know how the situation reagarding blood bags and Biopass is, but a sudden rise of hematocrit after a rest day should be noticed easily also it would be difficult to keep the level below 50% by consuming a lot of liquid when you are tested after the stage.
I'm not an expert, but what do you expect him to be on if his performance is so incredibly unbelievable (leading a GT by 2 minutes apparantly is)? Btw, I'm not interested in some kind of conspiracy theories à la he's covered by UCI or whatever.
The everyday testing did wonders to catch Horner at the Vuelta, an EPO test has existed since 2001 and we know that EPO use didn't stop in 2001, testosterone is still usable has long as you don't go over the (very high) 4/1 T/E ratio which trigger the isotope ratio test, there's still no approved test for AICAR... What makes you think that it's impossible to take "hard stuff" exactly? And that's just talking about good old stuff, who knows what new substances are out there...
From my understanding, ever since the EPO test has been introduced it has become the "poor man's choice" to increase the hematocrit level as the effort and cost is less than blood transfusions. Also, many riders have been tested positive for EPO, the risk would be very high imo. Synthetic testosterone is dangerous, if you can avoid it you would definitely do it. Riders have been popped with it as well. Of the good old stuff blood transfusions seem the most likely to me.
However, my questions was also pointing at substances which haven't been known to be used so far but could if someone wanted to.
Btw, Nibali was leading that Vuelta most of the time.
 
That line about EPO being obsolete and the "poor man's choice" has been spread by the media whenever someone is caught with EPO, but the reality is that EPO and blood bags are complementary: you need one to mask the effects of the other. EPO when microdosed still has a small detection window and no rider who knows what they're doing will test positive for it unless they're very unlucky.
 
There's also one thing to remember. The testing is always behind the drugs on the market and there's usually new stuff out there. So exactly what are the using, who knows, although blood transfusions are still highly likely. I'm not sure if there is really a way to truly even test for that.
Wasn't someone recently busted/caught with testosterone patches? (Thought I saw something about it although I'm thinking maybe Pro Conti level, don't remember). Truthfully wouldn't be shocked if even the top guys are still using those. Although wouldn't be shocked if the top guys are still using EPO as well but micro dosing instead of what they used to do.
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re: Re:

Sestriere said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Sestriere said:
He is probably doing all the same everybody else does (except UAE it seems), which means TUEs, using grey areas whatever that means. But you guys seem to suggest he is on the real hard stuff. However, as the leader of a GT you are tested everyday so it's surely out of the question that he is on some kind of EPO or steroids. Don't really know how the situation reagarding blood bags and Biopass is, but a sudden rise of hematocrit after a rest day should be noticed easily also it would be difficult to keep the level below 50% by consuming a lot of liquid when you are tested after the stage.
I'm not an expert, but what do you expect him to be on if his performance is so incredibly unbelievable (leading a GT by 2 minutes apparantly is)? Btw, I'm not interested in some kind of conspiracy theories à la he's covered by UCI or whatever.
The everyday testing did wonders to catch Horner at the Vuelta, an EPO test has existed since 2001 and we know that EPO use didn't stop in 2001, testosterone is still usable has long as you don't go over the (very high) 4/1 T/E ratio which trigger the isotope ratio test, there's still no approved test for AICAR... What makes you think that it's impossible to take "hard stuff" exactly? And that's just talking about good old stuff, who knows what new substances are out there...
From my understanding, ever since the EPO test has been introduced it has become the "poor man's choice" to increase the hematocrit level as the effort and cost is less than blood transfusions. Also, many riders have been tested positive for EPO, the risk would be very high imo. Synthetic testosterone is dangerous, if you can avoid it you would definitely do it. Riders have been popped with it as well. Of the good old stuff blood transfusions seem the most likely to me.
However, my questions was also pointing at substances which haven't been known to be used so far but could if someone wanted to.
Btw, Nibali was leading that Vuelta most of the time.
EPO seems to be actually used as a way to mask blood reinfusions by counteracting reticulocyte suppression. Riders popped for Testosterone either went completely overboard with it or were target tested, it's still efficient as a recuperation aid.
I don't get what Nibali leading that Vuelta for most of the race adds, the fact is, Horner performance was ridiculous , we know from his released biopassport data that he was very likely blood doping (and that's being conservative), and got away with it.
 
Re: Re:

ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Sestriere said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Sestriere said:
He is probably doing all the same everybody else does (except UAE it seems), which means TUEs, using grey areas whatever that means. But you guys seem to suggest he is on the real hard stuff. However, as the leader of a GT you are tested everyday so it's surely out of the question that he is on some kind of EPO or steroids. Don't really know how the situation reagarding blood bags and Biopass is, but a sudden rise of hematocrit after a rest day should be noticed easily also it would be difficult to keep the level below 50% by consuming a lot of liquid when you are tested after the stage.
I'm not an expert, but what do you expect him to be on if his performance is so incredibly unbelievable (leading a GT by 2 minutes apparantly is)? Btw, I'm not interested in some kind of conspiracy theories à la he's covered by UCI or whatever.
The everyday testing did wonders to catch Horner at the Vuelta, an EPO test has existed since 2001 and we know that EPO use didn't stop in 2001, testosterone is still usable has long as you don't go over the (very high) 4/1 T/E ratio which trigger the isotope ratio test, there's still no approved test for AICAR... What makes you think that it's impossible to take "hard stuff" exactly? And that's just talking about good old stuff, who knows what new substances are out there...
From my understanding, ever since the EPO test has been introduced it has become the "poor man's choice" to increase the hematocrit level as the effort and cost is less than blood transfusions. Also, many riders have been tested positive for EPO, the risk would be very high imo. Synthetic testosterone is dangerous, if you can avoid it you would definitely do it. Riders have been popped with it as well. Of the good old stuff blood transfusions seem the most likely to me.
However, my questions was also pointing at substances which haven't been known to be used so far but could if someone wanted to.
Btw, Nibali was leading that Vuelta most of the time.
EPO seems to be actually used as a way to mask blood reinfusions by counteracting reticulocyte suppression. Riders popped for Testosterone either went completely overboard with it or were target tested, it's still efficient as a recuperation aid.
I don't get what Nibali leading that Vuelta for most of the race adds, the fact is, Horner performance was ridiculous , we know from his released biopassport data that he was very likely blood doping (and that's being conservative), and got away with it.
Glad to read a post which seems quite well informed. Kudos.
 
Re: Re:

ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Sestriere said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Sestriere said:
He is probably doing all the same everybody else does (except UAE it seems), which means TUEs, using grey areas whatever that means. But you guys seem to suggest he is on the real hard stuff. However, as the leader of a GT you are tested everyday so it's surely out of the question that he is on some kind of EPO or steroids. Don't really know how the situation reagarding blood bags and Biopass is, but a sudden rise of hematocrit after a rest day should be noticed easily also it would be difficult to keep the level below 50% by consuming a lot of liquid when you are tested after the stage.
I'm not an expert, but what do you expect him to be on if his performance is so incredibly unbelievable (leading a GT by 2 minutes apparantly is)? Btw, I'm not interested in some kind of conspiracy theories à la he's covered by UCI or whatever.
The everyday testing did wonders to catch Horner at the Vuelta, an EPO test has existed since 2001 and we know that EPO use didn't stop in 2001, testosterone is still usable has long as you don't go over the (very high) 4/1 T/E ratio which trigger the isotope ratio test, there's still no approved test for AICAR... What makes you think that it's impossible to take "hard stuff" exactly? And that's just talking about good old stuff, who knows what new substances are out there...
From my understanding, ever since the EPO test has been introduced it has become the "poor man's choice" to increase the hematocrit level as the effort and cost is less than blood transfusions. Also, many riders have been tested positive for EPO, the risk would be very high imo. Synthetic testosterone is dangerous, if you can avoid it you would definitely do it. Riders have been popped with it as well. Of the good old stuff blood transfusions seem the most likely to me.
However, my questions was also pointing at substances which haven't been known to be used so far but could if someone wanted to.
Btw, Nibali was leading that Vuelta most of the time.
EPO seems to be actually used as a way to mask blood reinfusions by counteracting reticulocyte suppression. Riders popped for Testosterone either went completely overboard with it or were target tested, it's still efficient as a recuperation aid.
I don't get what Nibali leading that Vuelta for most of the race adds, the fact is, Horner performance was ridiculous , we know from his released biopassport data that he was very likely blood doping (and that's being conservative), and got away with it.
And you didn't touch on the HGH drug.

When was the last rider caught on Aicar?
 
Re: Re:

ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Sestriere said:
He is probably doing all the same everybody else does (except UAE it seems), which means TUEs, using grey areas whatever that means. But you guys seem to suggest he is on the real hard stuff. However, as the leader of a GT you are tested everyday so it's surely out of the question that he is on some kind of EPO or steroids. Don't really know how the situation reagarding blood bags and Biopass is, but a sudden rise of hematocrit after a rest day should be noticed easily also it would be difficult to keep the level below 50% by consuming a lot of liquid when you are tested after the stage.
I'm not an expert, but what do you expect him to be on if his performance is so incredibly unbelievable (leading a GT by 2 minutes apparantly is)? Btw, I'm not interested in some kind of conspiracy theories à la he's covered by UCI or whatever.
The everyday testing did wonders to catch Horner at the Vuelta, an EPO test has existed since 2001 and we know that EPO use didn't stop in 2001, testosterone is still usable has long as you don't go over the (very high) 4/1 T/E ratio which trigger the isotope ratio test, there's still no approved test for AICAR... What makes you think that it's impossible to take "hard stuff" exactly? And that's just talking about good old stuff, who knows what new substances are out there...
To add ...

1. Cheats are always a half step ahead or more, so there's always something new.

2. Legal drugs can be used for all sorts of questionable goals. Just look at the unethical use of TUEs for corticosteroids and other drugs! The thing is, just like EPO use, it's not like a one size fits all approach. Everyone responds differently to different things. But there are certainly medications that can help with recovery and weight loss for those poor, sick people who need to race at superhuman levels (just ask Froome).
 
I thought everybody knows that you can work within the confines of the bio-passport and still get the benefits. And yes, Horner was the biggest proof of this obviously. Haven't seen or heard of any changes to make us think things are different now, right

Weren't peptides and growth-factors the big new thing for a while there? As in undetectable

EroicaStradeBianche said:
Not Bad. From 7th in the tour and 44th in the vuelta without doing nothing to destroying the field in 7 months was pretty unpredictable. 4 stage wins in 2 weeks, not even Pantani in 99'or Robobasso in 2006 were on this level.
Cmon now. Yates is incredible but Pantani won 2 stages by 20 seconds and then Pampeago and Campiglio by over a minute, 30 seconds behind Honchar on a 30km TT..
Two of Basso's three stage wins were by 1:17 and 1:26, plus three other mountain stages where he made 20-30 seconds on GC guys like Yates has been doing.

If Yates beats everyone on Bardonecchia and Cervinia by 30s-1min we can talk, but between Etna, Zoncolan and Sappada he took about the same time from Dumoulin as Basso did from Simoni and Piepoli in 6.5km on Bondone lol.
 
luckyboy said:
EroicaStradeBianche said:
Not Bad. From 7th in the tour and 44th in the vuelta without doing nothing to destroying the field in 7 months was pretty unpredictable. 4 stage wins in 2 weeks, not even Pantani in 99'or Robobasso in 2006 were on this level.
Cmon now. Yates is incredible but Pantani won 2 stages by 20 seconds and then Pampeago and Campiglio by over a minute, 30 seconds behind Honchar on a 30km TT..
Two of Basso's three stage wins were by 1:17 and 1:26, plus three other mountain stages where he made 20-30 seconds on GC guys like Yates has been doing.

If Yates beats everyone on Bardonecchia and Cervinia by 30s-1min we can talk, but between Etna, Zoncolan and Sappada he took about the same time from Dumoulin as Basso did from Simoni and Piepoli in 6.5km on Bondone lol.
Yates isn't even close to the human motorbikes like the Cobra and Pantani or droids like Basso. Who is he putting time into ? Pinot and Pozzo those champions ?
 
movingtarget said:
luckyboy said:
EroicaStradeBianche said:
Not Bad. From 7th in the tour and 44th in the vuelta without doing nothing to destroying the field in 7 months was pretty unpredictable. 4 stage wins in 2 weeks, not even Pantani in 99'or Robobasso in 2006 were on this level.
Cmon now. Yates is incredible but Pantani won 2 stages by 20 seconds and then Pampeago and Campiglio by over a minute, 30 seconds behind Honchar on a 30km TT..
Two of Basso's three stage wins were by 1:17 and 1:26, plus three other mountain stages where he made 20-30 seconds on GC guys like Yates has been doing.

If Yates beats everyone on Bardonecchia and Cervinia by 30s-1min we can talk, but between Etna, Zoncolan and Sappada he took about the same time from Dumoulin as Basso did from Simoni and Piepoli in 6.5km on Bondone lol.
Yates isn't even close to the human motorbikes like the Cobra and Pantani or droids like Basso. Who is he putting time into ? Pinot and Pozzo those champions ?
there's a 4 time tour de france winner in this race
 
Recovery meds are the name of the game - keep your guy at 100%. Trouble is, it's a bit suspicious when your guy is as fit on stage 20 as stage 1.

The UK press are ready to wave the flag now for Yatsey - SOTY no doubt! :)
 
Oh well, seems like I haven't got a clou of how doping is actually practiced :eek:
I just assumed the climbing times now being slower than in the 90s and early 2000s would suggest that the programme are more subtile now due to better testing.
 
Frightening dominance from Yates day after day. Nobody has dominated a grand tour in this manner since peak Froome at the tour. It's still very much in the balance as to whether he remains in pink after tomorrow but the way he is riding away from all other GC men uphill it won't matter as he will simply claw back any deficit in the remaining stages. He has jumped a level from top 5/10 GC man to a rider capable of crushing everyone else in the mountains. Not. Normal.
 
ontheroad said:
Frightening dominance from Yates day after day. Nobody has dominated a grand tour in this manner since peak Froome at the tour. It's still very much in the balance as to whether he remains in pink after tomorrow but the way he is riding away from all other GC men uphill it won't matter as he will simply claw back any deficit in the remaining stages. He has jumped a level from top 5/10 GC man to a rider capable of crushing everyone else in the mountains. Not. Normal.
So assuming that someone, somewhere is going to have to win the mountain stages, what would a normal believeable progression to reach this level be?

Because it seems to me that competing strongly in such stages from your first year as a pro, passing through winning a stage in the vuelta/finishing top 6 (whilst working for a teammate), and then a top 10 in the TDF, up to the age of 25, looks like a pretty steady progression.
 
it always astounds me why they 'take the piss'. Froome was the same....why cant they make it look believeable ? why the need to draw so much attention ? if Yates had just stuck with the one stage win, kept the jersey....no-one would be taking about his ridiculous performance.

Are they just so cosseted by their entourage that they are unaware of the media furore and their image ? or dont they care because they know they can get away with it like the Armstrongs and Froome.
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Sestriere said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Sestriere said:
He is probably doing all the same everybody else does (except UAE it seems), which means TUEs, using grey areas whatever that means. But you guys seem to suggest he is on the real hard stuff. However, as the leader of a GT you are tested everyday so it's surely out of the question that he is on some kind of EPO or steroids. Don't really know how the situation reagarding blood bags and Biopass is, but a sudden rise of hematocrit after a rest day should be noticed easily also it would be difficult to keep the level below 50% by consuming a lot of liquid when you are tested after the stage.
I'm not an expert, but what do you expect him to be on if his performance is so incredibly unbelievable (leading a GT by 2 minutes apparantly is)? Btw, I'm not interested in some kind of conspiracy theories à la he's covered by UCI or whatever.
The everyday testing did wonders to catch Horner at the Vuelta, an EPO test has existed since 2001 and we know that EPO use didn't stop in 2001, testosterone is still usable has long as you don't go over the (very high) 4/1 T/E ratio which trigger the isotope ratio test, there's still no approved test for AICAR... What makes you think that it's impossible to take "hard stuff" exactly? And that's just talking about good old stuff, who knows what new substances are out there...
From my understanding, ever since the EPO test has been introduced it has become the "poor man's choice" to increase the hematocrit level as the effort and cost is less than blood transfusions. Also, many riders have been tested positive for EPO, the risk would be very high imo. Synthetic testosterone is dangerous, if you can avoid it you would definitely do it. Riders have been popped with it as well. Of the good old stuff blood transfusions seem the most likely to me.
However, my questions was also pointing at substances which haven't been known to be used so far but could if someone wanted to.
Btw, Nibali was leading that Vuelta most of the time.
EPO seems to be actually used as a way to mask blood reinfusions by counteracting reticulocyte suppression. Riders popped for Testosterone either went completely overboard with it or were target tested, it's still efficient as a recuperation aid.
I don't get what Nibali leading that Vuelta for most of the race adds, the fact is, Horner performance was ridiculous , we know from his released biopassport data that he was very likely blood doping (and that's being conservative), and got away with it.
And you didn't touch on the HGH drug.

When was the last rider caught on Aicar?
No one was ever caught for AICAR as far as i know, the informations are contradictory but there doesn't seem to be a workable test yet.

Sestriere said:
Oh well, seems like I haven't got a clou of how doping is actually practiced :eek:
I just assumed the climbing times now being slower than in the 90s and early 2000s would suggest that the programme are more subtile now due to better testing.
We have seen some very fast climbing times on long climbs during the past few years (still not as ridiculous at the 90's, but that was truly "free for all" blood doping time), including during the third week, which are implausible without some kind of recuperation aid. It also should be noted that the times on shorter climbs are actually faster than ever.
 
simoni said:
ontheroad said:
Frightening dominance from Yates day after day. Nobody has dominated a grand tour in this manner since peak Froome at the tour. It's still very much in the balance as to whether he remains in pink after tomorrow but the way he is riding away from all other GC men uphill it won't matter as he will simply claw back any deficit in the remaining stages. He has jumped a level from top 5/10 GC man to a rider capable of crushing everyone else in the mountains. Not. Normal.
So assuming that someone, somewhere is going to have to win the mountain stages, what would a normal believeable progression to reach this level be?

Because it seems to me that competing strongly in such stages from your first year as a pro, passing through winning a stage in the vuelta/finishing top 6 (whilst working for a teammate), and then a top 10 in the TDF, up to the age of 25, looks like a pretty steady progression.
Formolo, Martin, De la Cruz, Barguil level in GTs. Imagine one of these guys dominating the Giro the way Yates is doing. Riding away from the whole group with ease on a false flat on Etna, climbing on Zoncolan at the best Froome in years level. Next day pulverizing all with a 17 km attack, 3 (4) stage wins, not one single slightly worse day in two weeks, dodgy DSs and doctors, proven asthmatic who needs TUEs to treat, ventolin is not enough he needs terbutaline, until now less proven GT rider than his brother. But he is a nice lad.
 
Rollthedice said:
simoni said:
ontheroad said:
Frightening dominance from Yates day after day. Nobody has dominated a grand tour in this manner since peak Froome at the tour. It's still very much in the balance as to whether he remains in pink after tomorrow but the way he is riding away from all other GC men uphill it won't matter as he will simply claw back any deficit in the remaining stages. He has jumped a level from top 5/10 GC man to a rider capable of crushing everyone else in the mountains. Not. Normal.
So assuming that someone, somewhere is going to have to win the mountain stages, what would a normal believeable progression to reach this level be?

Because it seems to me that competing strongly in such stages from your first year as a pro, passing through winning a stage in the vuelta/finishing top 6 (whilst working for a teammate), and then a top 10 in the TDF, up to the age of 25, looks like a pretty steady progression.
Formolo, Martin, De la Cruz, Barguil level in GTs. Imagine one of these guys dominating the Giro the way Yates is doing. Riding away from the whole group with ease on a false flat on Etna, climbing on Zoncolan at the best Froome in years level. Next day pulverizing all with a 17 km attack, 3 (4) stage wins, not one single slightly worse day in two weeks, dodgy DSs and doctors, proven asthmatic who needs TUEs to treat, ventolin is not enough he needs terbutaline, until now less proven GT rider than his brother. But he is a nice lad.
there are some nice lads among the last GT winners. Dumoulin, Quintana, Nibali. ;)
 
Re:

Cycle Chic said:
it always astounds me why they 'take the piss'. Froome was the same....why cant they make it look believeable ? why the need to draw so much attention ? if Yates had just stuck with the one stage win, kept the jersey....no-one would be taking about his ridiculous performance.

Are they just so cosseted by their entourage that they are unaware of the media furore and their image ? or dont they care because they know they can get away with it like the Armstrongs and Froome.
Maybe they just don't care what the Clinic thinks, or at least not as much as the Clinic thinks they should care about what the clinic thinks?
 
simoni said:
ontheroad said:
Frightening dominance from Yates day after day. Nobody has dominated a grand tour in this manner since peak Froome at the tour. It's still very much in the balance as to whether he remains in pink after tomorrow but the way he is riding away from all other GC men uphill it won't matter as he will simply claw back any deficit in the remaining stages. He has jumped a level from top 5/10 GC man to a rider capable of crushing everyone else in the mountains. Not. Normal.
So assuming that someone, somewhere is going to have to win the mountain stages, what would a normal believeable progression to reach this level be?

Because it seems to me that competing strongly in such stages from your first year as a pro, passing through winning a stage in the vuelta/finishing top 6 (whilst working for a teammate), and then a top 10 in the TDF, up to the age of 25, looks like a pretty steady progression.
Yeah, I agree. He (and his bro) have had 'potential GT winner' stamped on them from the moment they were signed. And they've both progressed steadily each year - if you look at both of their palmares year by year, it is hardly a surprise to see one of them take 20-30 seconds on a few key climbing stages.....

I will grant you though, that if he tt's like a racehorse than something truly surprising is taking place. In fact, I regard his prologue as more suss than his stage wins/time gains.
 
Re:

hrotha said:
We haven't got a proper look at a top-level doping program since 2010 or thereabouts. We don't know for certain how much or how little they rely on EPO, steroids, blood bags or weight-loss drugs these days. Our inability to say how exactly he's getting his boost and getting away with it doesn't make the boost any less real.
We can fairly comfortably say that Horner was with bags, given his blood data.

Since then, we've had the failed Kreuziger case and after that not a single bio-passport case (iirc).

I still think blood doping is the most important part of a modern doping programme.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS