- Mar 19, 2009
- 832
- 0
- 0
OctaBech said:No the problem with Kohl's story is his talk about how micro dosing EPO raising the level of red cells can cheat the biological passport.
He wasn't microdosing. He was using full CERA doses.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!
OctaBech said:No the problem with Kohl's story is his talk about how micro dosing EPO raising the level of red cells can cheat the biological passport.
And "blood doping" with no EPO.Epicycle said:He wasn't microdosing. He was using full CERA doses.
ElChingon said:Well sending a warning to the 50 only means the UCI is powerless and gutless, either they are in violation or they're not. Do cops send people a warning, hey you've been rather close and loitering near banks? No.
The warning is like some of our idea that team testing leads to fine tuning of organized doping. Imagine if some of the 50 are on teams that perform team testing. What does that say, well the teams know very well whats going on and let it happen, that's what. Sending the warning is basically a notice to stop doping or improve it like the teammate/friend/fellow-centrifuge-buy-in-rider does, that didn't get warned.
Again, the lack of bans means they don't have the legal credibility to take it to court, if they did they could outright ban those riders.
Escarabajo said:And "blood doping" with no EPO.Epicycle said:He wasn't microdosing. He was using full CERA doses.
OctaBech said:No it's not a warning sent to the implied parties. UCI has gather the evidence, it's the legal side which is handled now.
The riders could go 100% clean now and they will still be charged, this request from the UCI and especially ASO is to keep these riders away from smuthering the Tour.
He said the passport could be circumvented by micro dosing the blood bags.
Alpe d'Huez said:Too much to respond to. OctoBech is maybe the only person I know that believes in the UCI. Maybe he's Pat "Chief Wiggum" McQuiad himself.
There are ways of storing blood to retain relatively "normal" ret counts. The smarter and more well financed the rider's medical team and program, the more resources they can put into keeping the athlete's numbers "normal".
Kohl said a lot more than that Jack. And his retraction came from fear of financial ruin, as much as an epiphany of honesty.
Great post Elapid.
jackhammer111 said:there seem to be people talking as though they are not aware that kohl has retracted most all of what L'Equipe reported him as saying and is now suing them.
-----------------------------
Disgraced Austrian cyclist Bernhard Kohl on Wednesday vowed to sue French sport daily L'Equipe after they published an interview with him in which he spoke about doping at the 2008 Tour de France.
Kohl, who was stripped of his third-place finish and the best climber's jersey after testing positive for EPO CERA, denies claiming that the race's top 10 cyclists "could have been positive" or that it was strange that only three cyclists failed post-race drug tests.
The interview was published on Tuesday and prompted Professional Cyclists Association (CPA) president Cedric Vasseur to denounce Kohl's "serious accusations" and assert that the Austrian's claims "could not go unanswered."
Kohl on Wednesday claimed that he had really said: "I think that top performances in high-level sport, like in the Tour de France, are difficult to
understand without doping.
"It's enough to look at the Tour de France. We race for three weeks at top speeds of 40km/hour and climb the equivalent of Everest five times," he added.
The 27-year-old announced his retirement from cycling in May after being handed a two-year suspension.
jackhammer111 said:what is your source for what more he said? L'Equipe?
i don't think you pick and choose what do believe from this ridiculous source despite what kohl is now saying any more than you can claim to know why he retracted.
i'm disappointed that this information has been discredited, and who knows, there is most likely truth in it, but in fairness to truth you have to impeach that whole piece.
apparently L'Equipe has done cycling yet another great disservice.
Alpe d'Huez said:Too much to respond to. OctoBech is maybe the only person I know that believes in the UCI. Maybe he's Pat "Chief Wiggum" McQuiad himself.
There are ways of storing blood to retain relatively "normal" ret counts. The smarter and more well financed the rider's medical team and program, the more resources they can put into keeping the athlete's numbers "normal".
Kohl said a lot more than that Jack. And his retraction came from fear of financial ruin, as much as an epiphany of honesty.
Great post Elapid.
Bala Verde said:So when UCI decides to cut out 50 riders and none of them is a big smoking gun (which would prove the hypothesis that there is doping at different prices), it would effectively result in the composition of a peloton of super well prepped riders and clean riders.
The differences in finishing times should be enormous, because the midlings have been ejected. There is a top 10 and 4 hours later we have the rest (unless someone pulls off a Pereiro Sio, gaining 30m-1hr)
Last year SASTRE C won in 87h 52' 52". If doping gives you that 10% advantage, the rest should come in at around 96h haha.
Thoughtforfood said:Would you just stop please? That is the most obsurd statement you have made today. In past days you have done much worse. Why not quit while you are behind?
jackhammer111 said:i'm sorry if kohl's retraction is inconvenient for your theory that all the top riders are nothing but dope fiends with blood bags hanging off both arms.
when kohl says he did NOT say "I am convinced that the top 10 would be positive", i'm not going to rely on your psychic powers to divine which of the other things in that article are things he actually said. no reasonable person would.
that article said just what you wanted to hear, and now that kohl denies saying what they quoted him as saying it reduces it's value to national enquirer status, yet again.
when i talk about doping i want my facts straight and my sources reliable.
all you seem to care about is if they support your opinion.
i hope uci pumps as much good information out of him as possible. information that exposes the few donkeys like him still out there posing as champions.
let the chips fall where they may this week.
but i know in advance any outcome that doesn't include lance is going to be the source of endless wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth around here.
i'm ready for it.
Alpe d'Huez said:I can't honestly believe there are people out there that really think that the majority of riders are clean, and the UCI is doing a good job, and that this so-called biological passport program is the best possible way to test, and will succeed.
What sport have you guys been watching???
It's not my position to insult anyone. I have just posted time and time again my reasoning, with link after link after link to various peer reviewed reports, studies and cases, and I'm just not going to do it here. You're going to have to dig through the many other threads and posts on doping by myself and others, and do some of the same research on your own. If you want to ignore that and think the sport is clean and the UCI doing a great job, then well, all I can say is so be it.
jackhammer111 said:Kohl said that? Where did he say that?
OctaBech said: