Will Chris Boardman be on the French list for taking EPO.

[Don't be late Pedro]

Are you talking about Merckx's? Because people have reported that Merckx couldn't sit still after eh record because he was so hopped up on amphetamines.

I have never read that - got a source? It is quite possible. Would amphetamine give much of an advantage during an hour?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

These are results of 2004 EPO test procedures and standards. Unless the rider injected within the previous three days or so prior to a test, a test should have come out negative or at least below the threshold for a positive.

Even if someone is below the 75% isoform norm, let them explain how the have a value of lets say 17.6% isoforms of r-epo in their bloodstream.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

I would be surprised if they didn't nail Boardman, but every man is entitled to some luck.

 

[blackcat]

at one point philippe gilbert and chris boardman had the same reputation.

individual reputations mean nothing. its cycling.

 

[andy1234]

at one point philippe gilbert and chris boardman had the same reputation.

individual reputations mean nothing. its cycling.

Reputations mean nothing.
Proven to have not taken EPO, in a peloton swimming in it, and win, does.

 

[Barnaby]

Lucky for him, otherwise he would have had 14, not 4 kids to provide for

6, so nearly half way there.

 

[martinvickers]

Reputations mean nothing.
Proven to have not taken EPO, in a peloton swimming in it, and win, does.

The problem is you can't prove a negative. You can have strong suspicions or beliefs, and lots of evidence, but you can never be conclusive - at least not the standard expected by the usual suspects.

But Boardman was clearly both a supreme technical innovator and a pretty talented cyclist. More than that it's hard to say. His willingness to have samples for posterity is also helpful. As, frankly, is his relative candour about seeking a TUE, because frankly, you hear testo, you think dope.

The current British revolution will have to be written up one day. One way or another, however it turns out. And Boardman, Obree and Queelly will deserve their chapters as much as Wiggins, Hoy or Froome, or Millar and Tom Simpson.

 

[mikehammer67]

His willingness to have samples for posterity is also helpful.

i wouldn't read anything either way into that

it's a popular gimmick

 

[andy1234]

i wouldn't read anything either way into that

it's a popular gimmick

Riders regularly ask the UCI to store their samples for future testing?
Do tell....

 

[blackcat]

The problem is you can't prove a negative. You can have strong suspicions or beliefs, and lots of evidence, but you can never be conclusive - at least not the standard expected by the usual suspects.

But Boardman was clearly both a supreme technical innovator and a pretty talented cyclist. More than that it's hard to say. His willingness to have samples for posterity is also helpful. As, frankly, is his relative candour about seeking a TUE, because frankly, you hear testo, you think dope.

The current British revolution will have to be written up one day. One way or another, however it turns out. And Boardman, Obree and Queelly will deserve their chapters as much as Wiggins, Hoy or Froome, or Millar and Tom Simpson.

But Obree was clearly both a supreme technical innovator and a pretty talented cyclist. More than that it's hard to say. His willingness to have samples for posterity is also helpful. As, frankly, is his relative candour about seeking a TUE, because frankly, you hear testo, you think dope.

 

[martinvickers]

But Obree was clearly both a supreme technical innovator and a pretty talented cyclist. More than that it's hard to say. His willingness to have samples for posterity is also helpful. As, frankly, is his relative candour about seeking a TUE, because frankly, you hear testo, you think dope.

I'm not sure I get your point. I wasn't aware Obree sought a TUE for testosterone, source?

 

[roundabout]

Riders regularly ask the UCI to store their samples for future testing?
Do tell....

UCI regularly retests samples?

 

[del1962]

I'm not sure I get your point. I wasn't aware Obree sought a TUE for testosterone, source?

I think Blackcat of being deliberately obscure

Anyway, all reports I have heard about Chris are that he was the only one on the team that did not take dope, I think we can be as confident about Chris being clean as we can of LeMond and Bassons.

I wonder what the hidden agenda of this thread starter is though.

 

[blackcat]

I'm not sure I get your point. I wasn't aware Obree sought a TUE for testosterone, source?

perhaps obree deserves this reputation.

boardman is dialed into british cycling. they did not win those gold medals on bread and water.

i dont believe in boardmans reputation. it has as much worth as gilberts reputation.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I wonder what the hidden agenda of this thread starter is though.

Why do you think there is one? Seems a reasonable question?

 

[del1962]

perhaps obree deserves this reputation.

boardman is dialed into british cycling. they did not win those gold medals on bread and water.

i dont believe in boardmans reputation. it has as much worth as gilberts reputation.

his reputation is worth as much as LeMonds

 

[del1962]

Why do you think there is one? Seems a reasonable question?

Just seems like needless *** stirring, maybe I am wrong and the question was not doing this.

 

[pmcg76]

I think Blackcat of being deliberately obscure

Anyway, all reports I have heard about Chris are that he was the only one on the team that did not take dope, I think we can be as confident about Chris being clean as we can of LeMond and Bassons.

I wonder what the hidden agenda of this thread starter is though.

There is no agenda here, it will be interesting to see which way this goes. If Boardman does not appear then it would confirm that he was doing it clean thus proving a few people wrong about what was capable without EPO during that era.

Likewise if it goes the other way, a few people will lose some credibility. I have voted in the poll so you can try and figure out what the agenda is

 

[del1962]

There is no agenda here, it will be interesting to see which way this goes. If Boardman does not appear then it would confirm that he was doing it clean thus proving a few people wrong about what was capable without EPO during that era.

Likewise if it goes the other way, a few people will lose some credibility. I have voted in the poll so you can try and figure out what the agenda is

Fair enuf I was wrong about your agenda, sorry.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There is no agenda here, it will be interesting to see which way this goes. If Boardman does not appear then it would confirm that he was doing it clean thus proving a few people wrong about what was capable without EPO during that era.

Likewise if it goes the other way, a few people will lose some credibility. I have voted in the poll so you can try and figure out what the agenda is

Being honest - this I dont get.
Andy has been pinning his colors to the mast about Boardman - thats up to him, and good luck. But what Boardman did or didn't do has nothing to do with anti-doping or anything, just a guy wins bragging rights on the internet - hurray.

I didnt vote - but I would side on clean, but if not I certainly would not condemn anyone in that era.

 

[Benotti69]

Reputations mean nothing.
Proven to have not taken EPO, in a peloton swimming in it, and win, does.

Apparently a negative cannot be proven as all the Sky fans scream....

 

[coinneach]

Being honest - this I dont get.
Andy has been pinning his colors to the mast about Boardman - thats up to him, and good luck. But what Boardman did or didn't do has nothing to do with anti-doping or anything, just a guy wins bragging rights on the internet - hurray.

I didnt vote - but I would side on clean, but if not I certainly would not condemn anyone in that era.

Am I wrong, but is the agenda not "can a British track cyclist win without doping?"

I think its a fair question....if Boardman couldn't, I don't think that says much for Wiggins chances (accepting that the eras were different, the arguments are pretty similar)

Myself, I've always liked the jam Graeme Obree puts on his pieces

 

[pmcg76]

Being honest - this I dont get.
Andy has been pinning his colors to the mast about Boardman - thats up to him, and good luck. But what Boardman did or didn't do has nothing to do with anti-doping or anything, just a guy wins bragging rights on the internet - hurray.

I didnt vote - but I would side on clean, but if not I certainly would not condemn anyone in that era.

This is more than about one poster, it is about getting a more rounded idea of what was possible in the 90s. There is very obviously a generalisation/belief among among many posters and indeed pro cyclists that you couldn't win anything without EPO during the 90s, that you couldn't even finish mid-pack. T.Hamilton is just one example of many. Now if it turns out that Boardman was doing it clean, then it clearly mean's a re-evaluation of that belief even if he never won the big events. To have been capable of winning the events he did would be seriously impressive.

 

[andy1234]

Being honest - this I dont get.
Andy has been pinning his colors to the mast about Boardman - thats up to him, and good luck. But what Boardman did or didn't do has nothing to do with anti-doping or anything, just a guy wins bragging rights on the internet - hurray.

I didnt vote - but I would side on clean, but if not I certainly would not condemn anyone in that era.

It's f**k all to do with bragging rights.
It's to do with backing up the point I have made many many times on this forum....That clean riders can win against the dopers.
I have argued that not all winners are doping, even in the pre EPO test, Wild West era of doping.
If you can't see why that might be important, I have no idea why you are here.

 

[Avoriaz]

It's f**k all to do with bragging rights.
It's to do with backing up the point I have made many many times on this forum....That clean riders can win against the dopers.
I have argued that all winners are not doping, even in the pre EPO test, Wild West doping era of doping.
If you can't see why that might be important, I have no idea why you are here.

Think you meant not all winners are doping as opposed to all winners are not doping. Some clearly are and have been.