# Sky - Another Amazing Rider Transformation



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

Hats off to Richie Porte. Prior to Sky, who would have figured? Just a short two years ago on Saxo was very little help to Contador because he was usually off the back when the climbing got really tough. Now appears to not even need any help. Heck, he'll go to the front and set the pace for the other leaders, rip some legs off, then dust the survivors on the run in for an encore. Probably did some threshold intervals on the trainer for a warm down. 

All credit in the world to Sky I suppose. Wiggo, Froome and now Porte. Just funny how Michael Rogers now that he's left the team, rides like the pre-Sky Michael Rogers. Interesting stuff.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Yep. I bet ol' Barnje Riis feels like an idiot! All that time backing Contador, and right there under his nose he had a future GT winner doing tempo and bottle work. Almost as an amazing transformation are two gruppetto members: Wiggins and Froome, now winning everything that they pin a number on for.

Bet ol' Lance feels stupid too. All that drugs, and all he really needed was some good old marginal gains like warming down, training at altitude, and sleeping on the same pillow ever night.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles. :lol:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

The Tedinator said:


> Yep. I bet ol' Barnje Riis feels like an idiot! All that time backing Contador, and right there under his nose he had a future GT winner doing tempo and bottle work. Almost as an amazing transformation are two gruppetto members: Wiggins and Froome, now winning everything that they pin a number on for.
> 
> Bet ol' Lance feels stupid too. All that drugs, and all he really needed was some good old marginal gains like warming down, training at altitude, and sleeping on the same pillow ever night.


well it was one of saxobanks sport directors that declared Porte the biggest talent ever in australian cycling. Since they had evans at the time, although not a tour winner, I would guess Riis knew exactly what he had.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Evans has never ridden for Saxo. He has ridden for BMC, Lotto, Telekom, Mapei, and Saeco. Wow...having never looked at the list together before, he has ridden on teams with quite a few notorious chemically enhanced riders. Saddly, I thought exactly the same thing about Porte with his new found success.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spookyload said:


> Evans has never ridden for Saxo. He has ridden for BMC, Lotto, Telekom, Mapei, and Saeco. Wow...having never looked at the list together before, he has ridden on teams with quite a few notorious chemically enhanced riders. Saddly, I thought exactly the same thing about Porte with his new found success.


"they" in my previous post being australia.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

I refuse to believe that people who suck their first couple of years as a pro can show any kind of improvement.


----------



## skinewmexico (Apr 19, 2010)

Good coaching? Am I naive?


----------



## rayej68 (Sep 18, 2011)

foto said:


> I refuse to believe that people who suck their first couple of years as a pro can show any kind of improvement.


+1

I can't wait for the Henao thread.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

AdamM said:


> Hats off to Richie Porte. Prior to Sky, who would have figured? Just a short two years ago on Saxo was very little help to Contador because he was usually off the back when the climbing got really tough. *Now appears to not even need any help. Heck, he'll go to the front and set the pace for the other leaders, rip some legs off, then dust the survivors on the run in for an encore. Probably did some threshold intervals on the trainer for a warm down. *
> 
> All credit in the world to Sky I suppose. Wiggo, Froome and now Porte. Just funny how Michael Rogers now that he's left the team, rides like the pre-Sky Michael Rogers. Interesting stuff.


I am curious what race this bolded part is referring to...


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

> I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles.


Miracles? No, but it does appear that he's increased his cadence. I seem to remember higher cadence doing wonders for several riders in the past. That probably explains it. Go to Sky, go to Tenerife, pedal faster.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

mpre53 said:


> I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles. :lol:


Miracles? Meh. You take pack fill candidates from the grand tour groupetto like Wiggins and Froome, throw in a swimming coach, warm downs, sleeping on the same pillows, saddle sore doctor from Rabobank, and BAM! POW!.....you suddenly grind dopers like Contador, Rodriguez, Menchov, Basso, etc. into powder. What is miraculous about that? Solid marginal gains, I say.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

foto said:


> I refuse to believe that people who suck their first couple of years as a pro can show any kind of improvement.


+2

I totally agree.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> Miracles? Meh. You take pack fill candidates from the grand tour groupetto like Wiggins and Froome, throw in a swimming coach, warm downs, sleeping on the same pillows, saddle sore doctor from Rabobank, and BAM! POW!.....you suddenly grind dopers like Contador, Rodriguez, Menchov, Basso, etc. into powder. What is miraculous about that? Solid marginal gains, I say.



You forgot to include the gynecologist  !


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

cda 455 said:


> You forgot to include the gynecologist  !


No gynecologist. Sky doesn't hire "dodgy" doctors. I did forget frequent hand washing. Hand washing; straight from Sir Brailsfords mouth. Imagine, if instead of being on his bike 6 hours a day "busting his a$$"; Armstrong could have cut down to 4 hours a day if he would have just washed his hands.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Y'all are h8ers. Doping stopped in 2007. (sniff) DOPING STOPPED IN 2007!!!!!!!


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

skinewmexico said:


> Good coaching? Am I naive?


If you mean "good coaching" in the same way that "coach" Carmichael produced "miracle" results with Lance, then no, you are not naive. Otherwise you're in freaking Oz.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles. :lol:


Wait, are you saying that in American or British? If so, that's racist.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

The Tedinator said:


> Miracles? Meh. You take pack fill candidates from the grand tour groupetto like Wiggins and Froome, throw in a swimming coach, warm downs, sleeping on the same pillows, saddle sore doctor from Rabobank, and BAM! POW!.....you suddenly grind dopers like Contador, Rodriguez, Menchov, Basso, etc. into powder. What is miraculous about that? Solid marginal gains, I say.


The difference is that "Contador, Rodriguez, Menchov, Basso, etc." are no longer doping - so beating them doesn't mean much anymore (Especially the ageing Mechov and Basso - both now 35)

Also take a look at Richie Porte's palmares: Richie Porte - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Key results:

2010 
- 1st Young Rider's classification in the Giro
- 4th World TT Championships 

2011
-6th World TT Championships

and then

2012
-Joins sky.

So the results are there to suggest he's a strong rider... then he puts more years into his legs and moves into his peak at age 28-32 where he performs better... What's so unusual about that?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

When has wiggins "ground down" contador?


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> The difference is that "Contador, Rodriguez, Menchov, Basso, etc." are no longer doping - so beating them doesn't mean much anymore (Especially the ageing Mechov and Basso - both now 35)
> 
> Also take a look at Richie Porte's palmares: Richie Porte - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


I do not share your belief that "Contador, Rodriguez, Menchov, Basso, etc" are no longer doping. Can you share with us how you know this?

And as for Richie Porte; is this the same Richie Porte who lost 5:46 on the Zoncolan climb (Stage 15) of the 2010 Giro? The same Richie Porte who lost 2:07 on a 12.9 km mountain time trial the next day? A further 5:31 on the Mortirolo stage? Just in these three stages a total of over 13 minutes? The 10th place at the 2010 Giro is more a result of the stage 11 breakaway that Porte was in, gaining nearly 13 minutes on the favorites. In the following stages, he lost the 11:49 advantage gained over Basso to end up down 7:22 by race end. That is a 19 minute turnaround.

Fast forward to the 2012 Tour, where we are treated to the sight of Porte on the front of the peleton, sheparding Wiggins and Froome thru the mountains while Basso, Nibali, Evans, Van Den Broek, Van Garderen are literally ground into submission.

Who knew that warming down, washing one's hands, sleeping on the same pillow, and being trained by a swimming coach could make such a difference in just two years?


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

foto said:


> When has wiggins "ground down" contador?


I never said Wiggins ground down Contador. I said pack fill candidates from the grupetto like Wiggins and Froome. In the just completed Pais Vasco, it was that world renowned GT rider, Vasil Kiryienka who kept the entire peleton, including Contador, at bay.

Marginal gains.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

The Tedinator said:


> I do not share your belief that "Contador, Rodriguez, Menchov, Basso, etc" are no longer doping. Can you share with us how you know this?
> 
> And as for Richie Porte; is this the same Richie Porte who lost 5:46 on the Zoncolan climb (Stage 15) of the 2010 Giro? The same Richie Porte who lost 2:07 on a 12.9 km mountain time trial the next day? A further 5:31 on the Mortirolo stage? Just in these three stages a total of over 13 minutes? The 10th place at the 2010 Giro is more a result of the stage 11 breakaway that Porte was in, gaining nearly 13 minutes on the favorites. In the following stages, he lost the 11:49 advantage gained over Basso to end up down 7:22 by race end. That is a 19 minute turnaround.
> 
> ...


I watched the 2012 tour and I didn't see Nibali or Van Garderen getting ground into submission.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

The Tedinator said:


> I never said Wiggins ground down Contador. I said pack fill candidates from the grupetto like Wiggins and Froome. In the just completed Pais Vasco, it was that world renowned GT rider, Vasil Kiryienka who kept the entire peleton, including Contador, at bay.
> 
> Marginal gains.


Then maybe I wasn't talking to you...


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

The Tedinator said:


> I never said Wiggins ground down Contador. I said pack fill candidates from the grupetto like Wiggins and Froome. In the just completed Pais Vasco, it was that world renowned GT rider, Vasil Kiryienka who kept the entire peleton, including Contador, at bay.
> 
> Marginal gains.


previous third place=pack fill candidates from the grupetto. funny stuff


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

The Tedinator said:


> I do not share your belief that "Contador, Rodriguez, Menchov, Basso, etc" are no longer doping. Can you share with us how you know this?
> 
> And as for Richie Porte; is this the same Richie Porte who lost 5:46 on the Zoncolan climb (Stage 15) of the 2010 Giro? The same Richie Porte who lost 2:07 on a 12.9 km mountain time trial the next day? A further 5:31 on the Mortirolo stage? Just in these three stages a total of over 13 minutes? The 10th place at the 2010 Giro is more a result of the stage 11 breakaway that Porte was in, gaining nearly 13 minutes on the favorites. In the following stages, he lost the 11:49 advantage gained over Basso to end up down 7:22 by race end. That is a 19 minute turnaround.
> 
> ...


1) So Menchov and Basso lost nearly 30 mins and nearly 60 mins respectively in the Tour AND they were doping?! Yep that makes sense. 

2) Basso, Nibali, Evans, Van Den Broek, Van Garderen were not 'literally ground into submission' on the climbs

Nibali for example lost 5m 45 seconds in the TT miles which means he lost a really _huge_ 74 seconds over the rest of the stages.

3) Sky train for long sustained TT efforts up the climbs, whereas other riders were training to ride the climbs slower, with changes of pace and attacks. Therefore they were not used to the higher speed from the bottom of the climb that Sky were driving.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

den bakker said:


> previous third place=pack fill candidates from the grupetto. funny stuff


I agree. 2005 Tour de France: Bradley Wiggins, team Columbia 124th *+3:25:32*. 
2008 Tour de France: Chris Froome Barloworld 84th *2:22:33*.
Much more than "funny stuff"; downright hilarious.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

_3) Sky train for long sustained TT efforts up the climbs, whereas other riders were training to ride the climbs slower, with changes of pace and attacks. Therefore they were not used to the higher speed from the bottom of the climb that Sky were driving._

Yeah. Kind of like Lance and the USPS train did for 7 years. We know where that "sustained TT effort up the climbs" came from, don't we?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

The Tedinator said:


> I agree. 2005 Tour de France: Bradley Wiggins, team Columbia 124th *+3:25:32*.
> 2008 Tour de France: Chris Froome Barloworld 84th *2:22:33*.
> Much more than "funny stuff"; downright hilarious.


ehm he rode for agricole in 2005, he did not ride the tour. he did in 2006 and ended 121 (3 DQed as I would have thought you'd be happy to get right) but that was for cofidis. and I had no idea he was trying to limit his time loss in 2006, or any GTs in 2005 or 2008 for that matter. 
he may be doping but to pretend his timeloss in 2006 is proof of that is curious.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Den, you are correct. The data I posted is from 2006, not 2005. Strangely though, it does say Columbia though. But you are correct, it was Cofidis. Cyclingnews.com has it wrong. I am not saying it is proof of doping, but I am truly at a loss to explain his move from being buried in the grupetto to TdF winner otherwise.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I just saw this, and don't know where else to put it. Of all the, shall we say, slightly suspicious performances whe have seen since the beginning of 2012, *this* one trips these two tools credulity meter?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

yeah, Quintana came out of nowhere.



Just curious, have any of you ever sucked at something, and then over time, say 5 or 8 years of working at it, gotten better?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

These two guys are playing themselves, and should think before they speak. And you all would be fools to give them much credence.

Universal Sports Announcers Lose Their Minds at Vuelta al Pais Vasco - Podium Cafe

Out of nowhere?: Philip Gomes: SBS Cycling Central | Cycling News and Results | Video Highlights

Colombia rising: Quintana confirms South Americans are back with Basque win



The Tedinator said:


> I just saw this, and don't know where else to put it. Of all the, shall we say, slightly suspicious performances whe have seen since the beginning of 2012, *this* one trips these two tools credulity meter?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

This has been discussed to death on forums at cyclingnews etc. The explanation is pretty simple - read his autobiography. His first focus was the track until after 2008 Olympics. In fact, the doping scandals in road racing kept him focused on the track, where he felt the climate was less toxic. As such, he was focused on short time trials (prologues etc) on the road. After the 2008 Olympics (the last to feature individual pursuit) he focused on the road and rode a good 2009 Tour at Garmin. Along comes Sky with buckets of $ and he continues his transformation as a GC rider. Andy Coggan has a critical power plot (also discussed to death on cyclingnews) showing his power is consistent from 2004-2012. 





The Tedinator said:


> Den, you are correct. The data I posted is from 2006, not 2005. Strangely though, it does say Columbia though. But you are correct, it was Cofidis. Cyclingnews.com has it wrong. I am not saying it is proof of doping, but I am truly at a loss to explain his move from being buried in the grupetto to TdF winner otherwise.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

The Tedinator said:


> _3) Sky train for long sustained TT efforts up the climbs, whereas other riders were training to ride the climbs slower, with changes of pace and attacks. Therefore they were not used to the higher speed from the bottom of the climb that Sky were driving._
> 
> Yeah. Kind of like Lance and the USPS train did for 7 years. We know where that "sustained TT effort up the climbs" came from, don't we?



Lets list the other things that Sky and USPS have in common:

-they both ride bikes
-they both win some races
-they both run shimano
-they both have blue in their kit
-they both have national champions on their roster
-they both 'won' at least one GT
-they both have a team bus
-they both have large budgets
-both sets of riders consume food
-soigners are used in both teams
-massages are given post race
etc.


wow! They have lots in common.. some pretty damning 'evidence' there! 

You fail to recognize that TT efforts up climbs is just a tactic.. much like putting a rider in the breakaway, or attacking on a climb.

Sky don't get their dominance from drugs.. they get their dominance from buying quality riders.

eg. Kiriyenka who has placed well at the World TT championships, won GT stages, and had good GC placings in races like Tirreno-Adriatico, Criterium International, and Tour of the Basque country... all BEFORE joining Sky.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Lets list the other things that Sky and USPS have in common:
> 
> -they both ride bikes
> -they both win some races
> ...



So, are you saying that Sky beat out the doping peleton by riding clean  ?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

cda 455 said:


> So, are you saying that Sky beat out the doping peleton by riding clean  ?


He's saying that this is a pointless discussion. Notice how Ted chose this thread to post the Quintana video? See the similarities?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Jason3beard said:


> I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles.[I'm deleting the quoted smilies that are linking to another site --in4mer]



Hey look! Spammers are using smilies now!


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> Hey look! Spammers are using smilies now!


This>>>>:wink: links to a spam site? Seriously?


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> So, are you saying that Sky beat out the doping peleton by riding clean  ?


I can only assume you didn't read my post properly.. I don't really see how you could take that conclusion from what I've said?


----------



## RedMG (Jun 10, 2012)

Sorry to rain on the doubters parade here, but there's a much more simple explanation; money. Sky have spent serious money, bought best clean talent and bought best coaches. They would have won earlier if they could have bought experience and race craft, but with some bits you have to wait. 

This is basically a cycling equivalent to football, when clubs that threw money and proper management to the creation of the premiership won over clubs that stayed in the dark ages.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

RedMG said:


> Sorry to rain on the doubters parade here, but there's a much more simple explanation; money. Sky have spent serious money, bought best clean talent and bought best coaches. They would have won earlier if they could have bought experience and race craft, but with some bits you have to wait.
> 
> This is basically a cycling equivalent to football, when clubs that threw money and proper management to the creation of the premiership won over clubs that stayed in the dark ages.


Is/does Sky have the largest budget? For some reason, I was thinking Katusha had a larger budget.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

> Sorry to rain on the doubters parade here, but there's a much more simple explanation; money. Sky have spent serious money, bought best clean talent and bought best coaches. They would have won earlier if they could have bought experience and race craft, but with some bits you have to wait.


Clean? You mean clean like Geert Leinders? Leinders, the team Sky "doctor". 

It's a repeat of almost everything we've heard before from Armstrong and Postal. Better talent, train harder, better coaches, more money - jealousy. It's all per the script and the funny thing is that it was the Brits who were most skeptical of Armstrong over the years. I'm waiting for the book next.

It's pro cycling and if there's a remarkable jump in a rider's performance you can almost be sure it's due to doping. With what's come out so far from the limited look folks got from the USDA testimony, how could anyone argue? Doping is endemic to the sport. The international sanctioning body was up until a few months ago actively intervening on behalf of the dopers and doping culture to thwart testing and prosecution. 

Of course I think the efforts of Sky are suspect - how could anyone not be skeptical?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

then be skeptical of all teams, not just Sky. There was nothing Tyler Hamilton, Heras, or Landis were doing at USPS that they weren't doing on the teams after they left. What were USPS doing that Rabobank wasn't? How many Sky riders have been implicated in a doping scandal? How many Saxo Bank riders? How many Katusha riders? 




AdamM said:


> Clean? You mean clean like Geert Leinders? Leinders, the team Sky "doctor".
> 
> It's a repeat of almost everything we've heard before from Armstrong and Postal. Better talent, train harder, better coaches, more money - jealousy. It's all per the script and the funny thing is that it was the Brits who were most skeptical of Armstrong over the years. I'm waiting for the book next.
> 
> ...


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

The Tedinator said:


> Is/does Sky have the largest budget? For some reason, I was thinking Katusha had a larger budget.


Its not all about money - you have to spend it well and assemble a team, not a group of individuals. 

BMC are another example of how spending a shed-load of money can get you results - 2011 Tour De France, and Gilbert is the World Champion. 

BMC unfortunately haven't quite got the right riders two years on from their Tour victory and no real successor to Evans (although we'll see how TVG goes this year).

Sky on the other hand bring in the right talent eg. Kiriyenka this season... they have a natural sucessor to Wiggins in Froome etc.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Its not all about money - you have to spend it well and assemble a team, not a group of individuals.
> 
> BMC are another example of how spending a shed-load of money can get you results - 2011 Tour De France, and Gilbert is the World Champion.
> 
> ...


_Sorry to rain on the doubters parade here, but there's a much more simple explanation; money. Sky have spent serious money, bought best clean talent and bought best coaches. They would have won earlier if they could have bought experience and race craft, but with some bits you have to wait. 

This is basically a cycling equivalent to football, when clubs that threw money and proper management to the creation of the premiership won over clubs that stayed in the dark ages._

So, is it about the money, or not? Can you Sky interns at least get your stories straight before posting?


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

stevesbike said:


> then be skeptical of all teams, not just Sky. There was nothing Tyler Hamilton, Heras, or Landis were doing at USPS that they weren't doing on the teams after they left. What were USPS doing that Rabobank wasn't? How many Sky riders have been implicated in a doping scandal? How many Saxo Bank riders? How many Katusha riders?


I can't speak for everyone else, but I am skeptical of all teams. But this is a Sky thread. And they are the only team spouting off their ZTP, after hiring dopers like Rogers and Barry; not to mention that famous Rabobank "saddle sore" doctor, Gert Leinders. Throw in Julich and Sean "Motoman" Yates, and you have quite a lot to be skeptical about.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

> So, is it about the money, or not? Can you Sky interns at least get your stories straight before posting?


I was just giving an example of another team buying success... And then explaining how its not _all_ about money so you couldn't turn it round and say "ah but sky's performance is more consistent year on year- they must be doping!"


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

The Tedinator said:


> _Sorry to rain on the doubters parade here, but there's a much more simple explanation; money. Sky have spent serious money, bought best clean talent and bought best coaches. They would have won earlier if they could have bought experience and race craft, but with some bits you have to wait.
> 
> This is basically a cycling equivalent to football, when clubs that threw money and proper management to the creation of the premiership won over clubs that stayed in the dark ages._
> 
> So, is it about the money, or not? Can you Sky interns at least get your stories straight before posting?


you know you are talking to multiple people, right?


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

foto said:


> you know you are talking to multiple people, right?


Really? On an anonymous internet board? Who'da thunk?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

mpre53 said:


> This>>>>:wink: links to a spam site? Seriously?


You must be new here.


Notice the Mods have deleted said spammers existence?

The spammer you were referring to; The poast looked legit, didn't it? It didn't pass my smell test so I reported it. Sure enough; Gone!

Spammers are getting very sneaky. I busted one the other night. He/she/it was poasting seemingly very legit responses but, for some reason, he/she/it still looked suspicious so I reported it. BAM! Gone!

The thing is; That spammer had been here for months, since last Fall, poasting just like you and I. Was poasting original poasts, etc. Must of had close to a hundred poasts. But they had to eventually pimp their stuff and that's where they failed. 

Liars are good swimmers. Why? Because the lie will always eventually surface. And that's where they get caught.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> I can only assume you didn't read my post properly.. I don't really see how you could take that conclusion from what I've said?


I read your poast.


And after reading your poast I summarized it by asking a question. 

Care to answer said question?


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

I think I've cracked it

All other teams _must_ be doping.

Lets look at some Armstrong era dopers - eg. Lance himself, Pantani etc.

They used to attack on big climbs in the Grand Tours right?

Well other riders today also attack on big climbs in the Grand Tours right?

See the similarities right?

So therefore riders today must be doping like the Armstrong era riders right?

am I right right?

and if all other teams are doping like I just _proved_ then Sky must also be doping right? :idea:



> Care to answer said question?


What do you mean by 'the doping peloton'? I may be missing something here.. but where is the evidence that the _entire_ peloton is doping? (apart from the incredibly convincing reasoning I gave above)


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I explained it once before: 

Super consistent = doper
Out of nowhere = doper

Blowing away the field = doper
Fast field = dopers

Dominant rider = doper
Dominant team = dopers

Positive test = doper
Negative test = doper


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> I explained it once before:
> 
> Super consistent = doper
> Out of nowhere = doper
> ...


And there ladies and gentlemen, is your pro peleton


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> I think I've cracked it
> 
> All other teams _must_ be doping.
> 
> ...


It's obvious you're missing something here; a lot. 

To answer your question specifically: History.


As of Oct. 2012, history has proven that since 1996 no one has won the TDF without doping except Evans, Sastre, and Wiggo. Interestingly, Evans and Wiggo has seen doping doc's during their careers. Wiggo had one for all of the 2012 season. Sastre rode for a team saturated with dopers and doping, including the owner/operator: Bjarnes Riis. Or, as Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin would pronounce it, "Barney Rice"!

History has also proven that doping doesn't work for everyone. It appears that you are from the U.K. so I'll use Stephen Roche as an example of that. Roche admitted he used EPO during the latter part of his career; The '90's. Despite him using EPO he didn't win much during that time period. 

History was not kind to my former race hero Lance Pharmstrong. I was a huge fanboi of the rolling pharmacy. From the opening stages of the '99 TDF all the way up until Jan. of this year Pharmstrong denied doping. Pharmstrong won lawsuits based on those lies because his argument was the same as yours is now: Where's the evidence?!! And that's why my answer to your question is: History. Given Pharmstrong kept the lie going for over 12 years, maybe it might take that long to uncover Evans and Wiggo. And there is that possibility that Evans and Wiggo did race clean. That would be genuinely awesome and refreshing, indeed! But odds are great that history will probably end up proving Evans and Wiggo doped.

Evans and Sastre, like Big Mig, are quiet riders. They keep to themselves, very private, and stay out of the limelight. Interestingly; That seems to be the ticket for not getting caught: Don't piss anyone off! Wiggo, on the other hand, seems to be in the limelight more often than not. That might be his downfall, like Pharmstrong.

There are many here including myself that asked the question, Where is the evidence? for many years about Pharmstrong. Look what history showed. So continue with your, "Where the evidence?!" argument regarding Wiggo. It's a valid argument and a good point I'll admit. But I think history will prove otherwise.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

So basically your reason for suspecting all current riders now dope is: "because I used to be an Armstrong fanboy, I can no longer believe in anyone else". ?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> So basically your reason for suspecting all current riders now dope is: "because I used to be an Armstrong fanboy, I can no longer believe in anyone else". ?


Um; Did you not read my poast?


He was not the only one I mentioned. In fact I mentioned several riders.

I also mentioned a specific time period during explaining in my poast. Did you not read my poast?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

cda 455 said:


> Um; Did you not read my poast?
> 
> 
> He was not the only one I mentioned. In fact I mentioned several riders.
> ...


For the LOVE OF GOD!!!

Post is spelled *post*!


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

foto said:


> For the LOVE OF GOD!!!
> 
> Post is spelled *post*!


:lol:


I know that. 

I spell it the RBR way. It's the same idea as how RBR spells moron 'moreon'. Get it, now rrr:  ?!


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

The Tedinator said:


> Really? On an anonymous internet board? Who'da thunk?


*gasp*

You're not really an upgraded Ted model terminator? I feel so cheated.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

^^^ this.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I'm skeptical of Sky. 

By skeptical I mean, they have the presumption of innocence. 

But in cycling, dominant or suddenly amazing performances tend to be PED induced. 

As a fan, I also find it boring. Some extraterrestrial comes in and mops everything up. You can predict the winner if a race based on the start list (crashes not withstanding).

Watching people grind a high pace day after day in the mountains, never cracking, never having an off day is boring as hell. 

Sky may not be doping. But we've seen so so many performances over turned for doping.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

It's almost comical with the comparisons of Team Sky to US Postal. Ohhhhh, they're simply the best because they have the biggest budget and coolest van. Hmmmmm, where have we heard _that_ before. Team Sky has an upper hand since US Postal just showed the world what NOT to do.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Bluenote said:


> I'm skeptical of Sky.
> 
> By skeptical I mean, they have the presumption of innocence.
> 
> ...


funny thing is sky has 13 victories this year. omega 19, orica 14. 1 stage race overall this year to sky?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> :lol:
> 
> 
> I know that.
> ...


Maybe he never goes to the Lownje? :wink:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> Maybe he never goes to the Lownje? :wink:


FOR THE LOVE OF DOG

Oh yeah, it's lownje.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

spade2you said:


> FOR THE LOVE OF DOG
> 
> Oh yeah, it's lownje.


The lownje is in The Lounge. Using a tired old lounge meme from 4 years ago in every single post kind of hurts my face...figuratively speaking of course.

Although that level of sophistication is appropriate for this discussion, I guess. Tired old arguments made over and over long after they have lost their meaning...


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

except teams used to be dominant before the EPO-90s. Teams are also dominant in sports that have no salary cap structure (something Vaughters is trying to introduce in cycling). Garmin has less than 1/2 Sky's operating budget - hard to compete against a team that steals your best riders.



spade2you said:


> It's almost comical with the comparisons of Team Sky to US Postal. Ohhhhh, they're simply the best because they have the biggest budget and coolest van. Hmmmmm, where have we heard _that_ before. Team Sky has an upper hand since US Postal just showed the world what NOT to do.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

den bakker said:


> funny thing is sky has 13 victories this year. omega 19, orica 14. 1 stage race overall this year to sky?


To be fair, I'm currently skeptical if all Pro cycling. 

I lay a lot if this at the UCI. The showed during the Armstrong era that they were either incompetent or out right corrupt. There has been no meaningful change at the UCI. Just cancel the 'Independent Commission' and business as usual. 

I live cycling. I hope things like Truth and Reconciliation or a grass roots clean rider movement clean up the sport. But I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> FOR THE LOVE OF DOG
> 
> Oh yeah, it's lownje.



:lol:


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> So basically your reason for suspecting all current riders now dope is: "because I used to be an Armstrong fanboy, I can no longer believe in anyone else". ?


Do you believe that the entire SKY team is riding clean, and all their victories came from clean riders?
That would mean that SKY can win World Tour races clean, while the rest of the peloton is doping. Is this your belief?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

turbogrover said:


> Do you believe that the entire SKY team is riding clean, and all their victories came from clean riders?
> That would mean that SKY can win World Tour races clean, while the rest of the peloton is doping. Is this your belief?



They hired and used a doping doc all last season yet they rode clean. Hmmmm.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

turbogrover said:


> Do you believe that the entire SKY team is riding clean, and all their victories came from clean riders?
> That would mean that SKY can win World Tour races clean, while the rest of the peloton is doping. Is this your belief?


Sorry, I may have missed something.. but your argument seems to rely on an assumption that the entire peloton is currently doping, but where is your evidence?

In the same place that the evidence that Sky are doping is kept?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Sorry, I may have missed something.. but your argument seems to rely on an assumption that the entire peloton is currently doping, but where is your evidence?
> 
> In the same place that the evidence that Sky are doping is kept?


Like I said earlier; You're using Pharmstrong's exact argument to make your own regarding Sky. Do you understand that?


And as I also stated earlier; It is a valid point you are making for sure. However, like I said earlier; Odds are great that history will most likely prove you and Sky wrong. Do you understand my point here?

But in the mean time; Sit on the laurels of that solid, genuine valid point you copied from Pharmstrong and milk it for all it's worth for you do have the upper hand indeed. Just don't be surprised if, IF, that day comes when Wiggo and Sky turn out to be nothing more than a USPS v2.0  .


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> Sorry, I may have missed something.. but your argument seems to rely on an assumption that the entire peloton is currently doping, *but where is your evidence?*
> 
> In the same place that the evidence that Sky are doping is kept?


The fact that there are still riders getting caught (and few high profile riders are denouncing them) is evidence enough, is it not?


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> Like I said earlier; You're using Pharmstrong's exact argument to make your own regarding Sky. Do you understand that?
> 
> 
> And as I also stated earlier; It is a valid point you are making for sure. However, like I said earlier; Odds are great that history will most likely prove you and Sky wrong. Do you understand my point here?
> ...


Yeah.. no evidence against Lnace... apart from the six positive tests from 1999?

Everyone knew he was doping for years.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> The fact that there are still riders getting caught (and few high profile riders are denouncing them) is evidence enough, is it not?


Other than Frank Schleck for an obscure diuretic last year, no other high profile riders were busted last year. Virtually everyone who got caught were no-name riders using outdated doping methods. We are again in an era with riders and doctors evading the testers.


----------



## Charlie the Unicorn (Jan 8, 2013)

I watched Sky during last year's tour and all I could think was, USPS/Discovery Part 2. It's a pointless argument, the truth will come out eventually.

Fool me once... Fool me twice...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Charlie the Unicorn said:


> I watched Sky during last year's tour and all I could think was, USPS/Discovery Part 2. It's a pointless argument, the truth will come out eventually.
> 
> Fool me once... Fool me twice...


Has Big Mig confessed yet? Of course not. 

I think Sky probably has enough common sense and paid enough attention to see th fallout with US Postal. Just don't screw people over and you should be able to get away with things.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

spade2you said:


> Other than Frank Schleck for an obscure diuretic last year, no other high profile riders were busted last year. Virtually everyone who got caught were no-name riders using outdated doping methods. We are again in an era with riders and doctors evading the testers.



or.. here is a pretty _radical_ idea - but try and stay with me...

perhaps most riders just aren't doping any more?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> or.. here is a pretty _radical_ idea - but try and stay with me...
> 
> perhaps most riders just aren't doping any more?


Yeah.......no. I get that you're from the UK. No-name riders are getting popped without any real results, but the best of the best are clean? Ninja please.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

spade2you said:


> Yeah.......no. I get that you're from the UK. No-name riders are getting popped without any real results, but the best of the best are clean? Ninja please.


First, I really fail to see the point in accusing current riders of doping with no evidence - is it so if they are caught in the future then you can say "HA I TOLD YOU SO" ?

I get that there is going to be some cynicism.. but the way I see it the fact that Lance got busted (along with Contador etc.) signals to current pro riders that they can't get away with it and they will get their results stripped - there is no rider bigger than the sport (although perhaps Lance was/is given the amount of bitterness he's burdened you guy's with  )

Moreover I'm convinced that Wiggins is clean, and if Wiggins can win the tour clean, then what does that say about the other riders?

The riding that's going on at the moment isn't abnormal or super human - Sky just bought a strong group of riders - Its like accusing Manchester City (or insert US sports team here) of doping when all they've done is gone out and spent shedloads of money on some of the best players in the world.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> First, I really fail to see the point in accusing current riders of doping with no evidence - is it so if they are caught in the future then you can say "HA I TOLD YOU SO" ?
> 
> I get that there is going to be some cynicism.. but the way I see it the fact that Lance got busted (along with Contador etc.) signals to current pro riders that they can't get away with it and they will get their results stripped - there is no rider bigger than the sport (although perhaps Lance was/is given the amount of bitterness he's burdened you guy's with  )
> 
> ...


Except in all the big US Sports they are doping...except for maybe basketball. That one would surprise me.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

foto said:


> Except in all the big US Sports they are doping...except for maybe basketball. That one would surprise me.


Foto, you're kidding, right? You would be surprised if some of the world's most outrageous athletes are doping? 240-lb dudes who can jump 4 ft straight up, run for an hour like Usain Bolt and then do it night after night?

They're all doping. Every sport where there's money to be made.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Yeah.......no. I get that you're from the UK. No-name riders are getting popped without any real results, but the best of the best are clean? Ninja please.


When guys like Petter Nordhaug go from monsters last year to nobodys this year (coincidentally after leaving Sky) we all have to wonder.

Except the brits. They're just happy to win something.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> First, I really fail to see the point in accusing current riders of doping with no evidence - is it so if they are caught in the future then you can say "HA I TOLD YOU SO" ?
> 
> I get that there is going to be some cynicism.. but the way I see it the fact that Lance got busted (along with Contador etc.) signals to current pro riders that they can't get away with it and they will get their results stripped - there is no rider bigger than the sport (although perhaps Lance was/is given the amount of bitterness he's burdened you guy's with  )
> 
> ...


Ah, I get it. You're an econ guy who has no clue about performance enhancing substances. 

That explains your naivety.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

robdamanii said:


> When guys like Petter Nordhaug go from monsters last year to nobodys this year (coincidentally after leaving Sky) we all have to wonder.
> 
> Except the brits. They're just happy to win something.


Rob, don't forget Mick "Frieburg" Rogers! Monster to nobody indeed.

I could believe Wiggins.

I could believe (maybe) Froome.

I could believe Porte.

I just am having an amazingly difficult time believing Wiggins, Froome, and Porte. Not to mention Haeno(spelling?), Thomas, Rogers, Nordhaug, and now Kirylenka.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

The Tedinator said:


> Rob, don't forget Mick "Frieburg" Rogers! Monster to nobody indeed.
> 
> I could believe Wiggins.
> 
> ...


Definitely.
It would certainly be incredibly naive to think the ENTIRE SKY team could step up to such dramatic levels. I also thought the same thing about USPS/Discovery...

There is a reason they are on a different level than the rest...

If the SKY riders can manage to keep a low profile, and stay out of the media, they may not get scrutinized enough to get caught...and it'll go back to omerta-as-usual.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Racing The Ardennes With Nothing To Fear | Cyclingnews.com

Richie is going to have to up his game a bit. Calling us "d!ckheads" isn't going to cut it! Nowhere near as poetic as "Bone idle wankers" from his fellow partner in crime. Heck, even Lance was inventive; I had to look up "choad" on the urban dictionary to know what he was calling us.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

So Sky won the TTT at Trentino today... how 'amazing' is that?!


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> First, I really fail to see the point in accusing current riders of doping with no evidence - is it so if they are caught in the future then you can say "HA I TOLD YOU SO" ?
> 
> I get that there is going to be some cynicism.. but the way I see it the fact that Lance got busted (along with Contador etc.) signals to current pro riders that they can't get away with it and they will get their results stripped - there is no rider bigger than the sport (although perhaps Lance was/is given the amount of bitterness he's burdened you guy's with  )
> 
> ...


One thing you are definitely not is a student of history.


Despite what was unveiled just six months ago your only argument is, "Where's the evidence?"

What evidence convinced you Wiggins is clean? Care to share?

Care to explain how a team hires a doping doc the same year said team wins the TDF?

You say Pharmstrong had six positive tests in 1999. Care to share your source(s) on this info? How did he keep his TDF win, or even competed, if he had so many positive tests that year?

Pharmstrong won seven TDF's. Care to list each positive he received *at the time* of each test? Not years later but *at the time* of testing.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> One thing you are definitely not is a student of history.
> 
> 
> Despite what was unveiled just six months ago your only argument is, "Where's the evidence?"
> ...


it was in l'Equipe in 2005 maybe?

here is the UCI cover up - recent news, shouldn't you be following this kind of thing if you want to accuse people of doping? (Lance paid them for this btw- on no sorry, wait! - it was a 'donation'): Two Armstrong Doping Controls At 2001 Tour De Suisse Suspicious But Not Positive, UCI Says | Cyclingnews.com

at the time of doping there was no test for EPO - so these positives were retrospective, perhaps its all a big conspiracy and the tests were spiked? oh wait.. he confessed.

RE: Wiggins

He focused on the track because of his disgust with the doping culture on the road, and doping doesn't play as big a part in track riding - eg. you don't necessarily need a blood bag since there is no three week Grand Track event. 

he hasn't come out of nowhere - see his Olympic performances, an obvious indication that he has the engine, and 2009 Tdf podium.

he hasn't done anything unusual - just won the TdF when the massive amount of TT miles suited him, and with a slightly weakened field (no Contador etc.).


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

This is deja vu for anyone who has been on here for a significant amount of time. The believers will have their bubbles burst and go away into the Netherworld, just like before. This whole talk about a new generation is laughable when we're getting admissions from 2008-2010. At least I now know how the late night infomercials make their money - there's always a rube out there who believes in magic!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> he hasn't come out of nowhere - see his Olympic performances, an obvious indication that he has the engine, and 2009 Tdf podium.


He simply lost weight and stayed strong to become a grand tour winner. I'm trying to think where we've heard that one before.........


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> it was in l'Equipe in 2005 maybe?
> 
> here is the UCI cover up - recent news, shouldn't you be following this kind of thing if you want to accuse people of doping? (Lance paid them for this btw- on no sorry, wait! - it was a 'donation'): Two Armstrong Doping Controls At 2001 Tour De Suisse Suspicious But Not Positive, UCI Says | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> ...


About this UCI coverup; is this the same UCI that Brailsford and Sky met with before last years TdF to discuss team blood values with? You know, to get on the same page? The same McQuaid who told the press almost a week before the arrival in Paris that he was going to party with Sky, the TdF winning team? Just wondering.

And no, I wasn't surprised by their TTT dominance today. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Froome, Wiggins, Porte podium in Paris.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I'd be surprised with a full Sky podium, mostly because I think I recall that only happening once in the history of the TdF. 

As for the TTT, hard to say. Lots of variables there.


----------



## ALIHISGREAT (Dec 21, 2011)

DrSmile said:


> This is deja vu for anyone who has been on here for a significant amount of time. The believers will have their bubbles burst and go away into the Netherworld, just like before. This whole talk about a new generation is laughable when we're getting admissions from 2008-2010. At least I now know how the late night infomercials make their money - there's always a rube out there who believes in magic!


I'll come back and dig up this topic in 10 years or whatever of Sky were found to be doping now.

I'll happily admit I'm wrong is any compelling evidence comes out.

Another point; you wouldn't accuse current Garmin riders of doping because its set out as a clean team for ex-dopers..

..I don't see why you'd accuse sky of doping when its whole reasons for being is winning the tour clean with a British rider. Do you need ex-dopers to make your stance believable?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Sky isn't going to get caught. I'd be even more surprised if ex-Sky riders from last year's TdF team willingly confesses. They already learned from the jerks and drama queens.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> This is deja vu for anyone who has been on here for a significant amount of time. The believers will have their bubbles burst and go away into the Netherworld, just like before. This whole talk about a new generation is laughable when we're getting admissions from 2008-2010. At least I now know how the late night infomercials make their money - there's always a rube out there who believes in magic!



_Egg-Zach-Lee!_


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> He simply lost weight and stayed strong to become a grand tour winner. I'm trying to think where we've heard that one before.........


.....


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

The Tedinator said:


> Rob, don't forget Mick "Frieburg" Rogers! Monster to nobody indeed.
> 
> I could believe Wiggins.
> 
> ...


Thomas?! What do you think he's on, balance impeders? He's crashed in almost every classic


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

roddjbrown said:


> Thomas?! What do you think he's on, balance impeders? He's crashed in almost every classic


Yes, in the classics he's been doing a reasonable impersonation of the Pope arriving in a new country but at about 10 times normal speed.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

The Tedinator said:


> Rob, don't forget Mick "Frieburg" Rogers! Monster to nobody indeed.
> 
> I could believe Wiggins.
> 
> ...


What? Why can you believe they are clean individually but not collectively? Because if a bunch of winners are on the same team that team must be collectively cheating?


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

foto said:


> These two guys are playing themselves, and should think before they speak. And you all would be fools to give them much credence.
> 
> Universal Sports Announcers Lose Their Minds at Vuelta al Pais Vasco - Podium Cafe
> 
> ...


Just read this (two-weeks later!) foto - possibly one of your best posts ever. I totally agree.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

foto said:


> I refuse to believe that people who suck their first couple of years as a pro can show any kind of improvement.


Here-here! If you sucked last year, you should suck forever more.

Makes sense :idea:


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Just a reality check here.

Greg Lemond won his first tour in his mid-late 20s'. These guys are coming good in their Mid-late 20's

We know (using Porte) that Contador and other's Riss backed doped. So it is just as likely that these guys are coming good on other teams because they are not competing with dopers on their team.

I get it. People HATE Wiggo so anyone connected with Wiggo must be a doper. 

Not saying they are definitely clean mind you but many of the "facts" people are putting out to "prove" they are doping can be turned on their head to "prove" they are not.

Some of the people here are as bad as that nut job on Ancient Aliens...


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

badge118 said:


> Some of the people here are as bad as that nut job on Ancient Aliens...


In all fairness, Lemond was accused of being a nutjob for his statements. As was Walsh, Kimmage...

It isn't all about Wiggins. Or Froome. Or Porte. It's about people being skeptical of results, based on what's happened over the last 20-odd years. Some of us don't believe the peloton suddenly saw the light and cleaned up their act in 2007. The problem is that as many things that people can point to that indicate that cycling is clean, there are as many things that indicate that cycling still has a long way to go.

Me liking the public persona of a rider doesn't blind me to the fact that they could likely be doping. I'm a big fan of Boonen and Cancellara.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Alaska Mike said:


> In all fairness, Lemond was accused of being a nutjob for his statements. As was Walsh, Kimmage...
> 
> It isn't all about Wiggins. Or Froome. Or Porte. It's about people being skeptical of results, based on what's happened over the last 20-odd years. Some of us don't believe the peloton suddenly saw the light and cleaned up their act in 2007. The problem is that as many things that people can point to that indicate that cycling is clean, there are as many things that indicate that cycling still has a long way to go.
> 
> Me liking the public persona of a rider doesn't blind me to the fact that they could likely be doping. I'm a big fan of Boonen and Cancellara.


Here is the issue though. People will use data then ignore it. They will point to the estimated watts of the pre EPO tours and post Armstrong tours, in comparison with 199 through 2007 to prove Armstrong doped. Then conveniently forget that argument to say the riders are still doping. 

You simply can't say "watts are lower now...Armstrong doped" then turn around and ignore that and go based solely on performance. It is not just logically inconsistent but down right disingenuous.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

We're also not catching many big name riders these days. Testing is obsolete at the moment as I highly doubt the big names stopped.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

spade2you said:


> We're also not catching many big name riders these days. Testing is obsolete at the moment as I highly doubt the big names stopped.


Is it totally gone? Likely not. I think saying testing being obsolete is an extreme response. It could well be that the top guys aren't doping and it's those below who are doping to keep up. Here me out first. 

There is a criminal justice phenomena where you have to narrow a focus on a specific area, typically geographic. Crime rates go down in the neighborhood with strong pro-active enforcement. However the crime rate does not actually drop, rather it simply moves to the nearest neighborhood where such pro-active efforts are not occurring.

I would actually like to see a study on peleton wide power. I would not be surprised, if due to how testing is more often targeted than random, if we saw that yes, the top guys have seen their watts per kg go down BUT those of the peleton as a whole did not see such a change.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

spade2you said:


> We're also not catching many big name riders these days. Testing is obsolete at the moment as I highly doubt the big names stopped.


But there have been a few performances that point to a cleaner peloton. 

If the tour of Turkey was dirty in 2012, why did some unknown destroy the field? Gabrovski was dirty but if others were dirty I can't see him riding away with it.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> But there have been a few performances that point to a cleaner peloton.
> 
> If the tour of Turkey was dirty in 2012, why did some unknown destroy the field? Gabrovski was dirty but if others were dirty I can't see him riding away with it.


Grabovski and a few others were simply using outdated methods. While others are simply using better microdosing and perhaps other drugs to remain undetected.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

spade2you said:


> Grabovski and a few others were simply using outdated methods. While others are simply using better microdosing and perhaps other drugs to remain undetected.


Thing is though is some docs are saying the micro dosing needed to beat the tests gives little to no performance increase. So if the testing is not catching people BUT is resulting in little to no advantage that imo is a bigger win. Why? Because douchebag is still spending a butt ton of money for what is a placebo effect.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

badge118 said:


> Thing is though is some docs are saying the micro dosing needed to beat the tests gives little to no performance increase. So if the testing is not catching people BUT is resulting in little to no advantage that imo is a bigger win. Why? Because douchebag is still spending a butt ton of money for what is a placebo effect.


If microdosing had no benefiit, riders would simply stop using it due to risk and expenses. 

Doping and testing tends to be a cat and mouse game. We can't forget that we simply couldn't detect EPO for a while. It's also quite possible to be using some sort of new hybrid that we simply can't detect yet.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

How much does EPO even cost? Are we talking hundreds or thousands?



My understanding is that microdosing is used for masking transfusions. 

The reason being is that a influx of red blood cells from a transfusion would tell the body that there's enough blood cells and shut down reticulocyte (baby red blood cells) production (which can be detected via the bio passport) - microdosing would be an artificial way to bolster reticulocytes.

Is that right? I know you know this stuff, Spade -- I spelled out my understanding to make sure that I'm not missing anything.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

You would be surprised. Cyclists used meth (which really gives little gain in an endurance event) even ether. Cyclists use what they are TOLD will give them an edge. EPO gave them an edge. So people keep trying to make it workThing is for any medication to give a benefit you need what is called a therapeutic level in your system. Like any drug you can it in your system and get little to know effect.

Also microdosing has existed for sometime but here is the rub. "true" microdosing is specifically designed so that you can detect cellular changes but not whole body changes in medicaiton. It was initially developed by drug labs so they could test for bad side effects...basically through the use of insanely sensitive equipment detect negative changes without using doses that would actually have a negative effect on the person in the testing trial.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that Drug Companies justify microdosing in trials due to being able to determine positive and negative effects on a cellular level that would have little to no effect on the patient AND that suddenly with EPO it works. Here is what I think the deal is.

First the athletes still trying to get an edge. Regardless of the risk they will try, period.

Second to quote Mel Brooks "Politics, Politics, Politics."

It is simply NOT in WADA's best interests to say "Micro dosing with EPO has not demonstrable effect on performance" as it undercuts their mission. It would be like the head of the DEA coming out and saying "occassional use of marijuana has few long term negative health effects" (as an example).

Now I am saying this is iron clad, I am not a hemotologist, but with the stuff I have read on the method of microdosing in clinic trials, it just doesn't pass the smell test.
______________________________

All of that aside, it still comes down to one thing. People against doping simply can not, with any credibility, say "look at the pre-1989 watts per kilo then post 2007...in between, they were all doping with EPO" a year and a half ago (and people did on these very forums with charts and all) then turn around and say now that these people with those lower watts per kilo are doping. It's one or the other and ignoring the previous argument is just being a troll imo.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> How much does EPO even cost? Are we talking hundreds or thousands?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Essentially, yes. 

Doping products...David Anthony was reportedly spending 1K/month on dope. I believe that included HGH, EPO and testosterone. Not sure the breakdown of each compound/cost of each.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

What I don't get is this. Being in your profession Rob, maybe you can enlighten. I use Optygen on a cycle. When I use it I feel that it genuinely works and their is science to show it does. There are also testosterone boosters that seem to work very well BUT they also have HORRIBLE side effects (a buddy of mine used it got a testosterone test, found he had more free testosterone, stopped using it, then found that it crushed his natural ability to produce it. He basically went from being a guy with normal T to Low T, twas a mess, though eventually his body "reset".)

I am against doping, but from a moral point of view I am finding it hard to say "this was made in a lab...bad. This stuff was put together in a lab but from stuff you can grow in the green house...good." If we really want to say the "100% natural" athlete, where do you really draw the line.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> How much does EPO even cost? Are we talking hundreds or thousands?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That sounds about right. Using EPO by itself would probably run maybe $2-3k per month. Perhaps add another grand for a shady middle man to keep this under the table. I have to estimate a bit since my acquisition costs are for a not for profit system. 

Adding the transfusions probably cuts the EPO price in half or a third. The doctors and equipment needed for the micro transfusions would likely be maybe $5-6k, but that part is guessing since the doctors haven't quite disclosed their fees. I'm kinda basing this on what I've seen hospitals charge, again in a not for profit system.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Yeah I can see that EPO would help mask the transfusion by continuing reticulyte production. Micro-dosing on it's own being a benefit? Not so much though.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Essentially, yes.
> 
> Doping products...David Anthony was reportedly spending 1K/month on dope. I believe that included HGH, EPO and testosterone. Not sure the breakdown of each compound/cost of each.


My old dirtbag roommate who was into body buidling--says test is cheap but HGH is pricey.

I don't think $1000/month is very expensive for a professional athlete.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> What I don't get is this. Being in your profession Rob, maybe you can enlighten. I use Optygen on a cycle. When I use it I feel that it genuinely works and their is science to show it does. There are also testosterone boosters that seem to work very well BUT they also have HORRIBLE side effects (a buddy of mine used it got a testosterone test, found he had more free testosterone, stopped using it, then found that it crushed his natural ability to produce it. He basically went from being a guy with normal T to Low T, twas a mess, though eventually his body "reset".)
> 
> I am against doping, but from a moral point of view I am finding it hard to say "this was made in a lab...bad. This stuff was put together in a lab but from stuff you can grow in the green house...good." If we really want to say the "100% natural" athlete, where do you really draw the line.


I don't know that I could answer that either...after all, naturally occurring substances are also on the banned list (at least for the IOC.) For example, THC is on the banned list and it's naturally occurring. For some time, caffeine was on the banned list as well, and that's also naturally occurring.

I have a very hard time with that distinction: should someone be banned for drinking a bunch of coffee? Should they be banned for smoking pot (with debatable performance enhancing properties)? Or do we only apply the doping code to things that are lab created?

I'd be curious to hear what others believe on this as well.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> My old dirtbag roommate who was into body buidling--says test is cheap but HGH is pricey.
> 
> I don't think $1000/month is very expensive for a professional athlete.


Anthony wasn't a pro. I think he got popped as a 2 or 3.

He was also administering his own dope scheme, so I doubt he had to go through the cost of infusion equipment etc. Seemed to be just pills and the occasional injection.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> I don't know that I could answer that either...after all, naturally occurring substances are also on the banned list (at least for the IOC.) For example, THC is on the banned list and it's naturally occurring. For some time, caffeine was on the banned list as well, and that's also naturally occurring.
> 
> I have a very hard time with that distinction: should someone be banned for drinking a bunch of coffee? Should they be banned for smoking pot (with debatable performance enhancing properties)? Or do we only apply the doping code to things that are lab created?
> 
> I'd be curious to hear what others believe on this as well.


I can't answer but I can think of three examples that muddy the water. 

It's said that beets (or beet root juice) improve performance. I don't know if this has been established to any degree of certainty in double blind studies. But I drink the juice and eat baby beets prior to races. What if beets are better than amphetamines? 

There's a kid I know who takes ritalin for his ADHD. I said that it might be on the banned list. He said, "No problem. It's prescribed by my doctor" showing complete ignorance of USADA's TUE process. 

There's a masters racer on my team who smokes pot. We've talked about amateur testing in my region. He thinks it's absolutely stupid to hold amateurs to the same standards as Olympians and professionals. 



robdamanii said:


> Anthony wasn't a pro. I think he got popped as a 2 or 3.


Do you think pros get a pro deal on dope? 

That just proves my point: Only chumps pay retail.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

For those interesting in baby beets, they are $3 at Trader Joe's:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> I can't answer but I can think of three examples that muddy the water.
> 
> It's said that beets (or beet root juice) improve performance. I don't know if this has been established to any degree of certainty in double blind studies. But I drink the juice and eat baby beets prior to races. What if beets are better than amphetamines?
> 
> ...


It also raises the point that there seems to be a fair amount of "exercise induced asthma" floating around, requiring inhalers.

At what point do prescription medications stop being therapeutic and become performance enhancing? Advil could be considered that way, as it raises your perceived pain threshold.

Also, I'm not sure pros pay as much for the physical doping products as they do for the expertise of a high quality doc...


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

speaking of high quality doctors, Dr Ferrari argued for the health benefits of blood donation here: Welcome to 53x12.com

It's fascinating. 

He ends the article by showing his sense of humor: 

_The subjective improvements in memory, mood, psycho-physical efficiency and motor coordination, which are often reported by individuals who have donated blood or stayed in the mountains in the weeks before, confirm the results of research in recent years and may be used by authorities to promote blood donations. 

Athletes too may benefit from blood donations, as the effect is similar to the stay at altitude, with a much lower economic cost, even though under the scrutiny of Sports Authority as a "hematologic manipulation"_



____________


robdamanii said:


> inhalers.


I raced the biggest race of my amateur season a few weekends ago. Prior to the start of the hilly road race--at the starting line--I saw another rider take puffs from his inhaler. 

I'll be honest, if he beat me I would have reported him to an official.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> It also raises the point that there seems to be a fair amount of "exercise induced asthma" floating around, requiring inhalers.
> 
> At what point do prescription medications stop being therapeutic and become performance enhancing? Advil could be considered that way, as it raises your perceived pain threshold.
> 
> Also, I'm not sure pros pay as much for the physical doping products as they do for the expertise of a high quality doc...


I really think the rules have gotten a tad extreme in what they cover really. I think it would 1000 times easier if they first started with OTCs and them yank em all off the list. It makes little sense imo to have things on a list that are completely uncontrolled elsewhere.

Next they need to figure something out about TUEs. Either A) you should just need a script OR B) the governing body needs to go to the head ache of officially certifying doctors and make those doctors financially liable for any unnecessary diagnosis. Then have Docs under contract with the governing body audit the histories of athletes. Now I admit that this would only be workable at the pro-level, but having a multi-tier system is essentially what we have already with the lack of testing at the amature/grass roots level.

Doctors can be a weird lot. More and more there are doctors prescribing based on QOL and not what used to be called medical necessity. So someone comes in and says "this really hurts Doc" and they get cortizone shots. Someone says "when I exert myself real hard I have difficulty breathing" so they get an inhaler. 

Hell I heard an interview with a Doc that made my head spin. In a State down south 45% of a county is on disability. The Doc who put most of them on disability said "well their aren't any jobs for them to get in the County. Since they can't find work they are disabled." He actually admitted to diagnosing people as disabled as a supplement to unemployment .

With Docs using such subjective criteria to diagnose and prescribe meds and treatment, without a centralized system how can their ever be any real level playing field?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

badge118 said:


> I really think the rules have gotten a tad extreme in what they cover really. I think it would 1000 times easier if they first started with OTCs and them yank em all off the list. It makes little sense imo to have things on a list that are completely uncontrolled elsewhere.
> 
> Next they need to figure something out about TUEs. Either A) you should just need a script OR B) the governing body needs to go to the head ache of officially certifying doctors and make those doctors financially liable for any unnecessary diagnosis. Then have Docs under contract with the governing body audit the histories of athletes. Now I admit that this would only be workable at the pro-level, but having a multi-tier system is essentially what we have already with the lack of testing at the amature/grass roots level.
> 
> ...


I can agree that most OTCs should be removed from the banned substance list (at least on the non-professional level). If they are available universally, there's nothing stopping you from using them under any normal circumstances. 

In terms of TUEs and scripts, that's a tough one, and it starts to get into the issues we have with doctors and records availability. A good example:
I recently saw a patient who listed 7 different medications on her intake, 5 of them being narcotic pain relievers and 2 antidepressants. In teasing out information she had seen several different neurologists, PCPs and pain management physicians in order to procure those scripts. Now, I don't believe this particular patient was intending to become addicted to so many different substances (as she is now actively attempting to get off of them, as in she is in a program) but I believe she was truly lost in the system. No physician knew what any other was doing or prescribing, so there's no accountability for "Why are you on this?" Hopefully, universal electronic records may help to resolve that.

But how does that fit into TUEs? Perhaps with an electronic universal records system, we can add in the ability for TUEs to be submitted electronically, with health history information, diagnosis and medical necessity, by physicians, and monitored by the governing body. This way AAFs could be checked against TUEs without ever making the info public (such as the Armstrong cortisone positive, with backdated TUE.)

If there is a process by which physicians need to be certified to write a TUE, I wouldn't have a problem with that. It could even be a profitable program for the governing body in certifying them (with the hope that money goes back to anti-doping.)

The last point is one that I struggle with quite a bit. There are physicians of all ilk that will sign anything just to "make a patient happy." Your example of the mess with 45% of a county disabled illustrates the point perfectly. There's no medical necessity for that case. Why should any governing body take what that physician writes as legitimate cause or exception for a TUE?

I guess the bottom line is there's really no good way to handle this issue at the current time.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

badge118 said:


> Hell I heard an interview with a Doc that made my head spin. In a State down south 45% of a county is on disability. The Doc who put most of them on disability said "well their aren't any jobs for them to get in the County. Since they can't find work they are disabled." He actually admitted to diagnosing people as disabled as a supplement to unemployment .


Disability is a complicated and convoluted side-issue. It's worthy of its own discussion. 

I'll add this: I spoke with a few attorneys who practice workers comp, SSI, disability and personal injury (it's all related). Social Security has their blue book which lists impairments that will automatically qualify someone for SSDI. If the impairments are not listed in the blue book SSA evaluates the claim based on residual functional capacity, which includes a medical vocational analysis to determine whether there is work that the person can learn to do. Age, location, education, and the impairment are considered. 

If we compare two 40 year old men. One a construction worker with a GED and the other a certified public accountant. They are both injured and cannot stand for more than 15 minutes at a time. The construction worker may get SSDI with a medical vocational analysis while the CPA may not. The reason being is that at age 40 it's not reasonable to think that we can reeducate and retrain the construction worker for a desk job. And the CPA already has a desk job so his impairment does not qualify him for SSDI. 

A doctor asked to explain why the construction worker qualified may give a true but incomplete explanation: "Well there aren't any jobs for him in the County. Since he cannot find work he is disabled."


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

That's not to say that the system is free of abuse and free riders. It's just a possible explanation of why that doctor said what he said.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> That's not to say that the system is free of abuse and free riders. It's just a possible explanation of why that doctor said what he said.


No it's what he said. He was asked to clarify. To paraphrase he said that these people worked physical labor. These jobs were gone. Since "there jobs" were gone and he did not expect any of them to apply for office work or lower paying less strenuous jobs they were thus disabled. So they could apply to work say retail and do the job but they wouldn't so...

It was on NPR btw not Faux News.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Were they at all impaired?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

apologies to those who do not care about SSDI!

I'm still scratching my head on this. Even with a diagnosis the SSA must still approve SSDI. Medical records must be released to the SSA and very often a consultative evaluation is done by an SSA physician. It's also my understanding that an administrative court handles the benefits; it's not simply a matter of a dr singing some papers. 

I'm basing what I say in part on these articles: 
Social Security Disability: How SSDI and SSI Claims Are Decided | Nolo.com
Social Security Disability: Deciding Whether to Appeal a Denied Claim | Nolo.com
Social Security Disability: Eight Reasons You May Be Denied Benefits | Nolo.com

So where was the SSA in all of this? Why are they asleep at the wheel here, allowing some rogue dr to put everyone on disability? 

As usual, I'm happy to be corrected and hear more on the subject.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I'm so glad this thread stayed on topic! :mad2:


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

DrSmile said:


> I'm so glad this thread stayed on topic! :mad2:


lol haha


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> apologies to those who do not care about SSDI!
> 
> I'm still scratching my head on this. Even with a diagnosis the SSA must still approve SSDI. Medical records must be released to the SSA and very often a consultative evaluation is done by an SSA physician. It's also my understanding that an administrative court handles the benefits; it's not simply a matter of a dr singing some papers.
> 
> ...


Going to respond via PM.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

ALIHISGREAT said:


> You fail to recognize that TT efforts up climbs is just a tactic.. much like putting a rider in the breakaway, or attacking on a climb.
> 
> Sky don't get their dominance from drugs.. they get their dominance from buying quality riders.
> 
> eg. Kiriyenka who has placed well at the World TT championships, won GT stages, and had good GC placings in races like Tirreno-Adriatico, Criterium International, and Tour of the Basque country... all BEFORE joining Sky.


USPS won by buying the best talent too (A couple million $$ was passed around just for the right to hire Heras). The whole field was known to be doping then, same method, same result.

Kiriyenka has had similar results at a similar level to someone like, say, Thomas Voekeler? Sylvain Chavanel? Neither of those two guys will ever grind a bunch of climbers off of their wheels in their careers. Different skill, different power. One which many members of Sky developed overnight after long histories of not having that kind of power. (World TT is one of the easier TT's to get a good result at. Think about it, each country only brings 2 riders).

It is certainly possible that the peloton is cleaner but their leap to dominance is too great to not be suspicious. It simply hasn't happened since USPS, when everyone was on the sauce. Wiggins went nearly undefeated from early March through the TdF. When something seems too good to be true...



ALIHISGREAT said:


> Another point; you wouldn't accuse current Garmin riders of doping because its set out as a clean team for ex-dopers..


Sure we would! These guys all claim to have stopped in 2006 and then went on to better results after they "stopped". That's impossible. One of the big benefits of doping is the ability to absorb more training volume. There is no kind/amount of work that one can do to make up for a diminished ability to absorb work. There was no drop in performance to correlate with their termination of doping.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Kiriyenka gets results here and there. He's generally not consistent enough to raise too many eyebrows. I recall he got 2nd place to some Radioshack rider in the 2010 TdF. He then won a stage in the 2011 Giro and held a top 10 GC place. He bailed out of the 2011 TdF. I don't think I had heard much prior to his podium in the World TT.


----------

