# "UCI declares Vuelta a España free of doping positives"



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

surprised there's not a thread on this

UCI declares Vuelta a España free of doping positives


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Creakyknees said:


> surprised there's not a thread on this
> 
> UCI declares Vuelta a España free of doping positives


happy for chris


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> happy for chris


Froome didn't ride the Vuelta....


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

That is great news for Chris!


----------



## bbrrxx (Jul 17, 2013)

sounds like the '88 olympics.. why dont we just ignore all the positives in fear of embarrassing the host country


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

sir duke said:


> Froome didn't ride the Vuelta....


Hmmm.... it sounds almost like you are saying that the UCI wouldn't have been able to make that declaration if he had ridden in the Vuelta... 



pphhhbbbttt!!!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

bradkay said:


> Hmmm.... it sounds almost like you are saying that the UCI wouldn't have been able to make that declaration if he had ridden in the Vuelta...
> 
> 
> 
> pphhhbbbttt!!!


guess passing the tour de france tests will have to do


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

This settles it. Cycling is now officially clean.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

bradkay said:


> Hmmm.... it sounds almost like you are saying that the UCI wouldn't have been able to make that declaration if he had ridden in the Vuelta...
> 
> 
> 
> pphhhbbbttt!!!


So you use suppositions to challenge a fact? Who's stretching a point? Horner passed his tests, we should rejoice. Froome passes his, we should suspect. Chamois sniffing, methinks.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> So you use suppositions to challenge a fact? Who's stretching a point? Horner passed his tests, we should rejoice. Froome passes his, we should suspect. Chamois sniffing, methinks.


Haven't you proposed the exact opposite?


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I wonder if the Vuelta tests break down like the Tour's?

The Horner Conundrum: Just who is rider 15 anyway? | 100 Tours 100 Tales

_"...the 622 tests from the Tour de France. The French tests included 198 biological passport tests (though only 18 were for Human Growth Hormone and 2 for blood transfusions) and 179 urine samples, of which 113 were for EPO"_

Only an idiot would do EPO AT the tour. So IMHO, there were only 20 meaningful tests: 18 for HGH, and _2_ for blood transfusions. 2 freaking tests! Please excuse my skepticism.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

How do they test for blood transfusions?


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

Local Hero said:


> How do they test for blood transfusions?


From my understanding, it has to do with the percentage of immature red blood cells. If the high count was due to a transfusion, there would be a lower than expected population of immature cells.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

bigbill said:


> From my understanding, it has to do with the percentage of immature red blood cells. If the high count was due to a transfusion, there would be a lower than expected population of immature cells.


That is measured by the biological passport. There were 198 of those tests. 

Can anyone explain transfusion tests?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Haven't you proposed the exact opposite?


No. Passing the tests prove that you passed the test. Froome won the tour, passed the drugs tests and there were people falling over themselves on this forum shouting 'fix'.
Some of those same people are now 'happy for Chris'. Satisfied that a clean test result puts the question of his doping to bed. 
I'm proposing double standards by some folks around here. There were no positives at this year's TDF. I don't recall ATP being happy for Froome. I do remember him coming up with all kinds of nonsense about Froome being ugly and having a weird riding style, as if that somehow validates his suspicions re: doping. Horner is one ugly mofo too, but how is that relevant to his performance?

Isn't that the legacy Lance and others left us, passing tests don't really mean much? Sad but true. 

(Unless that test is passed by your hero, in which case it means everything).


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2013)

I wish the best for Horner. Congratulations.


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

spade2you said:


> This settles it. Cycling is now officially clean.


'Clean' for the things they have approved tests for. Fifteen years ago the riders/teams were doing stuff which there wasn't a conclusive test for, so why do we now think that WADA have caught up and aren't still a drug generation behind? The blood passport does seem a good step forward, but it seems wishful thinking to think that WADA have tests which conclusively prove if someone took banned substances or not.

I'm still loving all the reasons why different riders are winning clean. Armstrong had cancer, which changed his body to be lighter, Landis was in Armstrong's shadow, and once LA retired he could finally ride for himself, Wiggans was an Olympian, so he's always been really good, Froome had a blood parasite, Horner had 6 months off before the race. I don't know who cheats and who doesn't, I just don't trust results when there is a side story to justify the result. Hopefully 2014 is the year that the big winners were just the best, and not the best because of some secondary event.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

sir duke said:


> No. Passing the tests prove that you passed the test. Froome won the tour, passed the drugs tests and there were people falling over themselves on this forum shouting 'fix'.
> Some of those same people are now 'happy for Chris'. Satisfied that a clean test result puts the question of his doping to bed.


of course. 
there were huge advances between july and september. that must be it. :aureola::ihih:


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

sir duke said:


> So you use suppositions to challenge a fact? Who's stretching a point? Horner passed his tests, we should rejoice. Froome passes his, we should suspect. Chamois sniffing, methinks.


Didn't the raspberry at the end of my comment help you realize I was yanking your crank? Some folks are a little sensitive about their heroes it seems...


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

spade2you said:


> This settles it. Cycling is now officially clean.


Yup. Case closed. Might as well disband this forum, or at least move it back to the bottom of the page. :lol:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mpre53 said:


> Yup. Case closed. Might as well disband this forum, or at least move it back to the bottom of the page. :lol:


Lance Armstrong. That is all.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

SNS1938 said:


> I'm still loving all the reasons why different riders are winning clean. Armstrong had cancer, which changed his body to be lighter, Landis was in Armstrong's shadow, and once LA retired he could finally ride for himself, Wiggans was an Olympian, so he's always been really good, Froome had a blood parasite, Horner had 6 months off before the race. I don't know who cheats and who doesn't, I just don't trust results when there is a side story to justify the result. Hopefully 2014 is the year that the big winners were just the best, and not the best because of some secondary event.


Lemond had anemia ...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry couldn't resist.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

sir duke said:


> Who's stretching a point? Horner passed his tests, we should rejoice. Froome passes his, we should suspect. Chamois sniffing, methinks.


If the cookies from the cookie jar went missing, and Froome's face is covered in chocolate but I don't see any on Horner's face... even if they both "passed" some "cookie eating" test, I'm still going to be pretty damn sure Froome ate a cookie or two. Maybe Horner snuck in a cookie and cleaned up well, but it's pretty obvious with Froome. I saw his performance in the both Tours. He had chocolate plastered all over his face. 

In other words, the tests don't mean a whole lot.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

If cookies made me faster I'd be a freakin' champ!


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

bradkay said:


> Didn't the raspberry at the end of my comment help you realize I was yanking your crank? Some folks are a little sensitive about their heroes it seems...


If you'd read some of my recent posts you'd know I don't have any 'heroes' among the current crop of riders. I'm fine with having my crank yanked but it's much more effective if you know a little more about the 'yankee'.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> If you'd read some of my recent posts you'd know I don't have any 'heroes' among the current crop of riders. I'm fine with having my crank yanked but it's much more effective if you know a little more about the 'yankee'.


That's racist.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> That's racist.


Seriously?? 

Then notify Coolio and explain to him why you think I should be censured. You might want to explain to me too while you're at it. Assuming you ARE serious.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Cableguy said:


> If the cookies from the cookie jar went missing, and Froome's face is covered in chocolate but I don't see any on Horner's face... even if they both "passed" some "cookie eating" test, I'm still going to be pretty damn sure Froome ate a cookie or two. Maybe Horner snuck in a cookie and cleaned up well, but it's pretty obvious with Froome. I saw his performance in the both Tours. He had chocolate plastered all over his face.


There's always some killjoy who has to bring hard science into the debate to pour cold water over our hunches and prejudices. 

Horner is from the Lance era, an exact contemporary of Tex. Rode on a European team and saw no doping, rode on Radioshack and saw and heard nothing, gets injured, does nothing for a year and comes back to win a GT against proven dopers at 42. Employing your methodology that makes him a frikken' chocolate eclair!


----------



## NattyBumpo (Oct 28, 2013)

Creakyknees said:


> surprised there's not a thread on this
> 
> UCI declares Vuelta a España free of doping positives


What next? Easter Bunny declares the Tooth Fairy is real?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

NattyBumpo said:


> What next? Easter Bunny declares the Tooth Fairy is real?


Capt. Dreyfus declares that there's gambling going on in Rick's Cafe Americane.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

NattyBumpo said:


> What next? Easter Bunny declares the Tooth Fairy is real?


They just state that nobody tested positive, not that nobody doped.


----------

