Do you think Sky is cheating?

[Joachim]

Originally Posted by weiwentg

Regardless of what it was, it was easy enough to avoid individual tests for banned substances back in the Armstrong era, and it should still be possible to do so now. You may have to be more careful with dose and timing, of course.

The Passport isn't infallible. The UCI currently seem to be flagging cases very conservatively. See, for example, the article below on Chris Horner and LA. Both were in the passport system, but neither were flagged.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15...#ixzz2iJ2z5SIi

Hence, it seems likely to me that you could outright cheat, but keep the doses small enough to skate under the radar. As to pushing the TUE system, the Wiggins case illustrates how it was pretty easy to manipulate it for systemic corticosteroids.

You make the assumption that there are no advances in testing methods or the equipment that is used for testing. Nothing can be further from the truth. I can analyze over 100 substances in one go (few min) in a small volume of urine or blood (microliters). The instrument sensitivity is higher than ever so detection of minute doses are better then ever. The technology is completely different from 10 years, even 3 years ago. My point is that so many shout doping doping doping, but they know nothing about doping. If you talk with the young world tour pro's, you will get a much clearer picture than believing the masses.

[William]

Originally Posted by 54ny77

Yes, I believe that Sky riders are all getting SKY tv and broadband access and not paying for it.

Proof?

And I have questions regarding his off-cycling season competitive pursuits...







William

[ergott]

Originally Posted by csm

Speaking of poles.... I support single moms one dollar at a time.






It's a joke. Sorry.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's really poor taste regardless.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[MattTuck]

I think some will say that the riders may come into the event with all the banned substances out of their system, but that they may benefit from banned substances during training, if done in low enough doses, and with fingers crossed they don't get randomly tested. This is the weak spot in the testing, no? Less concerned that someone gets tested after they win a stage at the TDF. It is the lead up, in the shadows, that a lot of people are worried about.

I'm generally of the thought that even if doping does still occur, the goal should be to keep the costs of [getting caught] cheating high compared to the benefits. If WADA (or whoever) can limit the benefit through better detection, random testing, etc., that is a good thing, as it moves in the right direction. And if people are forced to do microdosing to avoid detection, the hope is that the efficacy keeps dropping as the amount of that can be detected also keeps dropping. Maybe people have a 5 in 10 chance of getting caught, whereas before they had 1 in 10. Fewer people willing to risk it because the benefits to doping get smaller and smaller, less doping; that's a win.

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by Joachim

So what was it then? And how do they avoid detecting?

Given what I've read from those smarter than me, my hunch is some kind of microdosing program combined with an aggressive use of the TUEs for inhalers and all other sorts of stuff.

Everytime they've gotten a rider popped it seems like someone got tested slightly out of an expected cycle and had higher than expected values.

I fully concede some of it is budget, but Froome doesn't go from pack fodder in second tier African races to three time Tour winner because they currently his nebulous African virus.

[Anarchist]

They are cheating 9 ways from Sunday, but as long as Cookson in in office there will be no adverse findings.

[kramnnim]

If Sky has a program, why does it only work on a few of their riders?

[ftf]

Originally Posted by Joachim

So what was it then? And how do they avoid detecting?

How am I to know? I also don't know how to build a rocket ship, doesn't mean someone else doesn't know how to build one, I'm not a doping or rocket ship expert, nor do I wish to be either.


Doping and cycling go hand in hand, hell doping and sport go hand in hand. They just caught another masters doper at Track nationals.... MASTERS, she was 49! And you think people racing for millions of dollars are just like, Nah I'll do it clean! Especially when they know most of the other people are not. Granted I'm sure someone in the peleton is clean, but it sure isn't the tip of the spear.


Anyone who thinks the current "generation" is clean, well I can't wait until you're proven wrong AGAIN. Didn't they just catch a Trek Segrafredo rider before the tour... HUmmmm.

[Anarchist]

Originally Posted by kramnnim

If Sky has a program, why does it only work on a few of their riders?

If Postal had a program why did it only work for a few of their riders?

[MaraudingWalrus]

Where's the button for "I think they're all cheating?"

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Joachim

You make the assumption that there are no advances in testing methods or the equipment that is used for testing. Nothing can be further from the truth. I can analyze over 100 substances in one go (few min) in a small volume of urine or blood (microliters). The instrument sensitivity is higher than ever so detection of minute doses are better then ever. The technology is completely different from 10 years, even 3 years ago. My point is that so many shout doping doping doping, but they know nothing about doping. If you talk with the young world tour pro's, you will get a much clearer picture than believing the masses.

Well that's really good information. I still always wonder since it was going on for so many years it's hard to believe it still isn't occurring. Really, I'm just cynical about it.

[weiwentg]

Originally Posted by Joachim

You make the assumption that there are no advances in testing methods or the equipment that is used for testing. Nothing can be further from the truth. I can analyze over 100 substances in one go (few min) in a small volume of urine or blood (microliters). The instrument sensitivity is higher than ever so detection of minute doses are better then ever. The technology is completely different from 10 years, even 3 years ago. My point is that so many shout doping doping doping, but they know nothing about doping. If you talk with the young world tour pro's, you will get a much clearer picture than believing the masses.

Hang on, I didn't assume that there were no advances at all in testing methods.

If you are telling me that you work in this field, and that there were recent revolutionary advances in testing, then sure. I wasn't assuming revolutions.

But, on the other hand, if you are saying that there have been revolutions in the technology, then you may be being entirely too credulous about how well that technology is deployed.

Case 1: a suspected case where a drug testing lab had serious quality issues.

http://sportsscientists.com/2016/10/...ality-control/

Case 2: regulatory failure. Inconsistent and non-transparent application of an exception for suspected contamination in several clenbuterol cases.

http://sportsscientists.com/2017/04/...e-credibility/

Bottom line: if you are asserting that there have been revolutionary advances in testing technology in the last 5 years (proof appreciated, FYI), then that's reassuring, but technology doesn't get used in a vacuum. The testers can fail - some labs may be under-resourced and they may not get the tech, or their personnel can fail (because it isn't easy to do good science). The regulators can also fail to act - remember that their incentives may be to minimize public relations disasters.

[ftf]

Originally Posted by weiwentg

Hang on, I didn't assume that there were no advances at all in testing methods.

If you are telling me that you work in this field, and that there were recent revolutionary advances in testing, then sure. I wasn't assuming revolutions.

But, on the other hand, if you are saying that there have been revolutions in the technology, then you may be being entirely too credulous about how well that technology is deployed.

Case 1: a suspected case where a drug testing lab had serious quality issues.

http://sportsscientists.com/2016/10/...ality-control/

Case 2: regulatory failure. Inconsistent and non-transparent application of an exception for suspected contamination in several clenbuterol cases.

http://sportsscientists.com/2017/04/...e-credibility/

Bottom line: if you are asserting that there have been revolutionary advances in testing technology in the last 5 years (proof appreciated, FYI), then that's reassuring, but technology doesn't get used in a vacuum. The testers can fail - some labs may be under-resourced and they may not get the tech, or their personnel can fail (because it isn't easy to do good science). The regulators can also fail to act - remember that their incentives may be to minimize public relations disasters.

Not only all of this, but there more than likely have been advances on the other side as well. It's not like sky has no money, or haven't hired doctors..... How many blood bags were there in Perto's lab, lots of money to cheat the system.

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by Joachim

You make the assumption that there are no advances in testing methods or the equipment that is used for testing. Nothing can be further from the truth. I can analyze over 100 substances in one go (few min) in a small volume of urine or blood (microliters). The instrument sensitivity is higher than ever so detection of minute doses are better then ever. The technology is completely different from 10 years, even 3 years ago. My point is that so many shout doping doping doping, but they know nothing about doping. If you talk with the young world tour pro's, you will get a much clearer picture than believing the masses.

I don't disagree about advances in testing, but the dopers have stayed ahead of testing for nigh on 40 years now. I haven't seen much that gives me confidence that has changed at all.

I mean, Pete's sake, Sky has had riders get popped. They hired a dope doctor. They have weird packages going around they can't explain.

I'm sorry they don't get the benefit of the doubt from me, but none of these teams in similar circumstances over the last forty years has ever ended up being clean. The witch hunts generally find witches in this case.

[Fivethumbs]

What about blood doping? In Tyler's book he went into detail about blood doping. He said it was undetectable unless you exceeded the rather generous hematocrit threshold. Remember when Bjarne Riis was called "Mr. 50?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk