Do you think Sky is cheating?

[bicycletricycle]

(Title edited to cut down on confusion, sorry about that, now the answer to the title question and poll question align.)

Well, listening to the stages podcast and watching the tour after a couple year break has got me wondering. What do people think about doping these days?

I guess I might be starting some **** with this thread, I swear I am not trying to troll or anything. I am genuinely curious about everyone's opinion. What do you guys think about team sky and doping, specifically do you think Froome and Wiggins doped/dope.

I personally assume that it is likely but have not spent a lot of time investigating the topic, I guess I am just not too worried about it. I would like it if the sport was clean but it just seems unlikely.

hopefully I can figure out this poll feature.

[gasman]

Yes, now that you changed the thread title 😀

[oliver1850]

For me, there is enough doubt about everyone that I have not followed competitive cycling in over 20 years. It can still be entertaining to watch for a few minutes but I'd rather spend my time with a concert video or a movie.

[adub]

Lol!

[jumphigher]

Highly likely, imo.

[Louis]

I think a more important question is "What % of the all the starting riders in the TdF are clean?"

More than 50%? Less?

[pbarry]

Yes, they have a program and they meet the current standards, until they don't.

[Llewellyn]

Of course they are - anyone want to buy this unicorn I've got right here?

[pbarry]

Of course they are - anyone want to buy this unicorn I've got right here?

How much for shipping from AUS? :beer:

[bicycletricycle]

Of course they are - anyone want to buy this unicorn I've got right here?

What kind of tire clearance does that unicorn got?

[FlashUNC]

Duh.

[Louis]

BTW, folks should note that this poll asks two different questions that are worded differently from each other:

1) The Subject of the thread: "Do you think Sky is clean? (lets try to keep it civil)" and,

2) The actual poll question: "Do you think Sky has a "program?""

[bicycletricycle]

BTW, folks should note that this poll asks two different questions that are worded differently from each other:

1) The Subject of the thread: "Do you think Sky is clean? (lets try to keep it civil)" and,

2) The actual poll question: "Do you think Sky has a "program?""


Sorry, I meant "program" as in, Illegal PED program cheating of some kind. I get now that if you just read he title you might vote wrong, crap, I should not do poles.

I will see if I can fix it up somehow.

[pbarry]

Sorry, I meant "program" as in, Illegal PED program cheating of some kind. I get now that if you just read he title you might vote wrong, crap, I should not do poles.

I will see if I can fix it up somehow.

There are many dead polar explorers who might feel the same way, if they could be asked..

[csm]

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






It's a joke. Sorry.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CunegoFan]

[QUOTE=bicycletricycle;2205444
I guess I might be starting some **** with this thread, I swear I am not trying to troll or anything. I am genuinely curious about everyone's opinion. What do you guys think about team sky and doping, specifically do you think Froome and Wiggins doped/dope.[/QUOTE]

The question about Wiggins has been definitively answered: Bogus TUEs that did not meet at least three out of all four required WADA criteria given to the UCI knowing they would be rubber stamped while relying on Cookson to excuse it if anything came to light. It was the exact same playbook that has been used for decades to cover up corticosteroid use during a race.

[Fivethumbs]

Who here remembers Sky in its first year? Having such a big-money company getting into cycling was huge. Unfortunately they seriously under-achieved as their results were much less than was was expected of them. As a result they were not treated so nicely by the press. It created a lot of pressure on that team. How did they turn it around? I don't know but it sure looks very Postal-like. If you remember, from 1996-1998 U.S. Postal was nothing to write home about, even with Tyler Hamilton and Andy Hampsten.

[sfscott]

Just a thought. They have the strongest team for the GC and make the fewest tactical mistakes. Unlike, say Astana. Or BMC.

It also helps that Porte crashed out and so called challengers like Quintana and Contador don't have it.

But really. If Astana had a clue and stopped working for Froome, Aru might have had a shot.

[54ny77]

Here's the statistics on cheating in cycling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvQFtlNQ-M

[holliscx]

The only thing we know with absolute certainty is that Jens Voigt never doped

[rustychisel]

The only thing we know with absolute certainty is that Jens Voigt never doped

why?

[holliscx]

why?

I was being facetious suggest otherwise to anyone who's ever stepped foot near the peloton and they'll laugh your face off

[rustychisel]

aha. We appear to be on the same page, then. :beer:

[Cicli]

They all are. Some are better than others is all.
I hear its happened in the past as well.

[Jgrooms]

methinks thou dost protest too much?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-launches-rant-against-cyclingnews-journalist/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jumphigher]

I've read many books lately on the TDF, and coming from a shop backround in the 80's, I have to admit I'm pretty cynical about teams riding clean. Just doesnt seem possible at the level of the grand tours to ride/win without help. Personally I just accept it and enjoy the riders for what they are - great athletes.

[Joachim]

I would like to see anyone that says that Sky is doping, come forward with which substances they are 'allegedly' using and how they are avoiding the tests for said substances. Come with scientific facts. Otherwise it's just bar talk and letting subjective feelings about a team determine your opinion on doping. Might as well change this thread to 'Cyclingnews - Clinic' then and add to their crazy talk..

[jlwdm]

Sky has the largest budget. One thing I just read is that Sky does not develop talent. They buy already developed talent. I had not thought about this.

Also like Lance's teams they are totally committed to winning the Tour. No sprinter. No one getting in breaks to try to win a stage. No one trying to get the polka dot jersey with 2 points in an early stage. No green jersey chasers. There is only one prize. It is all about the team.

Jeff

[chiasticon]

while I don't honestly care, I will say that if they are doping, then those that leave their team clearly continue to do so. I say that because look at guys like Uran or Porte that were on Sky and now aren't, but who are still quite capable GC contenders.

my guess is, at the very least, they're pushing the limits of what's within the rules, just like everyone else.

[ColonelJLloyd]

Sports doping in the 60s, 70s and 80s was more interesting than it is today.

http://i1.chroniclelive.co.uk/incoming/article5098748.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/TOMMYSIMPSONJPG.jpg

http://blog.wfmu.org/.a/6a00d83451c29169e2011571d8a7ca970b-pi

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/47/87/69/4787694c53c95b28bc90e40c5a1de3aa--john-daly-golf.jpg

[oldpotatoe]

(Title edited to cut down on confusion, sorry about that, now the answer to the title question and poll question align.)

Well, listening to the stages podcast and watching the tour after a couple year break has got me wondering. What do people think about doping these days?

I guess I might be starting some **** with this thread, I swear I am not trying to troll or anything. I am genuinely curious about everyone's opinion. What do you guys think about team sky and doping, specifically do you think Froome and Wiggins doped/dope.

I personally assume that it is likely but have not spent a lot of time investigating the topic, I guess I am just not too worried about it. I would like it if the sport was clean but it just seems unlikely.

hopefully I can figure out this poll feature.

Define 'doping'? Every team has doctors, Sky has a BIG BUDGET so can get great doctors, have Great testing so can participate in that gray area of 'stuff' where yes, this limit of this stuff is legal, this much more and it's not. Do I think they use outright illegal stuff, and then use masking agents or techniques to keep from getting caught, like EPO? No, I don't.

But do they dance around the gray area will suppleaze(sp?) and aplomb, using their gigantic funds and budget? Sure they do.

[FlashUNC]

I would like to see anyone that says that Sky is doping, come forward with which substances they are 'allegedly' using and how they are avoiding the tests for said substances. Come with scientific facts. Otherwise it's just bar talk and letting subjective feelings about a team determine your opinion on doping. Might as well change this thread to 'Cyclingnews - Clinic' then and add to their crazy talk..

Whatever was in that nebulous courier packet is a good start.

But you don't hire the dope doctor from Rabobank if you want to to compete clean.

[earlfoss]

I'm sure that in the 15-20 years after Froome retires, someone will start talking.

[weiwentg]

Define 'doping'? Every team has doctors, Sky has a BIG BUDGET so can get great doctors, have Great testing so can participate in that gray area of 'stuff' where yes, this limit of this stuff is legal, this much more and it's not. Do I think they use outright illegal stuff, and then use masking agents or techniques to keep from getting caught, like EPO? No, I don't.

But do they dance around the gray area will suppleaze(sp?) and aplomb, using their gigantic funds and budget? Sure they do.

There's this issue. There's also the issue of whether Team Sky maintained an organized doping program a la USPS or ONCE, or whether rides on Team Sky are or were doping freelance, like CSC. If the latter, were riders freelancing with management's approval, or were they freelancing under the radar like Danilo Di Luca?

Right now, I suspect that Sky either had an organized program of pushing the rules as far as they could get away with, or that Sky's management suborned or allowed such action for or by some of their medical staff and riders.

I don't yet think that Sky administered any game changers, which I define as EPO, blood transfusions, and testosterone. It was probably more that they pushed the rules for corticosteroids as far as they could. Those, by themselves, haven't got clear evidence of being game changers for athletic performance. We have testimonies by athletes - but those guys were likely on other stuff at the time, user testimonies by themselves aren't reliable evidence, etc. Edit: that said, I do consider this to be cheating as well. It's lesser in magnitude than USPS/ONCE, but it's still fundamentally cheating.

That said, we also haven't heard the full story. It may never fully come to light, thus leaving an unsatisfactory cloud of suspicion over their heads - which Brailsford, Freeman, Wiggins, and others brought on themselves. I will remind readers that there was the package of testosterone packages sent by accident to a doctor at British Cycling, who was (iirc) working for BC and Sky. A strange arrangement, given that BC should be Sky's regulator, including for anti-doping purposes. Also, how is it that you get a box of testosterone patches delivered by accident? Was it supposed to be a box of kenacort vials, and the supplier goofed (they are both steroids, after all ....)? Curious. But no hard evidence yet that it wasn't an accident.

I don't like to just drop innuendo, so let me make one last point explicitly. There was a strange relationship between Sky and its nominal regulator, plus the shady TUEs, plus the mystery box to Wiggins and the mystery testosterone packages. These by themselves don't prove a case. But they do undermine Sky's credibility in my mind, and I believe that I'm entirely justified in this regard.

[oldpotatoe]

There's this issue. There's also the issue of whether Team Sky maintained an organized doping program a la USPS or ONCE, or whether rides on Team Sky are or were doping freelance, like CSC. If the latter, were riders freelancing with management's approval, or were they freelancing under the radar like Danilo Di Luca?

Right now, I suspect that Sky either had an organized program of pushing the rules as far as they could get away with, or that Sky's management suborned or allowed such action for or by some of their medical staff and riders.

I don't yet think that Sky administered any game changers, which I define as EPO, blood transfusions, and testosterone. It was probably more that they pushed the rules for corticosteroids as far as they could. Those, by themselves, haven't got clear evidence of being game changers for athletic performance. We have testimonies by athletes - but those guys were likely on other stuff at the time, user testimonies by themselves aren't reliable evidence, etc.

That said, we also haven't heard the full story. It may never fully come to light, thus leaving an unsatisfactory cloud of suspicion over their heads - which Brailsford, Freeman, Wiggins, and others brought on themselves. I will remind readers that there was the package of testosterone packages sent by accident to a doctor at British Cycling, who was (iirc) working for BC and Sky. A strange arrangement, given that BC should be Sky's regulator, including for anti-doping purposes. Also, how is it that you get a box of testosterone patches delivered by accident? Was it supposed to be a box of kenacort vials, and the supplier goofed (they are both steroids, after all ....)? Curious. But no hard evidence yet that it wasn't an accident.

I don't like to just drop innuendo, so let me make one last point explicitly. There was a strange relationship between Sky and its nominal regulator, plus the shady TUEs, plus the mystery box to Wiggins and the mystery testosterone packages. These by themselves don't prove a case. But they do undermine Sky's credibility in my mind, and I believe that I'm entirely justified in this regard.

Good point about TUEs...approved by the UCI, if any guy asks for and gets a legal TUE, he will use it...another 'gray' part of this whole gig.

[weiwentg]

Good point about TUEs...approved by the UCI, if any guy asks for and gets a legal TUE, he will use it...another 'gray' part of this whole gig.

About that gray area ... I think of what they did with Wiggins as cheating, but reasonable people can disagree on that incident.

My read of the UK clinical guidelines for treatment of allergies is that they don't favor systemic corticosteroids for non-emergencies. I wrote some stuff on this earlier on Reddit (and yes, that is my pseudonym there ... very long story). It definitely seems like going to kenacort was aggressive, and he perhaps should have got oral corticosteroids (which i believe are less potent, or are less potent in usual doses). That said, it may well have been common medical practice at the time, at least among some clinicians. Clinical guidelines aren't written in stone (hence their name, guidelines). Moreover, Wiggins' TUEs do say that he was on maximal topical treatments; there are some additional things he could have tried, but they may not have been as available in the U.K. at the time (e.g. Immunotherapy, aka getting allergy shots).

https://www.reddit.com/r/peloton/comments/5l77xc/uk_anti_dopings_2016_guidelines_for_systemic/

Bottom line, Freeman's and Wiggins' state of mind could be relevant. If they were thinking of going for the most aggressive treatment that could be administered because it could help enhance performance in healthy athletes as a side benefit (e.g. By helping him drop some weight), then that's wrong. But it will be hard to determine their state of mind. So, the kenacort thing on its own could be let go. For me, this is where Sky's general credibility comes in, and I don't believe they have it.

[Joachim]

Whatever was in that nebulous courier packet is a good start.

But you don't hire the dope doctor from Rabobank if you want to to compete clean.

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

[weiwentg]

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

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/15660/Bio-passport-expert-raises-concerns-about-Horners-published-biological-passport-values.aspx#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.

[bicycletricycle]

I assume every team is pushing gray areas.

The question is more about crossing the (fuzzy?) line into the known illegal activities


Define 'doping'? Every team has doctors, Sky has a BIG BUDGET so can get great doctors, have Great testing so can participate in that gray area of 'stuff' where yes, this limit of this stuff is legal, this much more and it's not. Do I think they use outright illegal stuff, and then use masking agents or techniques to keep from getting caught, like EPO? No, I don't.

But do they dance around the gray area will suppleaze(sp?) and aplomb, using their gigantic funds and budget? Sure they do.

[holliscx]

Joachim fwiw Lance said in response to why Froome was getting booed roadside in France that it was partly not doping suspicion but rather incidents of proof the team has doped. I don't claim to be an expert on this subject but I suspect Armstrong has a good pulse on doping in the peloton

[William]

If you go back and look at threads in the archives about similar questions concerning LA/Discovery/Postal and doping during their run they pretty much run as this thread is. Some say yes, some say no, some throw out the no proof card, etc... At this point in time (the present) no one can say definitively unless someone gets popped in the Tour. That said, history has tended to show otherwise.

I'm in the "most likely" camp. We'll find out at some point in the future...most likely.








William

[MattTuck]

exploiting the TUE system is extremely sketchy.

That said, they're under a microscope this year, and I see the risks as just too high for the team to try something that could jeopardize their sponsorship/record. If anything, (and we're talking relativism here), I'd suspect that Sky is cleaner than a lot of other teams because of this.

[bobswire]

exploiting the TUE system is extremely sketchy.

That said, they're under a microscope this year, and I see the risks as just too high for the team to try something that could jeopardize their sponsorship/record. If anything, (and we're talking relativism here), I'd suspect that Sky is cleaner than a lot of other teams because of this.

I agree and tactically they are a lot smarter, today being an example.

[54ny77]

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

[Joachim]

Joachim fwiw Lance said in response to why Froome was getting booed roadside in France that it was partly not doping suspicion but rather incidents of proof the team has doped. I don't claim to be an expert on this subject but I suspect Armstrong has a good pulse on doping in the peloton

I don't believe anything Armstrong says. He is an attention seeker.

[Joachim]

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/15660/Bio-passport-expert-raises-concerns-about-Horners-published-biological-passport-values.aspx#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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/steven-colvert-case-anti-doping-quality-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/jamaican-clenbuterol-positives-procedural-failure-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]

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/steven-colvert-case-anti-doping-quality-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/jamaican-clenbuterol-positives-procedural-failure-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]

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

[RonW87]

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 Bjorne Riis was called "Mr. 50?"

Mr. 60%, I believe.

[FlashUNC]

Made for some awesome racing though, not gonna lie. Riis on the Hautacam was pretty nuts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDCGSsOaLDA

[Seramount]

professional sports are simply a form of entertainment.

they don't affect my life, watching them is just something to fill up some leisure time.

not a bfd to me if the players are doped or not.

many, many more important items on my 'worry list'...

[William]

professional sports are simply a form of entertainment.

they don't affect my life, watching them is just something to fill up some leisure time.

not a bfd to me if the players are doped or not.

many, many more important items on my 'worry list'...


In the grand scheme of things not a big deal to me either. I just find "the show" interesting. Why play the "We don't dope" card? The whole dog and pony show that goes on around it, guys getting all indignant that people would think they dope now, and eventually we find out they did...again.

Just drop the pretense and allow them to do whatever they want to do to win. They don't have to lie and put on a show, and we can be entertained.






Naw, never happen. :)







William

[oldpotatoe]

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

He was 'Mr 60%'...but I think blood doping is still undetectable, illegal and the most common method used, IMHO...just enough each day to stay below 50%. A look at hematocrit levels during a GT, I'll bet hematocrit is pretty consistent but it should be decreasing....

[jr59]

professional sports are simply a form of entertainment.

They don't affect my life, watching them is just something to fill up some leisure time.

Not a bfd to me if the players are doped or not.

Many, many more important items on my 'worry list'...



in the grand scheme of things not a big deal to me either. I just find "the show" interesting. Why play the "we don't dope" card? The whole dog and pony show that goes on around it, guys getting all indignant that people would think they dope now, and eventually we find out they did...again.

Just drop the pretense and allow them to do whatever they want to do to win. They don't have to lie and put on a show, and we can be entertained.






Naw, never happen. :)







william

^^ both of theses^^

[William]

Made for some awesome racing though, not gonna lie. Riis on the Hautacam was pretty nuts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDCGSsOaLDA

Doped to the gills, yo-yo'ing everyone on the climb, just batting them around and playing with them like a cat with a wounded mouse. That was a pretty entertaining pharmacological moment in Tour history. :)







William

[Hawker]

Is there total satisfaction that motors of any kind are being policed for and a non-issue any longer?

[benb]

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

It's been very well established they weren't all on the program all of the time and if you misbehaved or got on the wrong side of Lance or Johan your "supplies" would dry up, you'd suffer a lot, and if you stayed on their bad side you'd be off the team with a ruined career.

I'm pretty sure Sky is on something.. can't prove it, but I don't have to, just have to wait till it will all come out.

All the Sky true believers sound exactly like the Postal True believers years ago.

And on top of it I would MUCH rather go back and watch Lance/Pantani whoever doped to the gills than watch Froome and Sky put me to sleep. I'm pretty much not even bothering to watch until the Froomestrong era is over.

[bicycletricycle]

As the OP if this thread I forgive you, we are all guilty of some kind of bad taste.




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






It's a joke. Sorry.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bicycletricycle]

There are many dead polar explorers who might feel the same way, if they could be asked..

this poll is really polarizing?

I made a habit of cheating vocabulary and spelling tests when i was little, good thing I am a "creative professional"

[LouDeeter]

What about the issue with Sky handing out bottles on final climbs? They did it on L'Alpe d'Huez a few years ago and both Porte and Froome were penalized. They did it on the final climb yesterday (Thursday) and even the announcers mentioned it. But, I saw no discussion about whether it was considered by the officials. Isn't that cheating?

[jlwdm]

What about the issue with Sky handing out bottles on final climbs? They did it on L'Alpe d'Huez a few years ago and both Porte and Froome were penalized. They did it on the final climb yesterday (Thursday) and even the announcers mentioned it. But, I saw no discussion about whether it was considered by the officials. Isn't that cheating?

Do you have a citation to the rule? It seems to vary by stage and depending on the heat. Whatever rule there is seems to get changed based on conditions.

Riders know the penalties for taking food or drink and riding to long in the caravan. I would not call that cheating. It is a risk reward that all teams make. Why are you singling out Sky? Similar for peeing. If you have to go sometimes you have to go and you accept the penalty if there are spectators in the area.

In last years tour someone was given a bottle by a team helper on a climb and on TV they said it was legal from the staff but would not have been legal if it came from a team car.

Jeff

Edit: This is from 2013 when Froome took food from a team car (Porte took it and gave it to Froome): "Under UCI race rules, feeding from a team car is only allowed before the final part of a stage for road safety reasons. " I don't know if this rule has changed.

An article on Stage 12 this year covered taking bottles from spectators. The article said that stage prohibited taking feed in the last 10km. Bennett took his at 6.4km and Uran at 5km.

[LouDeeter]

It wasn't handed out by a team car. I'm going by what Phil and Paul said. They said that it is illegal to take food or drink in the last 10km of a mountain stage and it was inside the last 10km when a Sky staff member handed a bag with bottles to one of the Sky riders, who then handed one of them to Froome. I don't know the rule. I'm just curious as to whether Phil and Paul had it right and if they did, why wasn't there a penalty.

[jlwdm]

I don't know if it was right, but I would not rely on Phil and Paul.

Jeff

[rain dogs]

Please define "cheating"



..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
quoted from page 1 section 1 paragraph 1 and line 1 of the Team Sky orientation manual distributed at training camp.

[csm]

As the OP if this thread I forgive you, we are all guilty of some kind of bad taste.



Thank you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk