raptor-22 Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Because Cycledoping is addictive to follow and watch and unlike wrestling, we all have bikes and ride them rather than faking punches in a ring periodically :-) No I think its because everyone needs a valid excuse for not getting their sub3 at the Argust.By taking the moral high ground on doping you can say you didn't achieve it but at least you raced clean.
Headshot Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 No I think its because everyone needs a valid excuse for not getting their sub3 at the Argust.By taking the moral high ground on doping you can say you didn't achieve it but at least you raced clean. But I did that and I was clean, I tell you - although I was on Vitathion...
Tubehunter Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 I personally like this illusion the authorities have that they are in control of the situation. At this point they have vanilla limits for everyone irrespective of their actual physiology. It leaves the whole process open to abuse as anyone under the prescribed level simply needs some decent blood work to elevate their natural levels to just below the accepted current level rather than remain naturally way below the level. In future, the authorities intend to look at the genetic footprint of every potential athlete through time and see whether their physiology has changed enough to consider it artificial gains through specific periods of their life. Yes, the whole biological passport is supposed to deal with this in future and hopefully they get the parameters of this bedded down well. My biggest fear with this however is when does the biological passport start getting measured and what will the downstream practises become for this? i.e. If they only start your passport figures when you move into pro sports, amateur stars will start the process of getting their physiology elevated as much as they can before the passport kick off dates. If they have this little actual control on the pros what chances do they have of reigning in a far greater volume of amateur leagues???? Sometimes the most well intentioned solutions bring on even greater problems! I'm unsure about how this future doping control is going to practically work out at this point!
Duane_Bosch Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 But I did that and I was clean, I tell you - although I was on Vitathion...I was on weed and took 7 1/2 hours. The bikkies in Simonstown tasted AMAZING tho.
Duane_Bosch Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 I personally like this illusion the authorities have that they are in control of the situation. At this point they have vanilla limits for everyone irrespective of their actual physiology. It leaves the whole process open to abuse as anyone under the prescribed level simply needs some decent blood work to elevate their natural levels to just below the accepted current level rather than remain naturally way below the level. In future, the authorities intend to look at the genetic footprint of every potential athlete through time and see whether their physiology has changed enough to consider it artificial gains through specific periods of their life. Yes, the whole biological passport is supposed to deal with this in future and hopefully they get the parameters of this bedded down well. My biggest fear with this however is when does the biological passport start getting measured and what will the downstream practises become for this? i.e. If they only start your passport figures when you move into pro sports, amateur stars will start the process of getting their physiology elevated as much as they can before the passport kick off dates. If they have this little actual control on the pros what chances do they have of reigning in a far greater volume of amateur leagues???? Sometimes the most well intentioned solutions bring on even greater problems! I'm unsure about how this future doping control is going to practically work out at this point!^^^^^^^^^ THIS!!!! So what you're saying is the biological passport encourages doping long before you turn pro. So we're back to keeping your levels at a certain place and not getting bust with EPO in the fridge and BB's next to your beers.
Headshot Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Duane, is DH clean? I mean how can it be, they don't even ride the damn bikes up the trail...
Rick Sanchez Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Not going to read every post here, but something I always find strange is how the Pro's can ride while ill. Every now and again there is someone in the peloton fighting off the flu.How the hell do they ride with these illnesses when everyone advises against training while sick? With Froome claiming he fell ill towards the end of the TdF, It's just suspicious. That being said, I like Froome, but I am not stupid regarding doping in Cycling (all sports for that matter)
raptor-22 Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Not going to read every post here, but something I always find strange is how the Pro's can ride while ill. Every now and again there is someone in the peloton fighting off the flu.How the hell do they ride with these illnesses when everyone advises against training while sick? With Froome claiming he fell ill towards the end of the TdF, It's just suspicious. That being said, I like Froome, but I am not stupid regarding doping in Cycling (all sports for that matter) According to my doc, the whole no exercise thing while sick has been taken out of context. If you running a fever and your infection is viral or bacterial then ya, stay calm, breathe eat and drink as much as you can. If its just a head cold or sinus related then exercise can actuallyhelp.Exercise induced asthma is not viral nor bacterial hence you can still ride hard as long as you can keep the airways open. All the inhalers allow is for the airways to stay open. they not NOS
Meezo Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 With all due respect, I think you've been listening to Brailsford too much. REALLY? on FRIDAY??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ok ima a believer now, he is clean
scotty Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 The comment on "does not look comfortable on bike" reminds me of Mathew's Motshwarteu aka "Loop en Val" who was a brilliant road and cross country runner. When running he always looked like he was about to fall over any second but somehow he always won races.
Patchelicious Posted February 5, 2016 Author Posted February 5, 2016 With all due respect, I think you've been listening to Brailsford too much. Well you think wrong I have hardly ever listened to him or read things he wrote, so not sure where you get your information from. How can you tell me what I have and have not been doing? The statement is applicable to anybody. I could say :"Look at you all who think that Sagan is "clean" and if you believe anything else you are naive". Its has nothing to do with Froome, but everyhting to do with a crap statement. If you want to accuse someone of something then substatniate it. Then it can be discussed. Your current stance is very similar to the one from the other dude: "they all dope", nothing will change your mind on this. If they get popped you say can "told you so", if they dont get popped you will still say "they all dope" but I doubt you will ever say "well how about that (insert name here) is actually clean". Edit: There is nothing wrong with being sceptical or even cynical is this sport, but just making statement and not backing it up is a general thing that doesnt work.
jcza Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Well you think wrong I have hardly ever listened to him or read things he wrote, so not sure where you get your information from. How can you tell me what I have and have not been doing? The statement is applicable to anybody. I could say :"Look at you all who think that Sagan is "clean" and if you beleive anything else you are niave". Its has nothing to do with Froome, but everyhting to do with a crap statement. If you want to accuse someone of something then substatniate it. Your current stance is very similar: "they all dope", nothing will change your mind on this. If they get popped you say can "told you so", if they dont get popped you will still say "they all dope" but I doubt you will ever say "well how about that (insert name here) is actually clean". Take a deep breath. You accuse me off thinking wrong yet you know exactly what my stance is? Brailsford is the one that said you can't prove a negative, hence my comment.
BDF Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Well you think wrong I have hardly ever listened to him or read things he wrote, so not sure where you get your information from. How can you tell me what I have and have not been doing? The statement is applicable to anybody. I could say :"Look at you all who think that Sagan is "clean" and if you beleive anything else you are niave". Its has nothing to do with Froome, but everyhting to do with a crap statement. If you want to accuse someone of something then substatniate it. Your current stance is very similar: "they all dope", nothing will change your mind on this. If they get popped you say can "told you so", if they dont get popped you will still say "they all dope" but I doubt you will ever say "well how about that (insert name here) is actually clean".Patch, I think you are trying to push water uphill with a rake. Some opinions are immovable. Until there are facts, they remain just opinions.I believe there are non-dopers of which until proven otherwise, Froome is one.. Maybe I am just naïve but I like it that way.
ChUkKy Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Lets all throw a cup of piss and then be merry again
Patchelicious Posted February 5, 2016 Author Posted February 5, 2016 Take a deep breath. You accuse me off thinking wrong yet you know exactly what my stance is? Brailsford is the one that said you can't prove a negative, hence my comment. Breath taken I am not accusing you of anything. I am saying your assessment on my stance is not accurate. You seem to have been clear on your stance? But if my assesment is incorrect, apologies, please correct me. The proving a negative thing, is a pretty common statement, especially in my line of work, so thats where if came from
jcza Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Breath taken I am not accusing you of anything. I am saying your assessment on my stance is not accurate. You seem to have been clear on your stance? But if my assesment is incorrect, apologies, please correct me. The proving a negative thing, is a pretty common statement, especially in my line of work, so thats where if came from WHAT? You work for SKY? Just kidding, remain calm. My stance is simple.I don't believe in miracles. You don't go from donkey to race horse in 3 weeks (between Tour of Poland and Vuelta). Clean riders are not faster or beating known dopers. Until then, enjoy the racing.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.