Doctor alleged to have doped British Tour de France cyclists

[rattlesnake]

Cool, this we can debate. (my thoughts in italics)

 

You make mention of a few points:

 

1: It is highly unlikely that the performances of any of today's or yesterday's grand tour winners was achieved without assistance from currently banned substances or substances to be banned in the future. - Why do you say it is highly unlikely? Surely future banned substances cannot be taken into account now? (There are substances being used right now that enhance performance that are still not detectable in blood and urine tests - see Christophe Basson's book, A Clean Break as a starting point) As a principle, would you then say that riders that won using EPO pre 1996ish were legitimate winners because EPO was not yet on the banned substance list - I.e Bjarne Rijs winning was legitimate whilst Lance's wins were not. Same principle I'm getting at here.)

 

2: Or perhaps lets look at other strange anomolies like a rider like Vincenzo Nibali or a Nairo Quintano and their performances on the cobbles 2 years back at the tour.... Why are you saying these are anomolies. I am not saying I disagree, but when does a performance become a stand out anomolie? Do you have others you think are suspect? (Law of physics. On a flat road with a rough surface power output and aerodynamics count more than power to weight ratio's. Larger riders with higher absolute wattage output go faster on the flats and cobbles. Nibali and Quintana weigh close to 60kgs and even at 6w/kg would be well short of the type of output that a Tony Martin or Cancellara can push out. Hence me calling it an anomoly. It is strange) 

 

3: I could go on, but I'll end off by using our local MTB anti hero (Rourke Croeser) as an example. Bust for using EPO and came 15th. The other 14 riders must be REALLY talented to have beaten him without the benefit of a drug that boosts performance somewhere between 10 and 20% - I struggle to accept this arguement that everybody who finishes ahead of a convicted doper is automatically also dirty. For that to be the case you would have to assume that each athlete has the exact same base fintness, training program etc. A + 20% does not equal B + 20% if A and B are different. Also the numbers given 10-20% are a bit less these days. Micro dosing (the doping that has been proven one can get away with) doesnt equate to 10% in World Tour athletes, the numbers are more in less than 5% range now, still enough to make a big difference amongst the top guys or guys in the same "dicilpline". But to illistrate the point a doped up to the gills Andre Greipel will never beat a clean Quintana at a grand tour on overall GC. Nor will a doped up climber ever beat a clean Caleb Ewan on a flat sprint.... so for the arguement to hold, we need to look at the athlete caught doping and not just say that EVERYBODY ahead of them is dirty. (In a sport where 1 or 2% accounts for 1-2 minutes and riders are constantly looking for "marginal gains" don't you think that a rider that has been assessed as "having engine" - i.e. naturally talented enough to race elite, should have a natural ability that is at least 10% within that of other elite riders? I'm not saying that they are ALL dopers. but I am saying that there is a high probability that a lot of them are, given that a rider "with engine" and on EPO (a drug that enhances performance up to 20%!!) could only finish 15th. To put this in context, 20% would put a leading VA rider at c.5w/kg at 6w/kg and in theory capable of competing in the TdF.) If I am the only one that thinks that this is "strange", then fine, my views are my own.

 

There was that dude who got bust doping at the Epic a few years back, in like 200th place. Wouldnt it be silly to then say based on that finding that all 199 people ahead of his are dirty too? (This guy was a body builder who weighed probably more than 85kgs and was under 6ft tall. He was using steroids for body building and not cycling. 1. Steroids dont provide 20% performance gains on the bike. 2. He was a weekend warrior type rider - (assumption w/kg as a starting point was probably c.3-3.5w/kg - add 20% to this and you still dont have even a competitive vets cyclist - proven by the fact that this individual is now racing VA and not finishing anywhere near the front 50% - hence this comparison is invalid, you need to look at the impact of doping on elite athletes.)

[BeegMig]

Impossible for UB to be a doper.

 

Jamaica is, and always has been, at the forefront of the anti-doping crusade.

 

I'd sooner believe that Kulebuse Zuma got his oil concessions in the DRC because his uncle wangled it before I believe that ANY Jamaican could get away with doping

And whatever the West Indian team might have or, not have consumed after last nights T20 world cup win - was given to them in a bottle, by some stranger in the stands,  which looked like water - during their celebrations, after the game  .

[Paulst12]

Even a doped up Asafa Powel could not beat Usain Bolt ... Wonder if they have ever tested Bolt, Especially after a 9.58 Gold Medal Olympic World Record Breaking Run, with a loose shoelace...

 

Some People are just freaks of nature and extremely talented.

Thats like saying Ben Johnson will never beat Carl Lweis ... and we all know how that one ended up?

[BeegMig]

He is probably the team Sky doc....................

................but not during the year which Cav rode for Sky.

[jcza]

Ai really, let me ask again.

 

Do you think they are doping, yes or no?

 

ps: I pinkie promise to not ask for proof to substantiate your answer.

 

Friday question 

[Andrew Steer]

Thats like saying Ben Johnson will never beat Carl Lweis ... and we all know how that one ended up?

 

This Carl Lewis? http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay

 

Carl Lewis the admitted doper.

 

PS: Johnson handed his ass to him 

[jcza]

It seems that you are unlikely to get a direct straightforward answer from @jcza. He has avoided the direct answers to you in other threads where the doping issue was discussed as well. It seems that it is easier to have generalised opinions than specific ones some times. Thing is that as long as he avoids a direct answer he cannot he tied down and won't answerable/accountable for the answer. Answering by innuendo or suggestion rather than directly always gives a way out if things turn bad.

 

__________________________________________________________

The correct answer is clearly nobody knows. Do you know that anyone is clean? Yes I am entitled to my opinion just the same as everyone else around here. 

 

Here is another opinion from The Father of Clean Cycling, Christophe Bassons:

 

When I look at cycling today, I get the impression that history is repeating itself: riders who are supposed to be rouleurs are climbing passes at the front of the race, and those who are supposed to be climbers are riding time trials at more than 50 kilometres per hour.

 

The story is beginning again, just as it did 14 years ago.

[Andrew Steer]

Impossible for UB to be a doper.

 

Jamaica is, and always has been, at the forefront of the anti-doping crusade.

 

I'd sooner believe that Kulebuse Zuma got his oil concessions in the DRC because his uncle wangled it before I believe that ANY Jamaican could get away with doping

 

Monday Madness Poll:

Which sport is cleaner?

 

WWF or

Athletics

 

Should be a tightly fought contest 

[Guest Lancesball]

Thought I'd read that somewhere...

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA sorry that is funny. 

 

JCZA: Please change your name to JCcopy/pasteZA 

 

Its like that no integrity guy who also just rants on posting 2nd hand info.

[TheJ]

Never tested positive so must be clean 

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/06/article-2274045-175E8CE1000005DC-306_634x443.jpg

[Guest Lancesball]

 

I could go on, but I'll end off by using our local MTB anti hero (Rourke Croeser) as an example. Bust for using EPO and came 15th. The other 14 riders must be REALLY talented to have beaten him without the benefit of a drug that boosts performance somewhere between 10 and 20%.

 

According to the people in the know directly related to this RC gains were only 3-5% in terms of benefit. What people don't really understand that at a WC event that is the difference between 60th and 40th / 40th and 20th and 20th and a top 10.

[jcza]

HAHAHAHAHAHA sorry that is funny. 

 

JCZA: Please change your name to JCcopy/pasteZA 

 

Its like that no integrity guy who also just rants on posting 2nd hand info.

 

Shall we leave out the second c and make it JCopy/PasteZA instead? 

[Patchelicious]

 

It seems that you are unlikely to get a direct straightforward answer from @jcza. He has avoided the direct answers to you in other threads where the doping issue was discussed as well. It seems that it is easier to have generalised opinions than specific ones some times. Thing is that as long as he avoids a direct answer he cannot he tied down and won't answerable/accountable for the answer. Answering by innuendo or suggestion rather than directly always gives a way out if things turn bad.

 

__________________________________________________________

The correct answer is clearly nobody knows. Do you know that anyone is clean? Yes I am entitled to my opinion just the same as everyone else around here. 

 

Here is another opinion from The Father of Clean Cycling, Christophe Bassons:

 

When I look at cycling today, I get the impression that history is repeating itself: riders who are supposed to be rouleurs are climbing passes at the front of the race, and those who are supposed to be climbers are riding time trials at more than 50 kilometres per hour.

 

The story is beginning again, just as it did 14 years ago.

 

Absolutely you are. Opinions are based on observations, facts, findings etc. The basis of the opinions is what gets debated.

 

Its simple, my opinion is ABC and its my opinion because of reasons XYZ.

 

As an example, everybody was of the opinion that the earth was flat once, once somebody came with a counter agruement and convinced the other people why his opinion that the earth is round with a substaniated agruement, they accepted it and now that is the accepted fact...

 

If he just kept coming out saying "everybody who believes that the earth is flat is naive", nothing would have come of it.

[Guest Lancesball]

Shall we leave out the second c and make it JCopy/PasteZA instead? 

 

Very good idea. Lets run with that.

[BDF]

 

It seems that you are unlikely to get a direct straightforward answer from @jcza. He has avoided the direct answers to you in other threads where the doping issue was discussed as well. It seems that it is easier to have generalised opinions than specific ones some times. Thing is that as long as he avoids a direct answer he cannot he tied down and won't answerable/accountable for the answer. Answering by innuendo or suggestion rather than directly always gives a way out if things turn bad.

 

__________________________________________________________

The correct answer is clearly nobody knows. Do you know that anyone is clean? Yes I am entitled to my opinion just the same as everyone else around here. 

 

Here is another opinion from The Father of Clean Cycling, Christophe Bassons:

 

When I look at cycling today, I get the impression that history is repeating itself: riders who are supposed to be rouleurs are climbing passes at the front of the race, and those who are supposed to be climbers are riding time trials at more than 50 kilometres per hour.

 

The story is beginning again, just as it did 14 years ago.

 

No problem having an opinion. He just wanted to know beyond any doubt what yours is concerning Wiggins and Froome. For some reason, you are reluctant to give it in simple unambiguous terms, something like: yes, I think they Wiggins and Froome are doping", Instead, you keep supplying innuendos and gereralisations.

[jcza]

No problem having an opinion. He just wanted to know beyond any doubt what yours is concerning Wiggins and Froome. For some reason, you are reluctant to give it in simple unambiguous terms, something like: yes, I think they Wiggins and Froome are doping", Instead, you keep supplying innuendos and gereralisations.

 

See my comment above re winning a Grand Tour clean. Why would I accuse an all-round nice bloke like Froomey without a shred of concrete evidence?