|
On August 27 2012 02:10 Eufouria wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 23:04 bardtown wrote:
Everybody saying that cycling is completely corrupt etc, are you under the impression that Bradley Wiggins is doped? I think if anyone is clean it could be him, but when you look at graphic of top finishers in the tour beign busted for doping I'm not so sure. Team Sky invests a hell of a lot in cycling and I don't think they'd be investing in doping because it would be terrible for the companies public image, so its possible that Wiggins success (and the success of the team in general) is down to them investing in other areas, sort of how the British olympic cycling teams success is in large part thanks to us investing way more into it than every other country and finding huge improvements thanks to that.
Same - I really hope he's clean, but if he's not he WILL be found out sooner or later, and (in his own words) "lose everything".
If he is clean, then his anti-doping stance, his willingness to embrace transparency and his success will prove to the next generation that cycling has become a sport where it's no longer mandatory to dope in order to compete.
Pretty much the complete opposite of Lance, who has invested a great deal of time, money and energy into lawsuits against critics and attempts to block investigation.
|
I hope hes clean.... would be such a shame
|
On August 24 2012 12:25 Colour wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 12:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 24 2012 12:19 Colour wrote:On August 24 2012 12:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Looks like he never did anything wrong and passed every drug test ever given to him, and now he's like "stfu and gtfo and leave me the hell alone." So they should probably do that. On August 24 2012 12:11 Colour wrote:
Good. Cheating is lame. What? According to the ESPN article, he never cheated and he never did anything wrong o.O Alright I'll be the first to say I have no clue about any of this. If he did nothing wrong why are they taking his medals away? Cause they like to party? Well according to the OP's articles... He's still getting harassed (after years and years, and now that he's done competing, it's rather absurd that he's still getting bugged about it), and he's declared that he's through with doing any more of these drug tests because he's passed every single one while racing in the past and he wants to be done with this nonsense. So the corporation is apparently taking this refusal to comply with another drug test as an implicit (bullshit?) admission that he's doping. I don't know how, but yeah. And that's apparently grounds for taking away his past medals, even though he won them while passing all his previous drug tests. Something like that. That's what I got from reading the information in the OP. Well he probably has a lot of free time now that he's loaded so he might as well take that drug test... unless...
Unless... a lot of things. Maybe he doesn't want to take a drug test because he now does recreational drugs. It also sounds like he knows that even if he passes, they will still bother him because he is the best.
|
Why would Wiggins be clean?
Best clean TdF cyclist around is probably Moncoutie.
Going for the general classification in the TdF without doping is kinda silly. Even in these days of transfusions and microdosing of epo. If you are clean but supertalented you only have a shot at stage wins.
|
I don't think Froome is clean and in that case Wiggins probably is not either. And I think people generally consider Evans to be clean, so in that case he is probably the best one around. (he's getting older of course)
|
On August 27 2012 02:58 Hanakurena wrote:
Why would Wiggins be clean?
Best clean TdF cyclist around is probably Moncoutie.
Going for the general classification in the TdF without doping is kinda silly. Even in these days of transfusions and microdosing of epo. If you are clean but supertalented you only have a shot at stage wins.
This man tells the truth, Moncoutie is my biggest hero in cycling possibly. (I like Fedrigo as well though)
And even Sky isnt doping at all, I strongly dislike them (except EBH) because every single of their riders just simply look at their powermeter every 2 seconds to not go over their aerobic threshold, thats why I like riders like Voeckler (Who doesnt even race with radios most of the time) not these mechanic Sky riders.
|
It's not cheating if everyone does it, you heard me, every elite athlete do roids, be it in cycling, swimming, track, etc. They pass tests because the ''performance enhancement drug'' business is ALWAYS a step ahead over anti-doping agencys (see balco scandal for reference).
Drugs alone WON'T make you win 7 tours, you still need talent, will, and balls to the roof dedication, it's a life of commitment, you don't just take a shot and out of nowhere goes wooohhoooggwpnuubz.
|
Yeah it's ignorant to think that stuff like this isn't going on in every competitive sport, it's just gotten a lot more attention in cycling. People that make it that far will do anything to win.
|
Sorry if this has been posted already, but I found this interview of a prominent physiology doctor involved in anti-doping to be extremely interesting:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
Discusses how it was basically impossible to test for EPO before 2004 and that's probably why every athelete did it. That labs test athlete samples blind. That the main study on how Armstrong achieved an 18% efficiency boost is full of errors and false data. And that Armstrong performance speak for themselves as being unlikely phyiologically possible unless he doped up.
|
Not everyone is doping, that is the point.Most riders are forced to dope either directly or indirectly. Armstrong forced his teammembers to dope for him so he could win the tour. Many riders just as talented or more talented than Armstrong rode around anonymously because Armstrong had such a strong doping program. Also, even if you are willing to dope that is not enough. You need a good doping doctor. Armstrong had Ferrari. You can lose because your doctor is inferior or because you don't even have one.
When after developing the EPO test they tested the 1999 TdF B samples for research, only a few were positive for epo. And out of the 87 samples 13 were positive and 6 of those were from Armstrong. Of course many of the samples were from winners and thus many from Armstrong and a few other dopers. So most riders in 1999 were riding clean. Either they never drugged or they were scared or hoped for a cleaner sport after the 1998 scare.
And maybe the most important point, in a clean race or a doped race the genetic parameters that decide who is talented are different. Normally having naturally high hematocrit is very important. But when you can adjust it to any level you want, having a low hematocrit value is suddenly an advantage. Armstrong is lower at 42. Of course Armstrong's htc magically increased 2.5 points or so during a tour, but that's of course the blood doping.
But with EPO he could crank up his naturally low htc to 50 or higher. Now there are freaks of natura that have htc near over over 50. So lack of talent suddenly becomes a talent when EPO comes into the picture. Same with testosteron and blood doping.
|
Such a shame that Armstrong isn't clean but this shouldn't have come as a surprise to anybody. He was winning the Tour de Frances at a time when EVERYONE else was doping. As much as I think he has strong force of will for coming back from testicular cancer, I don't think he's superhuman.
|
I have mixed feeling about it too.
I won't be naive saying that because he passed the drug tests he is clean. The balco case and other scandals tought us that the best doping program were ahead of the drug tests...Adding to that his peak performance during the tour and 10 of his teammates's testimony there is little doubt he is clean.
He won't confess publicly since he has too much to lose, like he said (for not being doped but I think it applies more to not confessing) "Everything I do off the bike would go away, too, and don't think for a second I don't understand that. It's not about money for me. Everything. It's also about the faith that people have put in me over the years. So all of that would be erased."
At the same time, it requires more than epo/whatever to win the Tour seven times. Especially since a lot of people weren't clean either. But the outcome could have been very different. Athletes are not using the same steroids and they react differently to it... And in the end, he used his influence to have money/fame/fanbase but also to help people dealing with cancer...
But I can't admit cheating and lying. Sportsmen have to know they can't totally get away with it...
|
|
|
It raises the question too. And the French journals are all up on this. Who else "cheated" and was the Tour ever clean. Massive investigations are being held now.
|
On August 27 2012 18:54 Le French wrote:
It raises the question too. And the French journals are all up on this. Who else "cheated" and was the Tour ever clean. Massive investigations are being held now.
Just like weightlifting, I do not think that cycling will ever be clean because of the physical ability dwarfing technical abilities.
Before the 80's we saw some deaths because of painkiller abuse and I would imagine that anabolic steroids and several other compounds were quite common since the anti-doping agencies from yesteryear was beyond bad tending towards helping athletes not get caught.
From what I have been able to gather, cycling was hit by EPO-substances in the 80's and throughout the 90's it has been used systematically by the teams, meaning that almost all riders took it. In the late 90's the french police started raiding and found large amounts of doping. The riders striked and some teams left the race in protest... Since then, the anti-doping measures has been ramped up significantly, from being a 2 year slap on the wrist for first time offenders, to being a paycut and possibly up to lifetime condemnation from cycling (unfortunately the penalty will vary a lot depending on how good a lawyer you have and how known you are apart from strenght of evidence against you...). New tests, to some extend sample preservation and the blood passport will keep doping at a lower level for now and in the future sample preservation and post-punishments will be a big factor in how doping will evolve.
|
The most obvious place to start is to have lifetime bans for anyone caught doping
|
Weird bump ;S
However considering it's impossible to succeed in cycling without doping and I'd be willing to bet anything that all the top finishers of every tournament do doping and that with the current laws it's basically all about how well you hide it and nothing else... I of course find this laughable =P Especially the "without proof" part.
|
I was having a similar conversation the other night. IMO by him not challenging it he is admitting defeat/being doped for all 7. Even if they caught him one time does he deserve to lose all 7 titles or will he? Wouldn't it be better to challenge it and at least retain at least one if not more of your titles? I don't think they would be able to produce evidence of doping for every single tour. Anyways, its a dam shame considering he was an inspiration to a lot of people.
|
I don't even understand why Blood doping isn't allowed... It's (to me at least) like arguing these performance enhancers can't be permitted but protein (which is its own performance enhancer) is allowed... Also 2 of the 4 major blood enhancers are allowed while 2 are not, like the whole thing is a shit show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
