Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Professional Cycling For the Fans (http://www.bikeforums.net/professional-cycling-fans/)
-   -   Turning the corner on doping in the UCI (http://www.bikeforums.net/professional-cycling-fans/577861-turning-corner-doping-uci.html)

patentcad 08-24-09 07:21 PM

Turning the corner on doping in the UCI
 
McQuaid says they've turned the corner.

I think he has a point. You may differ.

Discuss.

dmb2786 08-24-09 07:27 PM

i think there's another thread

patentcad 08-24-09 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmb2786 (Post 9550295)
i think there's another thread

F the other thread. This is the authentic Pcad Turned the Corner on Doping thread.

challaday 08-24-09 07:43 PM

There may be a lag between the new testing regime and the tricks around the tests. For every testing regime there will be someone who figures out a way around the rules.

Turned the corner, no. Temporary roadblock, yes.

patentcad 08-24-09 07:52 PM

Meanwhile, in the NFL, they're still trying to figure out how to situate the big stadium video screens so the punters don't hit it.

Idiots.

Maybe management is on steroids, which might explain such staggering stupidity.

dmb2786 08-24-09 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patentcad (Post 9550380)
F the other thread. This is the authentic Pcad Turned the Corner on Doping thread.

this is why i didn't post a link to the other thread disguised by a witty comment.

Creakyknees 08-24-09 08:15 PM

they haven't started testing for synvisc yet.

patentcad 08-24-09 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creakyknees (Post 9550637)
they haven't started testing for synvisc yet.

We'll all fail Creaky.

grolby 08-24-09 09:15 PM

No positive results (yet) from the Tour means no one was doping during the Tour? Yeah right. A lack of scandal is great, but past experience makes it pretty clear that a lack of positives only mean that no one was caught. That's not really turning the corner.

bigfred 08-24-09 09:25 PM

"It's looking like the Tour de France will not have any positive tests for a number of years."
.....
.......
.....
and then Lance will retire,........again.

Pcad, Does this not start to feel like a record skip? Iwish,...I really, really do,........that I could believe that the UCI and ASO aren't currently involved in compromise solutions that do as much to turn a blind eye, as they do, actually clean the sport up. I just find it very hard to believe that for three years running the entire pro peleton, including the tour, is hounded by constant positive tests, then,........suddenly, "it's cleaned up".

challaday 08-24-09 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patentcad (Post 9550475)
Meanwhile, in the NFL, they're still trying to figure out how to situate the big stadium video screens so the punters don't hit it.

Idiots.

Maybe management is on steroids, which might explain such staggering stupidity.

I hadn't seen that particular issue with the new stadium, but it is really hilarious. But Jerry Jones on steroids could explain many of his stupid decisions like his penchant for facelifts.

boniek1982 08-24-09 09:45 PM

They're all doping...just look at the historical performance results and their improvement. And please dont tell me crap about nutrition. Simple case in point, the all-time best results on Alpe d'Huez:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Alpe_d%27Huez

See who's at the very bottom - LeMond and Hinault. You mean to tell me a guy like Pantani or Urlich were almost 10 minutes better than those two?

Same applies to track and field, and Mr. Bolt. I dont buy any of it and those that do, you are being naive.

When baseball records started falling with McGuire/Sosa/Bonds everyone was in complete denial about it. Same thing applies to todays world of Cycling and Track...

Doesnt mean I cant enjoy it. I do. Just the historical perspective is gone.

Keith S 08-24-09 09:47 PM

How did the speed on the flats and climbs compare to previous years when there were a lot of positives? If they were comparable then I would assume doping is still prevalent. The cyclists and their doctors will always be one step ahead of the testers with drugs that are undetectable. This is not just in cycling, but also track and field etc.

OrionKhan 08-24-09 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grolby (Post 9550995)
No positive results (yet) from the Tour means no one was doping during the Tour? Yeah right. A lack of scandal is great, but past experience makes it pretty clear that a lack of positives only mean that no one was caught. That's not really turning the corner.

I'm inclined to believe that there is something new that's being used. I find it very dubious that nobody tested positive. There were also very few positives at the track and field World Championships. Hard to believe that all participants have suddenly gotten clean.

patentcad 08-25-09 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boniek1982 (Post 9551173)

See who's at the very bottom - LeMond and Hinault. You mean to tell me a guy like Pantani or Urlich were almost 10 minutes better than those two?

Same applies to track and field, and Mr. Bolt. I dont buy any of it and those that do, you are being naive.

Actually, you are being oblivious, considering that fact that F. Coppi rode the Alpe several minutes faster than Lemond in 1952 on a 20 lb + ancient bicycle. Bugno and Indurain were both sub-40 minutes as far back as 1991. What were those guys on? Coffee?

hipcheck5 08-25-09 06:41 AM

Which leads me to this question:

What will it take for you (and others) to actually believe testing that does not produce positive results.

luxroadie 08-25-09 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patentcad (Post 9551940)
Actually, you are being oblivious, considering that fact that F. Coppi rode the Alpe several minutes faster than Lemond in 1952 on a 20 lb + ancient bicycle. Bugno and Indurain were both sub-40 minutes as far back as 1991. What were those guys on? Coffee?


They were on UPPERS :thumb:

boniek1982 - your logic here is that

1) all people who rode in the 50s were clean,
2) all people who ride in the 90s and beyond are riding much faster than those in the 50s,
3) drugs make people ride faster

Therefore - all riders in the 90s and beyond are on drugs.

Sorry - but that is flawed logic. Even those who are not on drugs will demonstrate significant improvement in times/performance when compared to those in the 50s - technology is the largest reason. Better bikes, better and more specified training, and (most importantly in my opinion) better roads!

Backing this up with some all important anecdotal evidence - even those who cheated and then came back (mostly?) clean are able to perform at similar if not identical levels.

Drugs don't really make a difference on ONE day. They make a difference over MANY days.

Unless you are talking uppers! Read Joe Parkins book for some good stories of what a guy on uppers can do with a bike!!!

chrisvu05 08-25-09 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boniek1982 (Post 9551173)
They're all doping...just look at the historical performance results and their improvement. And please dont tell me crap about nutrition. Simple case in point, the all-time best results on Alpe d'Huez:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Alpe_d%27Huez

See who's at the very bottom - LeMond and Hinault. You mean to tell me a guy like Pantani or Urlich were almost 10 minutes better than those two?

Same applies to track and field, and Mr. Bolt. I dont buy any of it and those that do, you are being naive.

When baseball records started falling with McGuire/Sosa/Bonds everyone was in complete denial about it. Same thing applies to todays world of Cycling and Track...

Doesnt mean I cant enjoy it. I do. Just the historical perspective is gone.

Are you saying drugs gave these guys a 10 minute advantage on a 40 minute climb? I'm not buying that at all. Did drugs possibly give them a few minutes? Sure I can buy that completely...Coppi in 1952 put almost 3 minutes on Lemond's and Hinault's fastest climb up the Alpe d'Huez. Luis Herrera put 6 minutes into them on that climb. Looks to me that they didn't climb it all that fast. Honestly, I think that the lighter bikes, paired with the training, and the team strategies of today have really helped this era of cyclist. Are drugs not helping them? I wouldnt' go that far but I don't think drugs are the only reason they are better.

Tourmalet 08-25-09 02:57 PM

I will share a theory of mine with this topic. TdF doping control seems to be more strict than other races. Evidence: Ricco got away with it at the Giro but got caught at the TdF. If so, then a clever rider would dope early in the season while training for the Giro. He'd kick ass at the Giro and then he'd stop taking the stuff and go to the Tour clean, with some modest performance enhancing benefits still with him.

It would explain why several riders (we know who they are) did so well at the Giro and/or at Dauphine, but just blew up at TdF.

boniek1982 08-26-09 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luxroadie (Post 9553472)
They were on UPPERS :thumb:

boniek1982 - your logic here is that

1) all people who rode in the 50s were clean,
2) all people who ride in the 90s and beyond are riding much faster than those in the 50s,
3) drugs make people ride faster

Therefore - all riders in the 90s and beyond are on drugs.

Sorry - but that is flawed logic. Even those who are not on drugs will demonstrate significant improvement in times/performance when compared to those in the 50s - technology is the largest reason. Better bikes, better and more specified training, and (most importantly in my opinion) better roads!

Backing this up with some all important anecdotal evidence - even those who cheated and then came back (mostly?) clean are able to perform at similar if not identical levels.

Drugs don't really make a difference on ONE day. They make a difference over MANY days.

Unless you are talking uppers! Read Joe Parkins book for some good stories of what a guy on uppers can do with a bike!!!

I wasnt even looking at the 50s - I am sure they were on something else at that time. My point was that respected champions like LeMond and Hinault couldnt make it into the top 20. How do you explain that?

Does the EPO madness explain the 10 minute gap? Probably not entirely, because yes there are advances in tactics, equipment and training. But still its shocking to see such a discprenancy and so far NONE of you have been able to explain that.

nafun 08-26-09 01:07 PM

Autologous blood doping. The testers acknowledge there is still no way for them to detect it. Does anyone think it doesn't happen any more just because Fuentes got busted?

Mooo 08-26-09 08:13 PM

Reminds me ....

I went to a doping symposium and a bicycle race broke out.


(apologies to fans of both hockey and the original joke)

Dubbayoo 08-26-09 09:17 PM

Either people are not using drugs or they're using less drugs....both of those are steps in the right direction.

gear 08-27-09 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patentcad (Post 9551940)
Actually, you are being oblivious, considering that fact that F. Coppi rode the Alpe several minutes faster than Lemond in 1952 on a 20 lb + ancient bicycle. Bugno and Indurain were both sub-40 minutes as far back as 1991. What were those guys on? Coffee?

Actually they were on cigarettes. In time we will find out all about how smoking improves an athletes performance. You'll see, I just know it.

DMF 08-27-09 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nafun (Post 9561375)
Autologous blood doping. The testers acknowledge there is still no way for them to detect it. Does anyone think it doesn't happen any more just because Fuentes got busted?

Yeah, but they can and do check hematocrit level. That severely limits the effectiveness of blood doping.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:43 AM.