|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:02
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
"Doping means to make use of physiological substances in immoderate quantity or abnormal method from healthy people whose only aim is to obtain an artificial increase of the performance during the competition"
I take part in local, sanctioned races. I use energy bars so i can ride faster and further. Am i doping?
No, you're not doped. Energy bars are not physiological substances, it's food.
They don't make you ride faster either, but they help you maintain your speed or reduce how fast it'd decrease without them.
Now, if you'd get injections of carbohydrates, vitamins, mineral salts, etc. which is what food is about, I would have a different opinion, even though in the end it's the same thing. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:05
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
That's not the definition of doping.
The definition of doping is in the UCI and WADA regulations.
It's simple. If doing something ticks off more than 1 of the following
1. enhances your performance
2. is potentially harmful to your health
3. is against the spirit of fair competition
Then it is considered doping and you can be charged. Easy.
Edited by issoisso on 09-07-2012 19:06
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:06
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:Do you believe Boonen doped in March? Yes. Who was his doctor again ? What team does he ride for and who is his D.S. ?
TheManxMissile wrote:Iglynsky in April? Definitely.
TheManxMissile wrote:
Contador in any past year? Any ? Something like "all of them".
TheManxMissile wrote:Voeckler last year? I thought he didn't. I have some doubts now, though I'm not sure what to think.
TheManxMissile wrote:Froome in the Vuelta? Yes.
TheManxMissile wrote:Kittel last year? No idea.
Now, I'm wise enough to not trust my beliefs too much, and rely on facts rather than beliefs. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:06
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:Do you believe Boonen doped in March? Yes. Who was his doctor again ? What team does he ride for and who is his D.S. ?
TheManxMissile wrote:Iglynsky in April? Definitely.
TheManxMissile wrote:
Contador in any past year? Any ? Something like "all of them".
TheManxMissile wrote:Voeckler last year? I thought he didn't. I have some doubts now, though I'm not sure what to think.
TheManxMissile wrote:Froome in the Vuelta? Yes.
TheManxMissile wrote:Kittel last year? No idea.
Now, I'm wise enough to not trust my beliefs too much, and rely on facts rather than beliefs.
That's exactly how I feel about every one of them.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| fcancellara |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:09
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5194
Joined: 18-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:Do you believe Boonen doped in March? No, he has always been a strong rider.
TheManxMissile wrote:Iglynsky in April? Yes.
TheManxMissile wrote:
Contador in any past year? He always has.
TheManxMissile wrote:Voeckler last year? Perhaps.
TheManxMissile wrote:Froome in the Vuelta? Sure.
TheManxMissile wrote:Kittel last year? No.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:14
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
issoisso wrote:
That's not the definition of doping.
The definition of doping is in the UCI and WADA regulations.
It's simple. If doing something ticks off more than 1 of the following
1. enhances your performance
2. is potentially harmful to your health
3. is against the spirit of fair competition
Then it is considered doping and you can be charged. Easy.
But energy bars enhance my performance, and are potentially hazardous to my health.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:14
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
I also now feel better knowing its not just people hating on sky
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:15
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Boonen is questionable cause he's always been great and didn't have Cancellara to fight, but his team doctor's history says otherwise.
Iglinsky and Gasporotto as well as maybe Tiralongo, yes.
Contadope is the definition of a doper.
Voeckler, maybe. I think that he is a fighter with decent climbing ability, got the jersey from the break, held as long as possible, and cracked like a decent climber would after all that on Alpe deux Huez. Not as suspicous but he might have been.
Froome doped in the Vuelta! Congrats for finally realizing!
Kittel is a great sprinter, speedbumps are the problem.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:16
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
issoisso wrote:
That's not the definition of doping.
The definition of doping is in the UCI and WADA regulations.
It's simple. If doing something ticks off more than 1 of the following
1. enhances your performance
2. is potentially harmful to your health
3. is against the spirit of fair competition
Then it is considered doping and you can be charged. Easy.
But energy bars enhance my performance, and are potentially hazardous to my health.
How? they're unhealthy but not hazardous.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 19:57
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:18
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
issoisso wrote:
That's not the definition of doping.
The definition of doping is in the UCI and WADA regulations.
It's simple. If doing something ticks off more than 1 of the following
1. enhances your performance
2. is potentially harmful to your health
3. is against the spirit of fair competition
Then it is considered doping and you can be charged. Easy.
But energy bars enhance my performance, and are potentially hazardous to my health.
How? they're unhealthy but not hazardous.
exactly they are unhealthy. In large quantities they become hazardous.
(this is fundamental a flawed argument im putting forward, just showing general issues with the view of doping, plus i want ot see how long i can go before i snooker myself, this is good debating practice)
|
| |
|
|
| felix_29 |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:19
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3054
Joined: 08-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
issoisso wrote:
That's not the definition of doping.
The definition of doping is in the UCI and WADA regulations.
It's simple. If doing something ticks off more than 1 of the following
1. enhances your performance
2. is potentially harmful to your health
3. is against the spirit of fair competition
Then it is considered doping and you can be charged. Easy.
But energy bars enhance my performance, and are potentially hazardous to my health.
Hilarious. So even a BigMac is doping? 
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:19
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
felix_29 wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
issoisso wrote:
That's not the definition of doping.
The definition of doping is in the UCI and WADA regulations.
It's simple. If doing something ticks off more than 1 of the following
1. enhances your performance
2. is potentially harmful to your health
3. is against the spirit of fair competition
Then it is considered doping and you can be charged. Easy.
But energy bars enhance my performance, and are potentially hazardous to my health.
According to that definition yes
Hilarious. So even a BigMac is doping?
|
| |
|
|
| dgtgoheels |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:20
|
Amateur
Posts: 16
Joined: 22-11-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
issoisso wrote:
That's not the definition of doping.
The definition of doping is in the UCI and WADA regulations.
It's simple. If doing something ticks off more than 1 of the following
1. enhances your performance
2. is potentially harmful to your health
3. is against the spirit of fair competition
Then it is considered doping and you can be charged. Easy.
But energy bars enhance my performance, and are potentially hazardous to my health.
Well so is playing around on the internet all day. Energy bars do not enhance your performance by 12% in a race like EPO. If I eat a bar I dont suddenly add 50 watts. Even if these magical energy bars are laced with an oral version of EPO I would have to snack on those for a couple of months to even have a benefit but that is beside the point. There is a huge difference between food and using performance enhancing drugs. One can make the argument that food is necessary to live but you would say "so breathing is necessary to live and breathing enhances your performance" then I would label you a moron and laugh at you. |
| |
|
|
| Spilak23 |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:20
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 22-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
I don't see how one rider (Froome) in a team full of not dopers (Boasson Hagen, Cavendish, Wiggins, Flecha. We all believe they are clean right?) can dope while having so much control from the team management/trainers.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:21
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
felix_29 wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
issoisso wrote:
That's not the definition of doping.
The definition of doping is in the UCI and WADA regulations.
It's simple. If doing something ticks off more than 1 of the following
1. enhances your performance
2. is potentially harmful to your health
3. is against the spirit of fair competition
Then it is considered doping and you can be charged. Easy.
But energy bars enhance my performance, and are potentially hazardous to my health.
According to that definition yes
Hilarious. So even a BigMac is doping?
It completes 2 and 3.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:23
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
baseballlover312 wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
issoisso wrote:
That's not the definition of doping.
The definition of doping is in the UCI and WADA regulations.
It's simple. If doing something ticks off more than 1 of the following
1. enhances your performance
2. is potentially harmful to your health
3. is against the spirit of fair competition
Then it is considered doping and you can be charged. Easy.
But energy bars enhance my performance, and are potentially hazardous to my health.
How? they're unhealthy but not hazardous.
exactly they are unhealthy. In large quantities they become hazardous.
(this is fundamental a flawed argument im putting forward, just showing general issues with the view of doping, plus i want ot see how long i can go before i snooker myself, this is good debating practice)
The flaw being that you're completely misinterpreting the law. It must potentially be dangerous no matter the quantity. Because in huge quantities anything is dangerous. Water will drown you. Oxygen will hyperoxigenate you.
felix_29 wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
issoisso wrote:
That's not the definition of doping.
The definition of doping is in the UCI and WADA regulations.
It's simple. If doing something ticks off more than 1 of the following
1. enhances your performance
2. is potentially harmful to your health
3. is against the spirit of fair competition
Then it is considered doping and you can be charged. Easy.
But energy bars enhance my performance, and are potentially hazardous to my health.
Hilarious. So even a BigMac is doping?
A BigMac doesn't enhance performance
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:23
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
dgtgoheels wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
issoisso wrote:
That's not the definition of doping.
The definition of doping is in the UCI and WADA regulations.
It's simple. If doing something ticks off more than 1 of the following
1. enhances your performance
2. is potentially harmful to your health
3. is against the spirit of fair competition
Then it is considered doping and you can be charged. Easy.
But energy bars enhance my performance, and are potentially hazardous to my health.
Well so is playing around on the internet all day. Energy bars do not enhance your performance by 12% in a race like EPO. If I eat a bar I dont suddenly add 50 watts. Even if these magical energy bars are laced with an oral version of EPO I would have to snack on those for a couple of months to even have a benefit but that is beside the point. There is a huge difference between food and using performance enhancing drugs. One can make the argument that food is necessary to live but you would say "so breathing is necessary to live and breathing enhances your performance" then I would label you a moron and laugh at you.
Energy bars are not necessary, never said it gives me 50 watts. Just that they enhance my performance by giving me a boost to stamina a bit.
There is a difference between food and performance enhancing drugs, but not by that definition above
|
| |
|
|
| 9-Ball |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:25
|
Domestique
Posts: 477
Joined: 16-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Quite - the UCI definition is hardly simple nor clear.
Point 2 is arbitrary to the point of comedy and shouldn't really be a consideration. Liberty, after all.
Point 1 is only relevant where it connects with the key Point 3, which is in itself a somewhat ephemeral thing. Extreme cases can be easy to judge, of course. Little Al downing a radioactive (Radioshacktive?) steak on an off day is more murky, at least potentially.
All that said, I've watched virtually every stage of every TDF since '86 and there's been enough doping in all of those to sustain a mid-sized south American economy. Still, none have looked so odd or off as parts of this year's race, so far.
I don't know, maybe it's just having two pasty British guys at the front? I see lots of comments here basing their verdicts on past performances versus the ceiling of current performances, especially where Froome is concerned. It's a reasonably sort of reaction but it's more emotional in some ways than logical. There are plenty of riders (or other sports' athletes) where it's natural to see progression year by year till a certain peak. This big leap to a new high is a bit startling however. That goes for Wiggins too.
I don't know - these debates invariably bring me back to Anquetil's stance on doping, a half-century ago. Likely many here are familiar with those statements but for those who aren't:
"Anquetil took a forthright and controversial stand on the use of performance-enhancing drugs. He never hid that he took drugs and in a debate with a government minister on French television said only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris on just water.
He and other cyclists had to ride through "the cold, through heatwaves, in the rain and in the mountains", and they had the right to treat themselves as they wished, he said in a television interview, before adding:
“ "Leave me in peace; everybody takes dope."” (From Wikipedia)
I'm still not sure what I think about this but it's not as clear cut as some would like to assume.
It was eleven more than necessary.
Jacques Anquetil
|
| |
|
|
| felix_29 |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:27
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3054
Joined: 08-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
dgtgoheels wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
issoisso wrote:
That's not the definition of doping.
The definition of doping is in the UCI and WADA regulations.
It's simple. If doing something ticks off more than 1 of the following
1. enhances your performance
2. is potentially harmful to your health
3. is against the spirit of fair competition
Then it is considered doping and you can be charged. Easy.
But energy bars enhance my performance, and are potentially hazardous to my health.
Well so is playing around on the internet all day. Energy bars do not enhance your performance by 12% in a race like EPO. If I eat a bar I dont suddenly add 50 watts. Even if these magical energy bars are laced with an oral version of EPO I would have to snack on those for a couple of months to even have a benefit but that is beside the point. There is a huge difference between food and using performance enhancing drugs. One can make the argument that food is necessary to live but you would say "so breathing is necessary to live and breathing enhances your performance" then I would label you a moron and laugh at you.
Energy bars are not necessary, never said it gives me 50 watts. Just that they enhance my performance by giving me a boost to stamina a bit.
There is a difference between food and performance enhancing drugs, but not by that definition above
Energy bars do not improve your stamina. 
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:28
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Energy bars are mostly a combination of fast sugars and carbohydrates. Energy gels are mostly fast sugars. It's the fuel you use while cycling.
At the start of a race, if you're correctly prepared, you have all your "energy tanks" full. Then, while riding you waste them all, in various proportions. Energy bars and gel give you a refuel, and thus make you able to use that extra energy. But that doesn't make you ride faster than what you would have been able to do at the start.
By the way, drinking 10 litres of water in a very short time, without puking, is also very likely to be lethal. |
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
