|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| Ste117 |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:29
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3684
Joined: 21-02-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I take Creatine Carbohydrate and muscle mass protein shake after every training ride I do, creatine Carbohydrate helps to raise my endurance levels, it says on the box. Is that doping? they are powder substances that you just mix with water.
They also help increase muscle mass and bulk amongst other things too.
Edited by Ste117 on 09-07-2012 19:29
MG Team manager Team Ticos Air Costa Rica
 |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:29
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
issoisso wrote:
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
I am purposfully picking holes yes
A BicMac contains abnormal amounts of fat and sugar, which boost energy levels above normal. This is performance enhancing (in the most borad sense i admit). BicMac's are definatly harmful. 2 out of 3 points, is that doping or does it have to be all 3. Or if i eat bigmacs specifically to enhanve performance am i doping, as that fills 3 out of 3 points
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:31
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
A BigMac doesn't enhance performance
Someone tell Horner, quick!
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:32
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
kumazan wrote:
issoisso wrote:
A BigMac doesn't enhance performance
Someone tell Horner, quick!
wow thats perfect
just dont let the UCI see
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:32
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Funny how on the broadcast today they had a segment for XEnderance, which is a pill that increases strength and increase endurance and said that some teams in the peleton were taking something that "does the same sort of thing." They advertised dope on TV!
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:35
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ste117 wrote:
I take Creatine Carbohydrate and muscle mass protein shake after every training ride I do, creatine Carbohydrate helps to raise my endurance levels, it says on the box. Is that doping? they are powder substances that you just mix with water.
They also help increase muscle mass and bulk amongst other things too.
Creatine was widespread among sportsmen who also took steroids, because of its masking possibilities, and the convenient amount of proteins it brings.
Taking proteins is not wrong. You kill your muscles while training (on a microscopical scale), and need to rebuild them, and you need proteins for that.
If you don't rebuild them, your performances will decrease. That's where the marketing argument is a bit flawed in my opinion. That's never going to make you faster than if you were at 100 % (unlike doping), but after a certain amount of time or training sessions, you'll still be at 95 % instead of 90 % (random figures). |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 09-07-2012 19:36
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
Funny how on the broadcast today they had a segment for XEnderance, which is a pill that increases strength and increase endurance and said that some teams in the peleton were taking something that "does the same sort of thing." They advertised dope on TV!
"Amgen Tour of California" is also an advertisement (through naming) for dope.  |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 09-07-2012 20:38
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
As some guy pointed out, Wiggins himself said in an interview to L'Équipe early this year that before last year you can't believe the Tour winners were clean.
Does that mean he's "a cunt, a wanker, bone-idle" too, or just a massive hypocrite?
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
|
| |
|
|
| Likkivi |
Posted on 09-07-2012 21:22
|
Stagiare
Posts: 201
Joined: 30-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Another difference between Froome/Wiggins and the other riders is that they don't even seem to give 100%.
They destroy the others without even destroying themselves. Froome was very fresh after he finished the TT. On the mountain stage he had been pulling for a long long time and then when Evans speeds up he just takes his wheel and at the end casually slides past him. It simply does not make sense. |
| |
|
|
| Dropstaaf |
Posted on 09-07-2012 21:30
|
Free Agent
Posts: 143
Joined: 30-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Likkivi wrote:
Another difference between Froome/Wiggins and the other riders is that they don't even seem to give 100%.
They destroy the others without even destroying themselves. Froome was very fresh after he finished the TT. On the mountain stage he had been pulling for a long long time and then when Evans speeds up he just takes his wheel and at the end casually slides past him. It simply does not make sense.
Comletely agree on that. Wiggins didn't even seem to take any risks in his TT, while cancellara was giving everything. Wiggins wins by almost a minute! After his TT you see him (Wiggins) walking like he's walking on the beach or something, so relaxed, didn't even look tired. It just doesn't feel right...
|
| |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 09-07-2012 21:34
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5759
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Just to clarify on the doping front.
Things are not illegal unless they are listed as illegal, the 3 criterion are just applied to decide whether something should be put on the list or not.
As far as Sky goes i beleive the following:
Froome's progression from the Vuelta to the Tour is not impossible and plenty of other riders improve massively between their breakthrough race and the next year. Wiggins improvement from 2009 is also not unsurprising, although the magnitude of the change in both cases surprises me greatly.
Their initial boosts, and their time trialling improvement, despite loosing massive amounts of weight, is unheard of in a clear athlete however.
Rogers was doping previously, and as he is putting out better numbers I find it almost impossible to believe he is clean.
Porte, again has improved massively, and as such is suspicious.
Yates, the doctor and all the stuff about AICAR all add to the suspicion, as does them pre submitting blood values.
All this said, essentially the evidence is entirely performance based, and as such, I'm just going to continue to watch the tour under the assumption that they are no worse than anyone else until some evidence comes up to the contrary, because that's the only way I can deal with the fact that I suspect everyone of doping.
Honestly, it's Wiggins time trials that confuse me the most. Wiggins was 8-6 head to head with Nibali before this year. That just doesn't make sense to me.
 [url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182] Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
Please assume I am joking unless otherwise stated |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 13:19
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| SweatyViking |
Posted on 09-07-2012 21:55
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1040
Joined: 19-06-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
If Froome and Wiggins have doped, then Flecha, Hunt, Knees etc, have also doped? The majority of the Sky riders are performing on par and many even below par. |
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 09-07-2012 22:01
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
mb2612 wrote:
Honestly, it's Wiggins time trials that confuse me the most. Wiggins was 8-6 head to head with Nibali before this year. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Because the "he always was a top TTist" argument is a lie. A big fat lie. He's gone from good timetrialist, gruppetto in the mountains to best timetrialist, top climber. That's not progression, it's a mutation.
|
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 09-07-2012 22:02
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Very interesting first bit of analysis up at https://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/...ssion.html for those that don't know it's written by 2 sports scientits with an interest in (clean) sport both with PhD's in Exercise Physiology.
As stated there taken in isolation numbers don't prove anything but it's an interesting if long read, I would recommend it to all. If you don't want to read the comment on Wiggin's stage 8 comments you can skip the first third and look at the numbers analysis.
The concluding paragraph states:
"All I will say, and I'm very confident in saying this, is that what we saw on the slopes of Les Planche des Belles Filles did not have me thinking "That's just not right, there's something not adding up". It adds up. It's exactly what you'd expect, just as I expect that when we do hit the longer HC climbs later this week, we'll see the top men ride at 5.9 to 6 W/kg, just as they have done for the last three years."
Hopefully they will soon do a comparison of Froome's 2011 Vuelta with today's TT too - "...he rode at 5.8 W/kg for 55 minutes then. That's likely to be close to what he and Wiggins produced in the Tour today, and is yet another indication of where the "ceiling" for that duration of effort lies". |
| |
|
|
| felix_29 |
Posted on 09-07-2012 22:02
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3054
Joined: 08-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I´m only sure about 4 riders: Wiggins, Froome, Rogers and Porte.
Not sure about the rest, but obviously they didn´t show such improvements as the four riders named.
|
| |
|
|
| emmea90 |
Posted on 09-07-2012 22:04
|
Domestique
Posts: 588
Joined: 03-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Translation:
"Three years ago Cunego humiliate me at crono, now i am 2nd in the World"
Edited by emmea90 on 09-07-2012 22:04
https://cycling-manager.eu moderator since 2010
PCM World Cup 2010, 2011, 2016, 2018 and 2020 Organizer. Former PCM IMA president
"Maybe the giro is not hard enough" (Angelo Zomegnan)
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 09-07-2012 22:10
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
ianrussell wrote:
Very interesting first bit of analysis up at https://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/...ssion.html for those that don't know it's written by 2 sports scientits with an interest in (clean) sport both with PhD's in Exercise Physiology.
As stated there taken in isolation numbers don't prove anything but it's an interesting if long read, I would recommend it to all. If you don't want to read the comment on Wiggin's stage 8 comments you can skip the first third and look at the numbers analysis.
The concluding paragraph states:
"All I will say, and I'm very confident in saying this, is that what we saw on the slopes of Les Planche des Belles Filles did not have me thinking "That's just not right, there's something not adding up". It adds up. It's exactly what you'd expect, just as I expect that when we do hit the longer HC climbs later this week, we'll see the top men ride at 5.9 to 6 W/kg, just as they have done for the last three years."
Hopefully they will soon do a comparison of Froome's 2011 Vuelta with today's TT too - "...he rode at 5.8 W/kg for 55 minutes then. That's likely to be close to what he and Wiggins produced in the Tour today, and is yet another indication of where the "ceiling" for that duration of effort lies". Well, all that makes sense, of course.
Still... The 5,9 W/kg, sometimes also called 6,2 doesn't apply to everybody. That applies to the very best human being (performance-wise) with all the right genes, in ideal conditions of training, freshness, etc. That doesn't apply to people like me (and most of you).
Question is, are Froome and Wiggins such freak of nature, that their performances should be compared to that absolute limit ? Remember all pro cyclists are already freaks of nature (call that "talent" if you wish).
What's reassuring, in a way, is that the global performances are nowhere near the 1990-2009 level.
Edited by Aquarius on 09-07-2012 22:11
|
| |
|
|
| drugsdontwork |
Posted on 09-07-2012 22:11
|
Free Agent
Posts: 123
Joined: 20-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
As some guy pointed out, Wiggins himself said in an interview to L'Équipe early this year that before last year you can't believe the Tour winners were clean.
Does that mean he's "a cunt, a wanker, bone-idle" too, or just a massive hypocrite?
Unless I am mistakened I think that Wiggins was upset about the anonymity of the comments about doping. The implication being that if these accusation were made by people out in the open (i.e. not hiding behind pseudonyms) then at least he could challenge the accuser.
As was quoted above, at least he made the comments in the open in L'Equipe.
Not trying to be controversial just my understanding.
Nobody is normal
|
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 09-07-2012 22:18
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
ianrussell wrote:
Very interesting first bit of analysis up at https://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/...ssion.html for those that don't know it's written by 2 sports scientits with an interest in (clean) sport both with PhD's in Exercise Physiology.
As stated there taken in isolation numbers don't prove anything but it's an interesting if long read, I would recommend it to all. If you don't want to read the comment on Wiggin's stage 8 comments you can skip the first third and look at the numbers analysis.
The concluding paragraph states:
"All I will say, and I'm very confident in saying this, is that what we saw on the slopes of Les Planche des Belles Filles did not have me thinking "That's just not right, there's something not adding up". It adds up. It's exactly what you'd expect, just as I expect that when we do hit the longer HC climbs later this week, we'll see the top men ride at 5.9 to 6 W/kg, just as they have done for the last three years."
Hopefully they will soon do a comparison of Froome's 2011 Vuelta with today's TT too - "...he rode at 5.8 W/kg for 55 minutes then. That's likely to be close to what he and Wiggins produced in the Tour today, and is yet another indication of where the "ceiling" for that duration of effort lies". Well, all that makes sense, of course.
Still... The 5,9 W/kg, sometimes also called 6,2 doesn't apply to everybody. That applies to the very best human being (performance-wise) with all the right genes, in ideal conditions of training, freshness, etc. That doesn't apply to people like me (and most of you).
Question is, are Froome and Wiggins such freak of nature, that their performances should be compared to that absolute limit ? Remember all pro cyclists are already freaks of nature (call that "talent" if you wish).
What's reassuring, in a way, is that the global performances are nowhere near the 1990-2009 level.
Certainly performances are way down in the last 3 years or so. Particularly interesting comparison to the 90's where they were riding at 6.4W/kg+ for 3 times the duration as in stage 8 this year 
Edited by ianrussell on 09-07-2012 22:19
|
| |
|
|
| panther |
Posted on 09-07-2012 22:19
|
Amateur
Posts: 5
Joined: 28-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Cannot believe what I am reading here
Dave Brailsford got together a track side that beat everyone, are they all dopers ?
Brailsford said about 4 years ago that they would get a UK based team to challenge the world tour top teams with the eventual goal of having a UK based rider win the Tour.
Wiggins and other riders on Sky have trained and worked hard for the past few years to acheive this goal.
What we can say is that anyone who wins a stage, from nowhere, say like Pinot on sunday is a doper, because he had no form on a grand tour.
Was Evans doping last year when he had to chase down Schleck, previously he had been a wheel sucker and showed no sign of chasing down anyone. Doper !!!!!
The sport has been marred to say the least over god knows how many years but give credit where credit is due, Sky have done their homework, done it scientifically and done a lot of bloody hard work.
Every rider who does well is NOT a doper |
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
