Schleck96 wrote:
Porte wouldn't be capable to perform like he did yesterday if he was clean. Also, yesterday he was not that tired when he arrived, so it can't be that.
Porte is in a gray area for me. He was pretty good as a neopro then stagnated. Plus, his collapse today would have been avoidable with a plentiful drug supply, surely?
A lot can go wrong with doping if you don't get one of the several dosages right or if you don't take drugs that work well together and with your body. There's a lot of potential to have a complete crackdown and lose 20 minutes like Porte today.
In the usual EPO days of the 90s and early 2000s it kept happening. Landis, Beloki, Jalabert, etc etc.
Have you seen it happen since the blood passport is around? I haven't till today. It was very common before. This kind of inconsistency doesn't say 'clean', quite the opposite.
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
For some reason, I keep thinking how everybody here will react, if over 20 years, there is still no positive test by a Sky-rider, that they did really ride clean....
(to make it clear, I also think some or more Sky-riders do dope).
dienblad wrote:
For some reason, I keep thinking how everybody here will react, if over 20 years, there is still no positive test by a Sky-rider, that they did really ride clean....
(to make it clear, I also think some or more Sky-riders do dope).
You can not prove that someone rides clean. You can only prove that someone doesn't ride clean if that someone fails a test. If he never fails a test he
a. rides clean
b. is incredibly lucky
c. found a way to go undetected
If a rider never gets caught you can only guess which of the three was the case.
dienblad wrote:
For some reason, I keep thinking how everybody here will react, if over 20 years, there is still no positive test by a Sky-rider, that they did really ride clean....
(to make it clear, I also think some or more Sky-riders do dope).
You can only prove that someone doesn't ride clean if that someone fails a test. If he never fails a test he
a. rides clean
b. is incredibly lucky
c. found a way to go undetected
dienblad wrote:
For some reason, I keep thinking how everybody here will react, if over 20 years, there is still no positive test by a Sky-rider, that they did really ride clean....
(to make it clear, I also think some or more Sky-riders do dope).
You can only prove that someone doesn't ride clean if that someone fails a test. If he never fails a test he
a. rides clean
b. is incredibly lucky
c. found a way to go undetected
d. Bribed someone
Armstrong: B, C, D and E. Sued anything that gave him a funny look.
Sky has the backing of News International... imagine how much cash is available to throw at a cover up!
We best all watch out that letters don't start dropping through doors. Soon Isso and Aquarius will disappear, having been rubbed out by hired mafia hitmen from Sicily.
I always believe riders are clean untill proven to be Armstrong so I don't suspect Sky in that way. Iam so naive that I choose to believe it was because of their effort yesterdya. It's to hard to tell after two stages, wait a bit longer before you make up your mind.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
cactus-jack wrote:
I always believe riders are clean untill proven to be Armstrong so I don't suspect Sky in that way. Iam so naive that I choose to believe it was because of their effort yesterdya. It's to hard to tell after two stages, wait a bit longer before you make up your mind.
dienblad wrote:
For some reason, I keep thinking how everybody here will react, if over 20 years, there is still no positive test by a Sky-rider, that they did really ride clean....
Given that the dawg is producing efforts that exceed the limits for what a human is capable of, I wouldn't be too worried about that happening.
dienblad wrote:
For some reason, I keep thinking how everybody here will react, if over 20 years, there is still no positive test by a Sky-rider, that they did really ride clean....
Given that the dawg is producing efforts that exceed the limits for what a human is capable of, I wouldn't be too worried about that happening.
Brailford recently said, that one day, the riders will ride faster without doping than in the EPO-era. I think that is true, as the equipment gets better, the training methods get better, etcetera.
But to say that that time has come already??
And look at athletics, were the former Eastern German and Russian world records are now being broken by clean athletes out of Kenia, Russia, Belarus, Jamaica etcetera!! Oh wait.....
But seriously, there will be riders in the (near?) future that will go faster and produce more Watt etcetera totally clean, than the doped riders. Only bad thing is that there will always be suspicion when they do that....
Well, don't forget that they also improve the bike for example. Those ovalthings could make a difference and such. So in the end, it could be possible. Not by many riders, but still.
dienblad wrote:
For some reason, I keep thinking how everybody here will react, if over 20 years, there is still no positive test by a Sky-rider, that they did really ride clean....
Given that the dawg is producing efforts that exceed the limits for what a human is capable of, I wouldn't be too worried about that happening.
Brailford recently said, that one day, the riders will ride faster without doping than in the EPO-era. I think that is true, as the equipment gets better, the training methods get better, etcetera.
But to say that that time has come already??
And look at athletics, were the former Eastern German and Russian world records are now being broken by clean athletes out of Kenia, Russia, Belarus, Jamaica etcetera!! Oh wait.....
But seriously, there will be riders in the (near?) future that will go faster and produce more Watt etcetera totally clean, than the doped riders. Only bad thing is that there will always be suspicion when they do that....
I understand your point, but in the doping time, there were a lot of users of doping, however not every single one used it. So that would mean that there would be one occasional extremely talented rider who could keep up with the doped riders.
If you look at it that way, it is not so strange that a Froome would be able to keep up with doped riders, in terms of time on a climb. Personally i like to believe that Froome is that talented to win the tour de france.
For the training part, the training has changed a lot in a few years, especially within the Sky team, so i am not that surprised they can ride better as a team as most teams, however even Sky can fail in doing so, looking back at the last tour stage.
stephanovic wrote:
If you look at it that way, it is not so strange that a Froome would be able to keep up with doped riders, in terms of time on a climb. Personally i like to believe that Froome is that talented to win the tour de france.
True. Ever since he's been riding bikes he's shown that he is naturally much more talented than any other pro... uh wait... nevermind. Forget that.
stephanovic wrote:
For the training part, the training has changed a lot in a few years, especially within the Sky team, so i am not that surprised they can ride better as a team as most teams, however even Sky can fail in doing so, looking back at the last tour stage.
Besides Sky's propaganda ("we train differently, we train harder"), I'm still to see any evidence of Sky's novelty in terms of training. Surely you can come up with something ?
The sad aspect of cycling is that cyclists are totally brainless. Michael Rogers had benefited from that super training, but as soon as he left he's totally forgotten how to train efficiently. I wish he had a brain.
And the bad aspect with Sky is that they've only taught their leaders or the guys in their mountain train how to train. The others are just a bunch of random professionals...
Edited by Aquarius on 08-07-2013 11:59
dienblad wrote:
For some reason, I keep thinking how everybody here will react, if over 20 years, there is still no positive test by a Sky-rider, that they did really ride clean....
Given that the dawg is producing efforts that exceed the limits for what a human is capable of, I wouldn't be too worried about that happening.
Brailford recently said, that one day, the riders will ride faster without doping than in the EPO-era. I think that is true, as the equipment gets better, the training methods get better, etcetera.
But to say that that time has come already??
And look at athletics, were the former Eastern German and Russian world records are now being broken by clean athletes out of Kenia, Russia, Belarus, Jamaica etcetera!! Oh wait.....
But seriously, there will be riders in the (near?) future that will go faster and produce more Watt etcetera totally clean, than the doped riders. Only bad thing is that there will always be suspicion when they do that....
I understand your point, but in the doping time, there were a lot of users of doping, however not every single one used it. So that would mean that there would be one occasional extremely talented rider who could keep up with the doped riders.
If you look at it that way, it is not so strange that a Froome would be able to keep up with doped riders, in terms of time on a climb. Personally i like to believe that Froome is that talented to win the tour de france.
For the training part, the training has changed a lot in a few years, especially within the Sky team, so i am not that surprised they can ride better as a team as most teams, however even Sky can fail in doing so, looking back at the last tour stage.
dienblad wrote:
Brailford recently said, that one day, the riders will ride faster without doping than in the EPO-era. I think that is true, as the equipment gets better, the training methods get better, etcetera.
But to say that that time has come already??
And look at athletics, were the former Eastern German and Russian world records are now being broken by clean athletes out of Kenia, Russia, Belarus, Jamaica etcetera!! Oh wait.....
But seriously, there will be riders in the (near?) future that will go faster and produce more Watt etcetera totally clean, than the doped riders. Only bad thing is that there will always be suspicion when they do that....
When you see the immense difference between EPO'ed riders and non-EPO'ed ones, it's really hard to believe that within a couple of years (at best), we've reached that level again.
In my opinion it'd take decades and decades to reach that level again (and I'm still very doubtful about it ever happening).
Given all the suspicion surrounding Froome and/or Sky (working in shabby places with a shabby staff), it's really, really hard to believe that we're here yet.
dienblad wrote:
Brailford recently said, that one day, the riders will ride faster without doping than in the EPO-era. I think that is true, as the equipment gets better, the training methods get better, etcetera.
That's true, but it sounds like Braislford knew that Froome could go full retard, and he was trying to soften the blow.
dienblad wrote:
But to say that that time has come already??
According to the science of sport guys we are 30 years away from this happening. So nope.
stephanovic wrote:
If you look at it that way, it is not so strange that a Froome would be able to keep up with doped riders, in terms of time on a climb. Personally i like to believe that Froome is that talented to win the tour de france.
True. Ever since he's been riding bikes he's shown that he is naturally much more talented than any other pro... uh wait... nevermind. Forget that.
stephanovic wrote:
For the training part, the training has changed a lot in a few years, especially within the Sky team, so i am not that surprised they can ride better as a team as most teams, however even Sky can fail in doing so, looking back at the last tour stage.
Besides Sky's propaganda ("we train differently, we train harder", I'm still to see any evidence of Sky's novelty in terms of training. Surely you can come up with something ?
The sad aspect of cycling is that cyclists are totally brainless. Michael Rogers had benefited from that super training, but as soon as he left he's totally forgotten how to train efficiently. I wish he had a brain.
And the bad aspect with Sky is that they've only taught their leaders or the guys in their mountain train how to train. The others are just a bunch of random professionals...
No reason to argue against Aquarius, since he is very articulated and arguments very well, backed by facts. No reason to be naive guys. I knew they where doped since i was 6 (17 years ago) Acknowlegde it, and hope for the race to be equal for the top contenders e.g everyone being doped (which doesnt looks at the current status)
Furthermore i do believe the peloton in general are way cleaner. In the 90's and 00's you would never ever see youngsters from 19-23 competing at the highest level. There are so many youngsters now. Which is awesome, since we will have favourites and stars for way more years. Earlier a "young" rider was considired at the age of 27. I like to believe that the general jump from youth racing to the pro-peloton is now a smaller gap - hence less doping compared to before. But no doubt that there still is a lot of dope circulating, especially within Sky. They are turning almost every rider to a potential GT winner.
And Aquarius, the Rogers story is expected by me. A Deja Vu to the Armstrong Era. Levingston, Hamilton, Landis, Hincapie, Danielson, Vandevelde etc. As soon as they did leave US postal, their abilitys and strengths in the mountain was "gone". They tried, but never found the same level, expect for maybe 1 good season. Rogers is very similar. He had his strongest year in 2012 at Sky, leading the peloton through several mountains Now he cant sit with 30 best in this TDF. Oh Yeah he forgot the "miracle training technique" from Sky.
Humanity tend to block repress/supress the truth (dont know the word in english), but the state of mind you reach if someone close to for instances die, humanity starts by deniying it in the brain.
Believing in Sky's "revolutionary" training regiment - as being clean is plain stupidity.
I work in the fitness industry and im very close to number 1 and 2 in Bodybuilding in their respective weight classes. I can guarantee you, every single male fitness model you have seen a nice photoshoot of, is on some kind of dope. But the fitness industry is multi billion dollar business, which lives on the illusion of you can achieve the fitness model look - naturally - by buying a lot of supplements etc.
Ybodonk wrote:
Furthermore i do believe the peloton in general are way cleaner. In the 90's and 00's you would never ever see youngsters from 19-23 competing at the highest level. There are so many youngsters now. Which is awesome, since we will have favourites and stars for way more years. Earlier a "young" rider was considired at the age of 27. I like to believe that the general jump from youth racing to the pro-peloton is now a smaller gap - hence less doping compared to before. But no doubt that there still is a lot of dope circulating, especially within Sky. They are turning almost every rider to a potential GT winner.
Are you sure that it is this way around? I rather believe that it easier for youngsters to do the same doping as the pros, therefore they are faster up there. (In other words, pro riders have reduced their doping, amateur riders have improved their doping.)
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
, I'm still to see any evidence of Sky's novelty in terms of training. Surely you can come up with something ?
(17 years ago) Acknowlegde it, and hope for the race to be equal for the top contenders e.g everyone being doped (which doesnt looks at the current status)
