Aquarius wrote:
Problem is that there's a 500 pages report that was sent to federations and all legal authorities, and that one is overwhelming for the involved riders (the 53 or 56 names list and a couple of others among them Klaus, ValvPiti, etc.), but the Spanish authorities forbid all those federations to use that report to sue the involved riders for as long as the civil trial is going on in Spain. The civil trial only involves Fuentes, Saiz and a couple of their buddies.
Thanks for the info Aquarius. I hadn't heard that this was the case. If you have some article or something on this, perhaps you could send out the link because I'd be interested in reading more about it. If this is true, then I can see why all of the other teams are so angry at Team Discovery for signing Basso (if indeed, there is definitive proof against him). But I can also understand Basso's and Ullrich's reluctance to submit a DNA sample for testing. DNA tests can be very sensitive and the potential for false positives exists. Given the high degree of scrutiny and speculation surrounding doping in Pro Cycling, if I were a pro rider I would be very reluctant to submit my DNA for testing because a single false positive could mean the end of my career. So the reluctance of Basso and the other riders to submit DNA samples is understandable if you figure they are innocent. Of course, it's also understandable if they are guilty!
And I am surprised that, if there is definitive proof against these cyclists, that it hasn't leaked into the European news media (or maybe it has?). My perception is that the European media has been very eager to find incriminating evidence against Armstrong and to distribute this information widely. Why don't they do the same for the big names inplicated in Puerto?
i dont think its as much as 10-15%, because thats a LOT!!
2% of 1 hour(ca. the length of a tour/WC ITT) is 1minute 12 seconds, thats pretty much on a ca. 50km ITT
if lance armstrong managed a stage with 40km/h in average clean, then with 2% he would have ridden with ca 41km/h, in a 205km tour stage that would be a 7 minutes and 30 seconds, enough to win the tour
BOC 92 wrote:
i dont think its as much as 10-15%, because thats a LOT!!
2% of 1 hour(ca. the length of a tour/WC ITT) is 1minute 12 seconds, thats pretty much on a ca. 50km ITT
if lance armstrong managed a stage with 40km/h in average clean, then with 2% he would have ridden with ca 41km/h, in a 205km tour stage that would be a 7 minutes and 30 seconds, enough to win the tour
I meant in terms of power (wattage) and VO2. Not 15% time, it would mean an advantage of about 15 hours on 100h (close to a TDF length).
@cmfos : I'll try to find some links, but I must confess that most of times I only read French speaking websites, so it may not be of much use to you (although I think you can read and speak French if I remember Cyanide forum correctly, right ?)
@cmfos : I'll try to find some links, but I must confess that most of times I only read French speaking websites, so it may not be of much use to you (although I think you can read and speak French if I remember Cyanide forum correctly, right ?)
No, my French sucks unfortunately despite the fact that I spent 3 months in Montpelier. But I'd appreciate your forwarding your articles when you have the chance and I can try and slog through 'em.
