issoisso wrote:
Of course not. it's extremely rare that anyone gets caught. You'd have to screw up majorly to be caught. The examples of riders who doped their entire career and then admitted to doping are literally hundreds.

Not to mention that the drugs that are in fashonable use right now, there is no way to test for them. Most drugs you can dope as much as you want and it is literally impossible for you to test positive since there is simply no test for them.

MrContador wrote:
The doping hunters have developed new methods of reveal doping, and I don't think that Contador wouldn't been caught if he tried it.

MrContador wrote:
But btw, what's your favourite rider isso?

issoisso wrote:
the ones named "Urko" are Pereiro's (name of Pereiro's dog)

Stairs wrote:
You may torture me for this comment some day but I think - or hope - that the real problem of todays cycling is the likes of Jesus Losa, Enrico Lazzaro, Michele Ferrari, Marcos Maynar and the rest of the "smaller" doping-pushers - and let's hope Manolo stays in Palencia!

issoisso wrote:
take HGH. it's undetectable. use blood transfusions. they're undetectable. Take EPO. most kinds are undetectable. It's extremely easy. That's the general mistake most people make: assuming the tests are reliable. very far from it, in fact.

MrContador wrote:
Im don't know much about the techincs they are using, but if what you say is true, then we can conclude that every rider is doped,

The director of the WADA-accredited Swiss Laboratory for Analysis of Doping in Lausanne, Switzerland, has told Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws that he believed there was still widespread doping in the Tour de France this year. "47 out of 189 riders raced on blood transfusions or EPO," Martial Saugy alleged. "We have been able to show this from the samples taken at the health controls."

Still, Saugy added that these test results did not fulfil the requirements to be declared as 'positive'. "It is appalling, but we find so many test results that undoubtedly point to manipulation," he continued. "But there is a big difference between a suspicious sample and one that can be declared positive."

Saugy also found indications for the use of testosterone and growth hormone. "Especially the latter product is very popular at the moment," he added. "As soon as there will be a water-proof test for growth hormone, it will show that 80 percent [of the peloton] is taking it. I am disillusioned: the use of growth hormone is as bad as was the use of EPO and blood doping in the 90's."

MrContador wrote:
then we wouldn't argue about "who is doped and who is not"

Stairs wrote:
You may torture me for this comment some day but I think - or hope - that the real problem of todays cycling is the likes of Jesus Losa, Enrico Lazzaro, Michele Ferrari, Marcos Maynar and the rest of the "smaller" doping-pushers - and let's hope Manolo stays in Palencia!

MrContador wrote:

Im don't know much about the techincs they are using, but if what you say is true, then we can conclude that every rider is doped, then we wouldn't argue about "who is doped and who is not"

issoisso wrote:


sadly I think the bigger problem than that are Lefevère, Riis, Lefévère, Saronni, Lefévère, Bruyneel, etc. But most of all Lefévère and his army of three headed pink monkeys

brun sweater wrote:


The problem is that doping works There's nothing next to a boosted hematocrit, if you're a serious athlete. The detection window for known kind of EPO's, is just 12 hours, if you know what you're doing. Only the amateurs gets caught!

brun sweater wrote:
oh yeah, I forgot about Ulle. But back then they rode with hematocrits around 55, so ....

Before the start of the penultimate stage of the 1999 Giro, Marco Pantani was awakened so that a blood test could be administered. His hematocrit of 52 percent resulted in his being ejected from the Giro after he had won 4 stages and was leading in the General Classification. The cycling world was stunned. Pantani's squalificato seemed to affect many racing fans far more deeply than the Festina scandal, probably because of Pantani's powerfully heroic image. He had triumphed over a horrible accident and saved the Tour during its greatest crises. Partisans of Pantani made accusations of a conspiracy. In fact, the riders have long known how to foil the hematocrit test. When they knew they would be subjected to a test they would take saline injections and aspirin and in no time the rider's hematocrit was within the legal limit. Some teams even provided the riders with small centrifuges so that they could "manage" their red blood cell concentration. By waking Pantani up to take the test he wasn't able to take measures to bring his hematocrit down. He was a goner. Pantani was too devastated by the disqualification to consider riding the Tour.

Aquarius wrote:
@ Brun : Ullrich was even more powerful than Contador at the same age, or a lower age. If you implied somebody clean and more powerful at the same age, well... I doubt there's any filling the "clean" condition.
btw. how is that old fellow of us going ? Is he still in full-denial-the-French-are-biased-and-jealous mode about that Texan ?

Ruben wrote:
What was Riis wattage on Hautacam again? 510w?

MrContador wrote:
I can gladly take the "is Contador doped" discussion with you, yes. Answer my questions:

1. What's the proof that Contador was doped?
2. Contador have been cleared for all sanctions, why do you still think he was/is doped?
3. Contador have never been in his own class. He didn't played with his competitors like Pantani and Armstrong did. Haven't Menchov and Evans been on his level?

MrContador wrote:
Well, we will see. If Contador isn't caught until the end of 2009, will you then admit that he is clean?