|
Sky Doping/Hate Thread
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 24-07-2013 22:16
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7385
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
It is not like the winner is the best anyways also without doping. The bodies of different riders respond differently to different drugs, so without doping Froome would never have won the TdF. Another point is that not all the teams have the same budget so it's easier for some teams/riders to get to good stuff than fo others. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 24-07-2013 22:19
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 19134
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
it cant be worse than it is now
You have no idea. Absolutely no idea.
Sure, legalize it....and get ready for dozens to die every season once again and thousands getting severe health problems for the rest of their lives (which will be shorter).
As for the best still winning....no. Just no. The moment you legalize EPO, you can immediately calculate who wins. Do this math:
VO2Max/Non-doped Haematocrit
Highest number wins. Talent becomes irrelevant
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
|
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 24-07-2013 22:20
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Spilak23 wrote:
But after 60 riders in the 1998 TdF was caught and all the people admitting to it, i dont understand why the cycling world or any sport dont just legalize it, it cant be worse than it is now and the winner will still be the best out of everyone.
Cause it are drugs. They can have very bad consequenses for a human's health. Fysically and mentally.
Imagine all cycling stars ending like Pantani or Vandenbroucke..
Pantani died of a drug overdose in a hotel room not because he took EPO.
But those deaths show exactly how dangerous it is if its left in the dark and if riders are left to their own accord or to backroom doctors.
Look at a guy like Armstrong, who probably had one of the most systematic doping setups. i think you can be a 100% sure that he had it down to a t and knew 100% how much to take and not to take.
So is doping dangerous of course but its more dangerous left to be people who got their medical degree from a vendor in bahamas and when 60+ riders out of 150 is proven to be doped, i think it should stand out to everyone that it cannot be prevented.
Not to mention Sky today, they prove that riders dont stop, they just get smarter and that when all is not on equal terms, it can ruin the sport more. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 07-12-2025 09:19
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| arthon |
Posted on 24-07-2013 22:22
|
Domestique
Posts: 537
Joined: 22-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
But after 60 riders in the 1998 TdF was caught and all the people admitting to it, i dont understand why the cycling world or any sport dont just legalize it, it cant be worse than it is now and the winner will still be the best out of everyone.
I've heard this theory many times before, but it's not as simple.
First of all, it all depends on the financial cost of a doping programme and whether all the teams can afford it. It's not like the UCI could enforce some regulation on this. 
Second of all, every substance does not have the same effect on all the riders. A super-responder to EPO would basically win every race, and let's not even get started on the more advanced stuff.
And last but not least, although a rider would probably sacrifice 20-30 years of life expectancy on just a couple of years of glory in cycling, the consequences are pretty obvious and you can judge them yourself. |
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 24-07-2013 22:24
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7385
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
issoisso wrote:
you can immediately calculate who wins. Do this math:
VO2Max/Non-doped Haematocrit
Highest number wins. Talent becomes irrelevant
That doesn't make much sense to me.. Talent doesn't become totally irrelevant and like this someone with less talent and same Haematocrit would be better as someone with more ...  |
| |
|
|
| Spilak23 |
Posted on 24-07-2013 22:26
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7217
Joined: 22-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Didn't know that bout the VO2 max/natural hemaetocrit
The little prins wouldn't get far then
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 24-07-2013 22:34
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 19134
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Bikex wrote:
issoisso wrote:
you can immediately calculate who wins. Do this math:
VO2Max/Non-doped Haematocrit
Highest number wins. Talent becomes irrelevant
That doesn't make much sense to me.. Talent doesn't become totally irrelevant and like this someone with less talent and same Haematocrit would be better as someone with more ...
Go tell that to Gilles Delion, Charly Mottet, Lucho Herrera, Greg LeMond or a dozen others
Spilak23 wrote:
Didn't know that bout the VO2 max/natural hemaetocrit
If you have high VO2Max, you have the means to ingest the fuel.
If you have the muscles you have the potential to have power.
The missing third piece is how to get all that O2 to the muscles to use them and produce the power. For that you need high HcT. If you have the muscle mass, medium or low HcT and high VO2Max, you take EPO to increase your HcT and you're suddenly a god.
What do the top guys of the 90s have in common? Riis, Ullrich, Induráin, Armstrong, Pantani?
They had the muscle mass and the Vo2Max. But they couldn't climb that well (or in Pantani's case he could climb decently but not TT). Give them EPO and they flew on all terrains suddenly. Because they could now use all their muscle mass.
Spilak23 wrote:
The little prins wouldn't get far then
Cunego? That 'natural haematocrit' could easily be bull. You know who else had a special dispensation for naturally elevated HcT? Riccò. If it were actually true, he wouldn't have suddenly become so much better on CERA in 2008.
Edited by issoisso on 24-07-2013 22:37
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Spilak23 |
Posted on 24-07-2013 22:45
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7217
Joined: 22-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Cunego's dad has a hematocrit over 50 aswell so it's very likely his is natural
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 24-07-2013 22:55
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4851
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
The HcT percentage is a bit rubbish, I think.
I don't know about you people, but I've gotten mine checked a dozen of times for now (at least since I've known what HcT is), and the least I can say is that it's rather fluctuating.
Last year I got +4 points in six months (admittedly I started taking iron, so I bumped from 39 to 43), but even before that, I've had fluctuations (up to 46+ % when doing no sport), 42,6, 42,7 , 45,9 in my years as a U17 and a junior. And I don't think there's anything special with my blood (sadly  ).
It's very influenced by the sportsman level of hydrating, the position when the blood is extracted (lying, sitting or standing), for how long the person has been awoken, etc.
I don't know if it's a legend or not, but if Armstrong had 49,9 % or most likely figures around 49 all the time, it clearly indicates a blood manipulation.
I really wouldn't have felt confident at the time of the 50 % rule if my natural HcT was around 49 %... |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 24-07-2013 22:56
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
arthon wrote:
I've heard this theory many times before, but it's not as simple.
First of all, it all depends on the financial cost of a doping programme and whether all the teams can afford it. It's not like the UCI could enforce some regulation on this.
Second of all, every substance does not have the same effect on all the riders. A super-responder to EPO would basically win every race, and let's not even get started on the more advanced stuff.
And last but not least, although a rider would probably sacrifice 20-30 years of life expectancy on just a couple of years of glory in cycling, the consequences are pretty obvious and you can judge them yourself.
But people are already doing that now and continue to do it. just a lot more dangerous than it would be if ICU allowed some substances and disallowed the really bad ones.
So how do you suggest cycling world stop doping in a sport where 60% is known dopers? and the owners and leaders are the same riders who took the doping. |
| |
|
|
| cilldroichid |
Posted on 25-07-2013 00:56
|
Junior Rider
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-07-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
just a lot more dangerous than it would be if ICU allowed some substances and disallowed the really bad ones.
The problem with that is, as i see it, you would still have some riders taking the banned drugs. In any sport with money involved certain people are going to cheat, unfortunately, anything for that small advantage. So if you ban certain drugs or set limits on the amount allowed it just means people will find a way around it. As has been pointed out a free for all would just be plain suicidal as some would push the limits too far.
Jacdk wrote:
So how do you suggest cycling world stop doping in a sport where 60% is known dopers?
I don't think its possible to completely stop doping and not just in cycling. A good start would be if all the governing bodies actually got serious about trying to stop doping. |
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 25-07-2013 03:23
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7385
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Bikex wrote:
issoisso wrote:
you can immediately calculate who wins. Do this math:
VO2Max/Non-doped Haematocrit
Highest number wins. Talent becomes irrelevant
That doesn't make much sense to me.. Talent doesn't become totally irrelevant and like this someone with less talent and same Haematocrit would be better as someone with more ...
Go tell that to Gilles Delion, Charly Mottet, Lucho Herrera, Greg LeMond or a dozen others.
Sorry it makes sense I read it the wrong way around .. |
| |
|
|
| GD |
Posted on 26-07-2013 10:25
|
Amateur
Posts: 21
Joined: 03-06-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
This article is worth a read, written by an anonymous rider who was riding this years tour
https://cyclingtip...e-edition/
|
| |
|
|
| Pellizotti2 |
Posted on 26-07-2013 11:01
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 9885
Joined: 01-05-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Already posted in the news thread.
|
| |
|
|
| tyriion |
Posted on 26-07-2013 11:07
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1506
Joined: 29-08-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
But after 60 riders in the 1998 TdF was caught and all the people admitting to it, i dont understand why the cycling world or any sport dont just legalize it, it cant be worse than it is now and the winner will still be the best out of everyone.
Another very important part is the fact that no company would sponsor a cycling team anymore if the doping was legalized. Cycling would die.
And I guess it would cease to be an Olympic sport as well.
Check out my ManGame team here
|
| |
|
|
| Housies |
Posted on 26-07-2013 11:12
|
Under 23
Posts: 89
Joined: 31-01-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Nice read indeed, thanks for the tip! |
| |
|
|
| Rin |
Posted on 26-07-2013 11:28
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2582
Joined: 14-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
 Team Bianchi - 2012 Man-Game ProContinental Tour Champions
 |
| |
|
|
| Dee-Jay |
Posted on 10-08-2013 19:56
|
Free Agent
Posts: 129
Joined: 20-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
I can understand you guys hating Sky for how their strategy can stifle races, but how can you criticise Froome for doping when there is zero evidence?
What makes it even crazier is that some of these critics are fans of riders with more evidence against them (cancellara, Contador etc). |
| |
|
|
| Selwink |
Posted on 10-08-2013 19:59
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8702
Joined: 17-05-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
How much 'real' evidence was there for Armstrong? Who was the last rider who dominated so much before Froome? We condemn Froome just as much as Armstrong
Edit: at least I do
Edited by Selwink on 10-08-2013 19:59
|
| |
|
|
| Spilak23 |
Posted on 10-08-2013 20:05
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7217
Joined: 22-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Dee-Jay wrote:
I can understand you guys hating Sky for how their strategy can stifle races, but how can you criticise Froome for doping when there is zero evidence?
What makes it even crazier is that some of these critics are fans of riders with more evidence against them (cancellara, Contador etc).
What is evidence? A positive test? Climbing times that are too low? Power outputs that are too high? Cooperation with certain doctors?
|
| |
|
