Adventure Bike Rider

anagallis_arvensis wrote:


Ok, so they're all guilty until proven otherwise. Now we've established that they were on a level playing field then as far as I'm concerned they can carry on as they are and the authorities can save the money they waste on drug testing.

anagallis_arvensis wrote:


Evidently you as a layman know more than the legions of drug testing results. To think, all that money they could have saved just by ringing you.

Yeh we could be here all day debating this as I post most of
This with my iPhone I can't be arsed doing big long posts
But it's not as easy as taking a drug test and you caught

They have loads of performance enhancing drugs and just
As many masking agents to hide the drugs

Then they have blood transfusion to take it dirty blood
And put in clean blood and epo is the super drug of choice
Now can be taken once in 2 weeks and very hard to detect

Then loads of out of competition drug taking makes you train
Every day without rest and every day harder than before

Pat mcquaid and WADA all know who is taking the drugs but
It's catching them

Cheers

Dave





Cheers

I'd rather have a slower clean race than one that is a few kph faster but decided by the doctor the day after the race. Average speeds have been coming down for the last ten years but viewing figures are up again, cyclings about the personal battles and seeing who's willing to bury themselves to get over the line first, knowing or even suspecting they got their by cheating makes it meaningless. Professional cyclings always been riddled with doping but that doesn't mean it's right but there needs to be more done to get the dirty team managers out of the sport as it's too easy for them to walk away from doping allegations and get into another team.

Can't help but wonder if in years to come if the same is going to happen to Wiggins, Cavendish and the next 4 winners of major tours. Some people just cannot accept that some humans are bloody good at what they do and can do it without drugs. Good god, last year Cancellara got accused of having an electric motor in his bottom bracket. What next, 'I won because in a previous life I was abducted by aliens and was experimented on?'

Yes, there has been/still are drugs in cycling but no more than any other sport, it's just that there is a shed load more testing in cycling and more get caught.

One argument from years ago to try and stamp out this inequality in clean verses smacked up was let them all take what they want, all the athletes, it's their lives they're playing Russian roulette with. If they need to wake up every 3 hours to inject anaesthetic to thin their blood because the epo has thickened it then let them get on with it. If they want to self administer blood transfusions in a hotel room and end up with kidney failure then let them. If they want a heart the size of a football but as thin as a ballon because they really think a cocktail of HGH and test will help then hey-ho, off they go.

Marra wrote:


That right there is the worst thing about dope, the first thing I thought of when Wiggins left the start on Saturday was not 'finally, a brit with a decent chance' but was 'I hope he's not bent'.

Marra wrote:


It's only because doping was/is so rife in cycling that it has that amount of testing. Professional cycling pretty much invented performance enhancing drugs. There is an entry in one of the earliest tour de France rule books that states that drugs will not be provided by the tour, you have to bring your own.

Marra wrote:


But the counter argument to that is that if you want to be competitive then you have to dope, which might be acceptable to some but when you have 20 year old athletes dieing of heart failure after taking EPO in the name of sport then something can't be right.

I couldnt give a spicey fig whether Lance Armstrong was on dope or not - I could snort half a ton of coke before a stage on the tour and I still wouldnt be able to get on the bike let alone finish a stage. I enjoy watching the Tour in the alps as it gives me ideas for motorbike rides given the chance.

You now may resume chucking feces at each other

I think Wiggo's made his views on the subject pretty clear, Team Sky's PR guy might be having a quiet word though.

Wiggins was asked today by an AP journalist “what do you say to the cynics who say you have to be doped up to win the Tour de France?”

I say they’re just fucking wankers. I cannot be dealing with people like that. It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can’t ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives. It’s easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of shit, rather than get off their arses in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something. And that’s ultimately it. Cunts.”

He's bang on and has said what a lot of people are scared to. Those that do get off their lazy arses and do, those that can't be bothered talk about it or knock those that do, and not just in cycling.

Go on Wiggo, tell it like it is. I liked his little salute yesterday on the podium after winning the stage.

Willy_Eckerslike wrote:


Er not a lots else to say really good on him cheers Spud

Interesting debate as always when doping comes up.

As a UCI Commissaire myself I know a lot of UCI Anti-Doping inspectors and some may find it strange that the majority still come out in favour of Armstrong being clean.

Largely on the basis that he couldn't have kept up fooling them for so long without slipping up somewhere. As mentioned he was the most tested athlete in the sport at the time and was constantly being subjected to random out of sport tests, which are of course designed to catch out athletes using agents between events and before any masking agents can be administered. OK that's not proof and I know others who have the opposite view that he just had the best doctors.

Also Cyclists are also subjected to regular and unannounced blood tests (by teams known not surprisingly as "the Vampires" ) to determine their hemocrit level (i.e. percentage of red blood cells in the blood) anyone with a hemocrit level over 50% is not allowed to race for health reasons. OK we all know it was brought in before a reliable test for EPO was developed as a high hemocrit level is a possible indicator of EPO use (but not proof). To my knowledge Armstrong never "failed" one of these tests either but again that's not proof either.

I agree the truth may never be known but I have my own opinion on him and many others in the sport, one thing I do believe is that the current crop of British riders are clean (we've seen Wiggin's views on the matter ) as the culture in British cycling has swung so far against drug use and our own anti-doping procedures are some of the toughest in the world.

As for David Millar, remember he didn't test positive but he did confess to his crimes. And yes I do consider it a crime, with the amount of money that exists in professional cycling doping is fraud, pure and simple.

Do I believe he took absolutely nothing? No, im not daft, but its when thats the question.

Do I believe he still had to ride beyond the levels and limits that others could physically or mentally achieve? Damn yes!

His strength was in his mind alongside his belief and pure bloody mindedness. That level of aggression gave him an ability to go beyond the rest.

As the years went on he had to find ways to sustain this performance and tactics led to a major part in this ability to sustain many years of abusing his body, but then he only did one race a year competitively which was a big part of his tactics. No one else could afford to do that at the time.

I dont believe he took loads of undetectible drugs at that time either, after what he went through with cancer treatment, I dont believe his body could sustain a programme of drugs treatment over such a prolonged period.

What I do believe, is that what he took when being treated for cancer, left a long lasting effect on his bodies ability to recover from effort.

This is something that David miller touched on in his great book, the chapter about his first race after starting the drugs which he mainly took to recover from a period of exhaustion and to allow him to continue rather than be sacked (almost). He mentions there being no feeling of additional power no turbo boost button to call upon. He still had to put in the same efforts, mentally challenging himself to find what they had actually done for him. He first noticed the effect after burying himself for a team mate and when he expected to be unable to walk afterwards, he instead found himself jumping back on the bike and slowly riding back to the bus....something he'd never of been able to do before. that led to the mental belief that he could put in great efforts time after time and be able to recover, the next day bridging a gap in a strong headwind that was seemingly impossible and goes down in cycling folklore amongst those that know.

Even now, years on in the development of drugs knowledge, the scientists speak of there being an irreversible effect from taking these recovery drugs. If its even slightly true, then there can be no debate that LA took drugs...he was fighting cancer, the most aggressive type, what choice did he have?

Did he cheat? .....NO!

Good to hear most suporting Armstrong, especialy people that seem to have a knowledge of the great sport, rather than the ones that just have an oppinion..hope this years tour is clean, I'v been a fan and participant since the late 70's and there seems to be less getting caught, even wth more stringent controls.. Those that get caught should be banned for life, thats the only way to stop it..

Good luck to wiggins.

Hopeing to camp out and watch the Olympic road race..Come on Cav..

""No one's got any faith in who's in yellow now. The whole thing is null and void as far as I'm concerned this year. I don't blame people for doubting the credibility of the Tour de France for the next five, six, seven years.”"

-Bradley Wiggins, July 27, 2007

Find it very hard to understand why Wiggins wouldnt expect these questions. Obviously I applaud his liberal use of expletives but think he should be a little more professional. Maybe its the drugs making him angry!!

I admire him for talking plainly and not towing any party line. I am fed up of how sanitised things are nowadays.