First tour positive

E@gle.

Looks like the first one is out and lets hope it is the last.

EDIT: He didnt test positive during the result is from june

tunney

E@gle. wrote: »

Looks like the first one is out and lets hope it is the last.

EDIT: He didnt test positive during the result is from june

Bullsh!t. Let's hope its the first of many positives. This tour needs to be shown for what it is, the dirtiest tour in a long long time. Its only the cycling media now being controlled by one-two groups with large vested interests that are stopping honest reporting on the farce of a tour.

Caroline_ie

ah feck .. Astarloza was too good to be clean ...

Morgan

tunney wrote: »

This tour needs to be shown for what it is, the dirtiest tour in a long long time. Its only the cycling media now being controlled by one-two groups with large vested interests that are stopping honest reporting on the farce of a tour.

Do you know something we don't?

The tax man

tunney wrote: »

Bullsh!t. Let's hope its the first of many positives. This tour needs to be shown for what it is, the dirtiest tour in a long long time. Its only the cycling media now being controlled by one-two groups with large vested interests that are stopping honest reporting on the farce of a tour.

Paul?...Is that you Paul?

lescol

So Bradley Wiggins won?

E@gle.

lescol wrote: »

So Bradley Wiggins won?

probaly

Vélo

E@gle. wrote: »

Looks like the first one is out and lets hope it is the last.

EDIT: He didnt test positive during the result is from june

That's a surprise - He's Spanish.

I wonder is there any other Spaniards doping?:p

PainIsTemporary

Shame about the positive.

tunney wrote: »

Bullsh!t. Let's hope its the first of many positives. This tour needs to be shown for what it is, the dirtiest tour in a long long time. Its only the cycling media now being controlled by one-two groups with large vested interests that are stopping honest reporting on the farce of a tour.

This statement is "Bullsh!t".

Vélo

lescol wrote: »

So Bradley Wiggins won?

Nope - Roche won it.

Junior

It's a bit stupid that test results can take so long to come out

lukester

Morgan wrote: »

Do you know something we don't?

Like this?

Has ASO decided to capitulate in the anti-doping fight? Consider their actions lately. Patrice Clerc fired. Sudden truce with the UCI. The UCI given back control of the Tour's anti-doping. AFLD and Bordry left out in the cold. L'Equipe's investigative reporting on doping nixed. Meanwhile, the UCI comes out publicly against retro-active testing, LA announces he will ride the Tour, and the bio-passport seems stalled. All of these things put together hardly seem unconnected. Actually, it looks like one big fat whitewash. Doping? What doping? Perhaps most troubling is that Verbruggen's name is still whispered behind the scenes. An emailer sent in this translation of the recent article from Les Dessous du Sport:

"There are new guidelines within the Amaury group and within L'Equipe in particular: from now on, the journalists are not supposed to talk too much about doping. They must be content with the bare minimum, which is only to transmit the official announcements from the federations or anti-doping agencies without digging further.

The time where L'Equipe could take on the untouchable Lance Armstrong, like they did on August 23, 2005 when they announced on the front page of the paper that he doped in the 2005 Tour, is gone. Marie-Odile Amaury, who owns L'Equipe and the Tour, has opted for a political union with the UCI, the same organization who considered Patrice Clerc (the former president of the ASO who was fired) the devil incarnate. It is impossible to have new disagreements with Lance Armstrong, one of the best friends of Hein Verbruggen, who happens to still manage the UCI behind the scenes. When Lance Armstrong announced his return to the next Tour de France, the journalists from L'Equipe didn't even risk any talk of the "hidden side" of the cancer miracle. Nothing was even mentioned about the famous "scoop" of 2005 which was devastating for Armstrong.

This new policy is creating a lot of disagreements within the company of L'Equipe where the people who are opposing this new vision are becoming more and more isolated within the company. Let's be reminded that only one journalist out of 290 at L'Equipe will be occupied with doping affairs.

Michel Moulin, just before launching his new sports magazine "Le 10 Sport" also announced he didn't want to talk about doping because he doesn't want to break the dreams of the public. Obviously, L'Equipe looked down on this same editorial path which they have now taken as their own. Good news for the cheaters and a catastrophe for the public."

PainIsTemporary wrote:

This statement is negative "Bullsh!t".

How is it negative to want dopers to be caught?

Chips Lovell

Junior wrote: »

It's a bit stupid that test results can take so long to come out

There are a lot of new tests being done and my understanding is that they take an age to do. If we're only seeing positives from June now, we could be well into the Vuelta before we see positives from the Tour (if there are any).

Chips Lovell

Robbie McEwen's Twitter:

Astarloza, you're a wanker. While I'm at it, Ricco - stay gone, we don't want you back amongst us. Go ride with Kohl.

Running Bing

tunney wrote: »

Bullsh!t. Let's hope its the first of many positives. This tour needs to be shown for what it is, the dirtiest tour in a long long time.

Very strange comment

I would say that in the absence of solid evidence (do you have any?) this was one of the cleanest tours in a long time.

tunney

lukester wrote: »

Like this?





How is it negative to want dopers to be caught?

Exactly what I am referring to, its sickening. Really really sickening. I've stopped buying procyling, cancelled my cyclingplus subscription and stopped browsing the cycling sites. Its all bullsh!t, Di Luca tested positive and it got three paragraphs on cyclingnews. Come on.

*cue flames from uninformed freds and glorified pobs*

tunney

Running Bing wrote: »

Very strange comment

I would say that in the absence of solid evidence (do you have any?) this was one of the cleanest tours in a long time.

There is solid evidence, VAM and whats possible for a unassisted human. Then look at what was done in the Tour. Also read the comments by Greg LeMond on Contador's performances. If you can find the research done by the Francis de jeux (sorry about spelling) sports scientist a few years ago its a good read and pretty damning.

Diarmuid

And so it begins....

niceonetom

Running Bing wrote: »

Very strange comment

I would say that in the absence of solid evidence (do you have any?) this was one of the cleanest tours in a long time.

What tour were you watching?



It's become clear that this is the friday thread with the most flame war potential. Let's go.

Caroline_ie

MMMmmm what did lemond say about the verbier climb again ( not that noone else thought the same ) ... might have to add another arrow a the top in a couple of month?

Running Bing

niceonetom wrote: »

What tour were you watching?



It's become clear that this is the friday thread with the most flame war potential. Let's go.

...and whats your point? Contador is dirty? Maybe but then whens the last times the Tour has been won by a clean rider?

Im not saying the Peleton suddenly decided drugs are bad and none of them took drugs this year, Im saying that the comment about this tour being the dirtiest in years is very strange because I would've thought most people think its getting better.

Look at Wiggins performance. If he can do that clean why could'nt all the riders around him in the GC? Again Im not saying every rider in te tour is an angel but surely the signs are things are getting better and we've moved out of the darkest period?

*cue flames from uninformed freds and glorified pobs*

I dont see what ones cycling ability has to do with a debate about doping at the professional level

blorg

niceonetom wrote: »

It's become clear that this is the friday thread with the most flame war potential. Let's go.

It's much too late Tom, you need to kick these things off before lunch to really get them going! You want people going to lunch wringing their hands in frustration and then rushing back early to post the clever thing that came into their heads!

cantalach

tunney wrote: »

Exactly what I am referring to, its sickening. Really really sickening. I've stopped buying procyling, cancelled my cyclingplus subscription and stopped browsing the cycling sites. Its all bullsh!t, Di Luca tested positive and it got three paragraphs on cyclingnews. Come on.

*cue flames from uninformed freds and glorified pobs*

I'm wondering how well informed you can be if you've stopped reading Pro Cycling, Cycling Plus and the websites...do you commune with the ghost of Tom Simpson?

PainIsTemporary

niceonetom wrote: »

What tour were you watching?

Why were you watching/following the tour at all? One cyclist positive, attmitedly for now, but at least they're catching them.

If we are to believe the feats of Braddley Wiggins were clean/above board then why not others? Agree with Running Bing on this one.

niceonetom wrote: »

It's become clear that this is the friday thread with the most flame war potential. Let's go.

So much for rational and balanced debate. Mature attitude there niceonetom [pat on the back ]:rolleyes:. Innocent til proven guilty anyone?

Running Bing

tunney wrote: »

There is solid evidence, VAM and whats possible for a unassisted human. Then look at what was done in the Tour. Also read the comments by Greg LeMond on Contador's performances. If you can find the research done by the Francis de jeux (sorry about spelling) sports scientist a few years ago its a good read and pretty damning.

So do you think Bradley Wiggins doped?

Like I said if your asking my personal opinion its quite possible Contador was dirty but thats the norm. I make it 19 years since a clean rider won the tour, if you class Lemond as clean, so I dont know how you can say this is the dirtiest tour in years.


The sports got problems, everybody knows that, but I do think its getting better and you cant get too cynical and paranoid.

niceonetom

blorg wrote: »

It's much too late Tom, you need to kick these things off before lunch to really get them going! You want people going to lunch wringing their hands in frustration and then rushing back early to post the clever thing that came into their heads!

You're probably right. But... then again \/ \/ \/

Running Bing wrote: »

...and whats your point? Contador is dirty? Maybe but then whens the last times the Tour has been won by a clean rider?

Possibly Sastre last year. Possibly. And he was the first in a long time. Allegedly (m'lud). I think that was probably a slightly cleaner tourthan this year's, but there were still plenty of positives, not to mention the absentees who were never even tested .

Running Bing wrote: »

Im not saying the Peleton suddenly decided drugs are bad and none of them took drugs this year, Im saying that the comment about this tour being the dirtiest in years is very strange because I would've thought most people think its getting better.

Depends who you mean by "people"... informed people? or lancefans? jaded cynics? those in the know? I've seen no signs of a consensus of opinion on this, but there are many out there, more knowledgeable than you or I, who see this tour as a return to the dark old days. Their arguments make some sense.

Running Bing wrote: »

Look at Wiggins performance. If he can do that clean why could'nt all the riders around him in the GC?

Training? Genetics? Form? Commitment? Guts? Why can't you do what he did clean? What makes you think that Bwiggins isn't the exception to the rule, not some sort of new dawn.

Running Bing wrote: »

...the signs are things are getting better and we've moved out of the darkest period?

Ah yes, the green shoots of recovery . Yay! People has been saying that things-are-getting-better since festina, probably earlier.

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

Why were you watching/following the tour at all?
...
So much for rational and balanced debate. Mature attitude there niceonetom [pat on the back ]:rolleyes:. Innocent til proven guilty anyone?

Every time you use this emoticon: :rolleyes: humanity loses.

I was watching the tour because I love it. There is a touch of the beaten wife syndrome to this, I'll admit, but I still love the tour.

For your own sanity I would drop the "innocent until proven guilty" attitude with regards to being a cycling fan. It's like falling in love in a whore house. Unless you want to have your heart broken it's best to treat them all as suspect and just enjoy yourself.

zzzzzzzz

niceonetom wrote: »

For your own sanity I would drop the "innocent until proven guilty" attitude with regards to being a cycling fan. It's like falling in love in a whore house. Unless you want to have your heart broken it's best to treat them all as suspect and just enjoy yourself.

i like it!

Chips Lovell

niceonetom wrote: »

Every time you use this emoticon: :rolleyes: humanity loses.

I was watching the tour because I love it. There is a touch of the beaten wife syndrome to this, I'll admit, but I still love the tour.

For your own sanity I would drop the "innocent until proven guilty" attitude with regards to being a cycling fan. It's like falling in love in a whore house. Unless you want to have your heart broken it's best to treat them all as suspect and just enjoy yourself.

^^^This bit. Post of the year. Niceonetom is an eloquent man.

PainIsTemporary

niceonetom wrote: »

Training? Genetics? Form? Commitment? Guts? Why can't you do what he did clean? What makes you think that Bwiggins isn't the exception to the rule, not some sort of new dawn.

Could the same not be argued for any top cyclist/sports-person?

I believe Wiggins is clean. Does his performance in this years Tour not prove that what others achieved could have been achieved clean also? Does it not add to the case for it being a cleaner Tour than many before?

Admittedly there will be more positives, but Wiggins does give hope to the sceptics and believers alike.

niceonetom wrote: »

It's like falling in love in a whore house. Unless you want to have your heart broken it's best to treat them all as suspect and just enjoy yourself.

Christ thats deep! Speaking from experience? Sounds like a bad weekend in Amsterdam. [No smiley]

Junior

Using this years climb of Verbier and Contadors output isn't without flaws so running around screaming they are all doped up to the eyeballs isn't I think a fair comparison.

Caroline_ie

Pro Tour = WWE Wrestling

Ryaner

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

Could the same not be argued for any top cyclist/sports-person?

I believe Wiggins is clean. Does his performance in this years Tour not prove that what others achieved could have been achieved clean also? Does it not add to the case for it being a cleaner Tour than many before?

Can't remember the exact stage but I think it was the one were Contador won the yellow jersey first. But basically the cameras had Contador talking and looking like he was getting ready to go out and cycle. Wiggins had yet to step over the bike and had his trainer/handler with him helping him back to the team bus.

niceonetom

el tonto wrote: »

^^^This bit. Post of the year. Niceonetom is an eloquent man.

aw shucks.

kenmc

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

Does it not add to the case for it being a cleaner Tour than many before?

How do you define 'clean'?
a) Less people doping
b) Less people caught doping
They're not the same thing.

drogdub

Hi all, I am a long time reader some time poster. I have been watching pro cycling for about 13 months now reading about it for a bit longer. The first race or stage I watched live, in English since 1987 was Contadors win an the Angliru (I got NTL that week so had Eurosport, I watched the highlights of the Tour on TG4) and was immediatly hooked, the way he ground Sanchez and Valverde into the ground was incredible.

Anyway, from reading about Garmins interest in Contador and from reading about the doubts many people here and elsewhere have about him it raises a few questions in my mind. I genuinly believe that they are a clean team, but they also probably know what doping goes on as it always, from reading books and artilces, an open secret in the peleton. If AC was a doper then surely they would have no interest in him as they would know about it and it would be against everything they stand for. They have done well as a clean team and wouldn't want to run the risk of a positive and ruin their reputation, especially the cyclists themselves.

Its just something I have been thinking about and would like to hear more knowledgable opinions.

also is it me or are the Schlecks the business

ROK ON

Why should anyone give cycling a fair chance, an innocent until proven guilty chance?

The recorfd broken in this tour were previously held by dopers.

Many of the DS's have had a colourful past to say the least.

The administrators of the sport have been there thru the bad times.

This is highly likely IMO to lead to recidivistic behaviour. A circus, entertaining, but let's not confuse it for a minute with something clean. In the absence of evidence, a rationale person may well assume that methods used to win, succeed and survive in this tour are the latest evolution of methods that have been tried in the past.
To believe in anything else, is a load of pollyanna nonsense.

petethedrummer

drogdub wrote: »

also is it me or are the Schlecks the business

Well Frank doesn't have very good business sense, accidentally transferring money into the account of an infamous doping doctor, who he never met or received training advice from. I'm always doing things like that.

Lumen

"Prove that you're clean" is a perfectly reasonable attitude given the history of doping in cycling, and "prove that I'm not" is now an unacceptable response.

Vélo

Running Bing wrote: »

...and whats your point? Contador is dirty? Maybe but then whens the last times the Tour has been won by a clean rider?

Lance did it 7 times.

alfalad

Why does everyone think B Wiggans is clean? Not saying he isn't but everyone seems very sure he is!

Junior

alfalad wrote: »

Why does everyone think B Wiggans is clean? Not saying he isn't but everyone seems very sure he is!

1 hard line anti doping stance
2 follows it up by publishing all his blood results available for everyone to see

tunney

Garmin have sold their souls and gone to the dark side.

BryanL

petethedrummer wrote: »

Well Frank doesn't have very good business sense, accidentally transferring money into the account of an infamous doping doctor, who he never met or received training advice from. I'm always doing things like that.

Have you written down my bank details or should i PM you?:D

tunney

I know that this board has a history of tolerance and I accept that - triples, compacts, MTBers But this thread has pushed the limits. I think I'll be avoiding this board now until the rain and wind and cold of winter sends all the recent experts back to pies and sofas. Ciao.

mloc123

tunney wrote: »

I know that this board has a history of tolerance and I accept that - triples, compacts, MTBers But this thread has pushed the limits. I think I'll be avoiding this board now until the rain and wind and cold of winter sends all the recent experts back to pies and sofas. Ciao.

Its good to see 'old tunney' back... I think you were too soft on here for the last few months.

Running Bing

mloc123 wrote: »

Its good to see 'old tunney' back... I think you were too soft on here for the last few months.

Triathletes:rolleyes:

Lumen

alfalad wrote: »

Why does everyone think B Wiggans is clean? Not saying he isn't but everyone seems very sure he is!

It's a very high-risk strategy to make enemies by speaking out against doping if you're doing it yourself. Why would you paint a target on yourself?

He's either clean, or it's a monumental bluff, or he thinks he's clean but isn't (team hypnosis?), or or he thinks the stuff he's taking isn't cheating (the old "anything naturally occuring in the body isn't doping" line).

I'm sticking with "he's clean" until there's anything substantial to suggest otherwise. Painting them all with the same brush just compounds the problem, since there's less incentive for people to compete clean.

PainIsTemporary

Ryaner wrote: »

But basically the cameras had Contador talking and looking like he was getting ready to go out and cycle. Wiggins had yet to step over the bike and had his trainer/handler with him helping him back to the team bus.

Contador is a mountain/3 week Major Tour specialist. Wiggins is recently improved in his mountain climbing ability and has only this year started to focus his attention on the Tour. Stage finish in question possibly on Mountain-top towards end of Tour??

Simply put the 4th place finisher in this years tour is generally considered to be clean, and hopefuly will be proven to be so. My point is if his performance/improvement is legitimate and clean surely other performances in this years Tour can be rationalised in much the same way? Sceptics have your say...

[I want to believe. Who knows I may be one of you (a sceptic) yet.]

bcmf

After reading "Bad Blood" and The "In search of Robert Millar" books on my hols I have to say I dont believe. had an issue of Pro-Cycling with me and looked at it in a different light after reading the books.
The question I have is if a rider dopes and stays within the 50% limit (does this limit still exist and in operation?) they are technically clean but they have manipulated their blood therefore a doper. So are they a doper but not technically.
A good point was made in the Robert Millar book in the second last chapter (I Think.....) I dont have it to hand but will clarify it when I get a chance. It basically says that everyone involved must stand and be accounted for the drugs in the sport. Tour organisers for expecting to put riders through harder longer stages then expect riders to remain clean.....??????

But all that I said above I still managed to watch the first week of TdF on my hols in France as for the second 2 well I was out of touch with civilisation which is another tale for another day. But I love watching it.And I loved watching the Giro and hopefully will love watching the Vuelta

petethedrummer

bcmf wrote: »

The question I have is if a rider dopes and stays within the 50% limit (does this limit still exist and in operation?)

No this was a crude figure to measure blood doping. The blood passport is supposed to track your hematocrit along with other values. The testers watch for unusual peaks and troughs or lack of either. If something fishy turns up, they target the rider for more testing to find the substance.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/348326/uci-announces-creation-of-blood-passports.html

Aoibheann

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=15383

Not sure if this has been posted, but it gives an interesting aspect anyway if nothing more!