Remove this Banner Ad

Doping Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Donakebab
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Vader said:
One can only wonder what they're on. Last night it was like watching a re-run of the most highly EPO fuelled climbers of all time going at it.
Click to expand...

The days of oxygen vector doping are over (EPO, blood bags etc) with the biological passport now well established. Although critics of the ABP have pointed out the it is possible to micro-dose and still remain within it's limits, that was not the point of the ABP. The ABP itself was not designed as a tool for catching dopers but rather as an intelligence mechanism to determine which cyclists to targest test for doping controls. So essentially it is possible to circumvent the ABP but in doing so it raises the level of suspicion on an athletes profile, thus making them more likely to be target tested.

Then there is the 'strength and recovery' drugs, which consist of Anabolic and Androgenic Steroids as well as HGH. Whilst it is still feasible that steroids are used by cyclists it comes with great risk and you would certainly need assistance from a knowledgeable Doctor/Pharmacist. The problem is steroid testing is still relatively rudimental as they use the T/E Ratio to determine whose serum needs further analysis by means of a mass spectrometry test to determine whether the excess testosterone is natural or synthetic. Infact one study I read suggested that of 9 persons on 300mg Test E/week over a 12 week course only 5 of those 9 would have failed the T/E Ratio test, this means if your working with a knowledgeable person you should be able to beat the steroid tests. Until the mass spectrometry test is used on all samples (which it's not due to cost) steroids will be used with many well connected cyclists.

HGH was the most abused PED during the 21st Century as it was virtually undectable until the London 2012 Olympics when a better test was developed. However, it is still only capable of detecting use within 24 hours of injection, this is why you use HGH and GHRP-2 together as the GHRP won't cause a spike in the body's GH levels thus you will pass doping controls. Whilst WADA maintains there is a test for GHRP-2 with a half-life of ~5 minutes your going to be extremely unlucky to test positive. Cylists who have used HGH in the past would have had to cut down on the amount of iu's they use but it's going to be continued to be used by many in the peleton.

Now were into the more interesting stuff, the cutting edge of PED's if you like. Insulin, although it's been around forever I suspect it's use amongst cyclists is only starting to gain traction as more traditional doping methods become too risky. The other thing with insulin is it's danger levels, used incorrectly by cyclists and they will die, you really need to know how to use the stuff, but if you do you will reap the rewards. It works through stimulating glycogen production, which in turn greatly increases the bodies storage of glycogen, thus those using insulin will have higher energy stores.

The cutting edge of PED's is also greatly based on those referred to as 'research chemicals', a plethora of these now exist and can be accessed with ease by all cyclists as they are legal to buy from the internet, for 'research' purposes of course. This is were experts like Dank and Charter are used by athletes to develop programs for their use as some of them are highly experimental with a lack of human studies having been conducted. For cylists I would suspect that GHRP-2 and TB-4 (TB 500) are the most widely used.

AICAR and GW1516 seem to be the most discussed cutting edge PED's on internet forums but how widely abused they are remains unknown. Recently a number of cyclists have tested positive for GW1516, I still however am doubtful that it is widely used as it's dangers are well known and anecdotal evidence suggested it may only be effective when used in synergy with AICAR.

AICAR is still very a much an unknown substance but the limited studies that have been conducted suggest it is effective in increasing endurance with some referring to it as 'exercise in a pill'. It's oral form can easily be purchased by anyone via the internet however some have questioned it's effectiveness when used orally. The injectable form is extremly expensive and more difficult to source but also believed to be highly effective.

I'm by no means an expert in doping practices, but I enjoy using university databases to gain access to an array of studies that cannot be found with a simple google search. Apologies to any factual errors, although I've tried to make this as accurate as possible and allow readers to draw there own conclusions about doping in todays peleton.
 
Juggalo Balla said:
So how many Watts per kilo is suspected to be the max natural output?
Click to expand...

5.5-5.8 probably. Jonathan Vaughters, the DS of Garmin, follows a guy on twitter @vetoooo, who I also follow. He tweeted Talansky and TDs numbers last night ... They were like 5.6-5.7 I think and he said they were "normal" levels. But saying that, both of those guys are probably still on some sort of doping program, just not near Sky's. So natural I don't dont.
 
I hope Froome is asked to resign.

The guys behind him worked their guts out, they know what their power output was so they can guess what his must have been. It's about 90% likely he was cheating but it's hard to prove.

Everybody will be talking about it. Sky can say their "program" and their "sports science" is producing results but the guy being doped up just doesn't have the career base to be believable.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Good to see Clarke leading tonight.

Although I was looking forward to watching the whole Tour but Sky have effectively ruined it. To have a decent GC race, we now have to hope that Porte and Froome fall off their bikes. I might as well be staying up to watch 3 weeks of NASCAR.
 
Freo Big Fella said:
It's highly amusing reading the British commenters on The Guardian insisting Sky's efforts can be put down to "state of the art" suits and helmets.
Click to expand...

Marginal gains
 
glad i'm not the only one. that performance was other worldly. I've been watching TdF and pro cycling for more than 30 years as well as riding up to 1000km / week myself (training for long distance events) and the only time i have seen a field destroyed like that was with the assistance of drugs.

multiple Sky riders had the best cyclists in the world in trouble with the pace on the first climb and then decimated them on the second before Froome unbelievably rode away at a rate i have never seen. you simply do not take 3 - 5 minutes out of those other guys without some (a lot) of help, esp in the distance that the time was lost in.

The comments by evans and contador lead me to believe they got on their team busses and immediately questioned that performance. I'd be surprised if the village wasn't in full gossip mode today and through the rest day.
 
What was the stage last year that Froome took off twice easy as anything up a mountain stage and was called back both times to help Wiggins. He looked super fresh that day like he did in stage 8.
 
Whilst I might like to believe claims by riders that they are clean, its not exactly in their interests to come out and say, no I'm on a new sports science program developed by a compound pharmacist. History has also taught us that where there is smoke there is fire and the way Sky have gone about things in the last couple of seasons I'm a little sceptical of the sudden dramatic improvements of a number of riders, but that might only be me :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/23213763
 
sblack said:
5.5-5.8 probably. Jonathan Vaughters, the DS of Garmin, follows a guy on twitter @vetoooo, who I also follow. He tweeted Talansky and TDs numbers last night ... They were like 5.6-5.7 I think and he said they were "normal" levels. But saying that, both of those guys are probably still on some sort of doping program, just not near Sky's. So natural I don't dont.
Click to expand...


Here are some nice figures from CN forums.


1) Froome: 6.5 w/kg
2) Porte : 6.15
3) Valverde: 6.1
4) Mollema: 6.1
5) Ten Dam: 6.0
6) Nieve: 5.9
7) Contador: 5.85

Rodriguez: 5.75

Evans: 5.35
Teejay: 4.6
 
Do people think the whispers got a bit loud for Sky after Stage 8 so they let last night (Froome getting isolated) play out as it did?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Belnakor said:
Science of sport has some additional analysis on froome, guy goes up a mountain faster than anyone since a doped up armstrong in 2001
Click to expand...


cheers. I like this pragraph

http://www.sportsscientists.com/

3. Having said that, what was noteworthy today were the enormous gaps created on the final climb. That's because with the exception of Froome and perhaps Porte, the rest of the peloton performed in a manner that is typical of cycling over the last few years. Their performances were consistent with post-biological passport levels, and matched or even fell short of the prediction models. It was only Froome and Sky who exceeded them. Therefore, skepticism is normal, and failing to appreciate that will come only from extreme naivety or patriotism. History has taught us the value of some healthy cynicism, and if this level continues for three weeks, it makes for an uncomfortable Tour, of that there is no doubt.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/
 
Sasquatch said:
Here are some nice figures from CN forums.


1) Froome: 6.5 w/kg
2) Porte : 6.15
3) Valverde: 6.1
4) Mollema: 6.1
5) Ten Dam: 6.0
6) Nieve: 5.9
7) Contador: 5.85

Rodriguez: 5.75

Evans: 5.35
Teejay: 4.6
Click to expand...


From sports scientist article in 2009

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-weapon-against.html

A limit to performance? Cycling may be an easier ask...

Therefore, this graph, or any other, does not constitute proof that athletes doped. What is does do is help us to understand performance better - is it possible that we can draw a dotted line on the graph to indicate where performance ends and doping MIGHT begin? Probably not (at least for now), but that is where this is headed. For cycling, I believe it is easier, and when you look at the climbing power outputs of Tour de France champions (shown again below), and then ask what the implications of riding at 6 W/kg are for the physiology, then I believe it is feasible to say that riding at a relative power output above about 6 W/kg for longer than 30 minutes raises doubts over physiological credibility (particularly when this is repeated day after day).


Tour+winner+power+to+weight.gif


http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-weapon-against.html
 
Tiger08 said:
Do people think the whispers got a bit loud for Sky after Stage 8 so they let last night (Froome getting isolated) play out as it did?
Click to expand...
Purely my opinion - I think they were well aware and took absolutely no risks with 'recovery' hence the boys were really feeling the pinch the following day and gambled on surviving a day unaided and at the same time putting to bed any conjecture about how the whole team seems so strong and then using the rest day to recuperate fully.

Even Cadels comments about how bizarre it was in lieu of the fact that last year all 8 sky riders seemed to recover so well each day(he then chuckled) lol - were interesting.
 
They'd already cracked all the challengers the night before, the stage they had left had a fair bit of downhill at the end so the likely hood of Froome losing time was really low, even when he was isolated.
 
A LOT of people think that Sky threw last night to try and take some heat off themselves. Unfortunately for them, Froome's Ax3 data will be there forever. That can't be allowed to stand, it was utterly ridiculous and anyone who believes in that ride is delusional.
 
Bond.ShaneBond said:
A LOT of people think that Sky threw last night to try and take some heat off themselves. Unfortunately for them, Froome's Ax3 data will be there forever. That can't be allowed to stand, it was utterly ridiculous and anyone who believes in that ride is delusional.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry too much, at some point during the tour people will try very very hard to crack him and he'll be unable to resist burning them off like he did last year.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

There was a fair bit of unrest in the peloton during the Giro regarding Santambrogio and Di Luca before they were suspended. I do wonder if there will be a similar reaction, because they know that Sky has gone too far and is flaunting it.
 
Bond.ShaneBond said:
There was a fair bit of unrest in the peloton during the Giro regarding Santambrogio and Di Luca before they were suspended. I do wonder if there will be a similar reaction, because they know that Sky has gone too far and is flaunting it.
Click to expand...

Sky were worse last year, remember the individual time trial? Froome and Wiggins annihilated the field by almost 2 minutes.
 
That was ridiculous. But I think doing it on a mountain is more blatant, because people can directly compare it to EPO outputs, and it looks more spectacular to see someone sprint away like that, rather than watch 50 minutes of rhythm before the final time comes in. But yeah, they have been a law unto themselves for their entire existence.
 
phantom13 said:
What sort of W/kg was Wiggins putting out last year? Was it as blatant as Froome this year?
Click to expand...

Wiggins isn't close to as "talented" a climber as Froome is. Last years Tour was massively ITT based, and Wiggins is a better TT. He was dragged up the mountains by Froome, but made back massive chunks through the ITT.
 
My disbelief grows stronger.

froome is by far the best climber and beats everyone bar the world champ by at least 1.30 over 30 kms. A massive margin for a TT.

Armstrong like. We all know how that ended.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom