WHAT? The drugs that were making cyclists go faster work for other athletes as well?

You’d have to define ‘clean’
You’d have to define ‘clean’ means in the context of your argument. Never having taken drugs? Avoiding the juice for a few months before the race? Or being undetectable? Are we talking EPO, steroids and cortisone?

I’ve heard both Miller and Hamilton espouse their theory that you can win a one day race clean. I don’t they’ve explicitly clarified what they mean in the context of my last paragraph. The issue is that the effect of long term doping doesn’t just fade out of your system. The turnover on blood cells means that EPO does wash out of the system, but the effects of anabolic steroids and HGH are long standing, it can help with more efficient cardiovascular system, stronger muscles and stronger heart; precisely the combination for a classics race (and given Armstrong’s abuse of this from an early age, the reason Ferrari was so impressed with his physique). So when you say clean are you discounting these effects?

Or are you talking about a wet Crit on a Tuesday in April in an Andalucia which wouldn’t pay the airfare for the ride home?

Colin Peyresourde

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

That and perhaps your acknowledgement of any advances in training techniques since the ’50s seeming to be non-existent – although that has a much broader effect on physical performance as a whole, and should be a relatively even playing field at the elite level.

I said they knew what a balanced diet was back in the 50s. I said that certain developments had helped since then, but my point is that people like to denigrate the achievements of the past with the hubris that we are always advancing for the better. Advancements in pharmaceuticals have meant that the gains from natural training are easily outstripped and put in the shade by the chemical enhancements – it is the elixir of drugs which takes man beyond the ordinary. Given the weight of the bikes back at the turn of the twentieth century, the riding speeds of the pros back then are truly astounding. It makes you realise how fit and athletic they were without ‘marginal gains’. Those guys would duke it out with the best riders of today in a clean competition….the main advances in training has been refinement to those technique. When Bannister ran the 4 minute mile, he effectively increased his load, which we recognise as pyramidisation. Only through the heart rate monitor and power meters has this been refined even further to help it become more effective. Many of the training programs have remained the same, but just been modified by better calibration of the results with monitoring – but the big gains are of course drug based (Johnson’s 100m, just as an example).

I wasn’t denigrating the past or belittling the achievements, but there’s more to things changing over the decades than HRMs and power-meters to just “monitor the effectiveness”. Of course you can get more results chemically, but that doesn’t mean to say all do, that you can’t get more from a better non-doping athlete than a lesser doping one or do that whilst remaining under the radar.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

However, your willingness to take almost everything I say so f’ing literally pisses me,

I only take those things literally that i’ve clarified with you in the past – namely you can’t win clean. Please don’t try and go there.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

but not only that, but the way you stalk me on on the forum…

Don’t flatter yourself – you and I have some similar interests and so end up in the some of the same threads. If I hear something I think is out of order I say so, sometimes you’re in the line of fire. Works both ways.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

.if you agree with what I say ‘broadly’ then why argue the toss? Pick me up on my short fallings by all means, but why keep weighing in on me….why not just state your point of view and leave it at that.

If you have a particular issue state it. I still do not know what your beef is really is because you have not fully explained yourself. You seem to want to take issue with me, but I do not understand why that is. Are you an athlete and you take exception to the slight of my suspicion that you are a doper? Do you dislike seeing your heroes achievements denigrated?

Are you serious ? Ok, perhaps i’m being particularly unclear all the time so… My beef is what i’ve been saying in this thread and others – that you insist it’s not possible to win clean in pro-cycling, clean can’t go faster and further then on the juice and all the major winners are cheating. I don’t agree – can’t fucking stand absolutists on either side, and it’s not just me being picky with you.. i’ve tried to work out what you believe and asked you and it all seems to come back to absolutism. Never have I heard you be equivocal about doping in cycling, no-one can win clean that’s it. Not “there’s a shit load of it going on but some of them may be clean” – no leeway. Well you can rant on about how we’re all naïve and it’s all just a show (which of course it is as well) – but apart from anything else and as i’ve said before, doesn’t it seem odd that testing, even retrospective testing hasn’t produced more positives if there is the extent of doping which you assert is fact ? Statistically, doesn’t the pattern of positives look odd if all the teams are at it to some degree and all the major winners from any of them ? Isn’t there just the chance that there are a non-trivial number of winners who haven’t won by doping, having a dominant doping team or both ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I don’t know, but I want you to back fuck off.

You know, I was going to say go to Hell and deal with the consequences of your views like anyone else – but i’m not sure I can be bothered with this anymore. I do think doping is all over the sport and it pisses me off, but I don’t have your utter conviction you know how far it goes – and how inevitable it has to be. I’m open to persuasion if anything remotely like evidence starts to say otherwise – how about you ? What would it take to let an element of doubt in ?

“They’re all at it” – why do
“They’re all at it” – why do people take this comment literally?

It means that there is such a sizeable proportion of top athletes doping and / or bending TUE rules (and working with dodgy doctors and trainers) together with obvious collusion from governing bodies, and at the very least apathy from major sponsors and associated brands, that we can’t possibly believe that any competitor is clean!

Sad but true!

It won’t change! Like the banks, top sport is too big to fail – it will take brave individuals to bring it down – I don’t think anyone is that brave (or stupid). We’ll have to make do with the odd token bogeyman (or woman) that are sporadically sacrificed in the name of clean sport!

So, sit back and enjoy the sport (and the soap opera) for what it is, but don’t for one minute believe what you see is clean!

Colin Peyresourde wrote:I

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I don’t see why Fukawit has a problem with what I say, perhaps he would like to tell me why it irks him.

I did, earlier, and in other posts – i’m not entirely sure where the confusion is my questions. I’m also broadly in agreement with much of what you say, just not your absolute belief that all the winners are cheats. That and perhaps your acknowledgement of any advances in training techniques since the ’50s seeming to be non-existent – although that has a much broader effect on physical performance as a whole, and should be a relatively even playing field at the elite level.

Colin Peyresourde

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Which is why I will keep espousing that the big winners are usually the biggest cheats.

..of course they are. What you keep espousing, however, is that every single one of the winners are cheating – that’s somewhat different and perhaps not what Gizmo_ was saying (although I may have that wrong, apologies to him if so).

I’ve said before that we all have our personal ‘sh#t list’ of people who we believe to be cheats. For me Vino in 2012 was probably doped but also he clearly paid Uran to look the other way. I personally believe Kelly Holmes’ two golds in 2004 bear close scrutiny (after moving to train with the equally suspicious Maria Mutola and gaining a suddenly different physique after ten years of training). Serena Williams, enough said. Usain Bolt: sorry, I don’t buy the “he’s got long legs” thing.

And today we hear about lots of swimmers – well, anyone who saw the Olympic pool in 2012 saw some incredible performances.

fukawitribe wrote:Colin

fukawitribe wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Which is why I will keep espousing that the big winners are usually the biggest cheats.

..of course they are. What you keep espousing, however, is that every single one of the winners are cheating – that’s somewhat different and perhaps not what Gizmo_ was saying (although I may have that wrong, apologies to him if so).

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Olympians themselves have confessed as much; given the chance to cheat without being caught the greater majority said they would…..

Well I suppose “the greater majority” is better than the “virtually 100%” you’ve previously quoted. I’d ask again, which poll was that ? Answers to variants of Goldman / Mirkin i’ve seen (including removing the terminal behaviour) haven’t come up with anything remotely like that so i’d be interested to know some more. Any links please ?

Well I guess I ought to apologise. It was Goldman’s survey, so just over 50% said they would take a PED if it guaranteed them undetectable victories for five years, even if it was followed by instant death….I guess something the guys at Androni Giacotolli subscribed to. To be honest with you, and I really care what you think Fukwit, it’s not the percentage that counts, but more the anthropological motivation and capability, because if you have read up on these things you know how far athletes will go. It sounds like you have.

But Mo, Jess, and Usain are
But Mo, Jess, and Usain are clean! The popular champs who generate money are always clean! Must be why they’re popular. Those cheating Russians will never get to the heights of the clean pin-up champs of the West!