Doping git thread

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Adam4868

Guru
I'm not sure what the device does to give you a advantage,but broke the rules.

View: https://twitter.com/velonews/status/1635598113493725188?t=YDKonJclUIeoY5eAojx5bw&s=19
 

T4tomo

Legendary Member
Basically, the advantage is that it helps you control when and how much you need to eat or drink for the best efficiency.

But if shes a diabetic she'd need one for medical reasons. Is she a diabetic or was it worn for performance??

I don't know but if I see her Alaska. :okay:
 

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
But if shes a diabetic she'd need one for medical reasons. Is she a diabetic or was it worn for performance??

I don't know but if I see her Alaska. :okay:

She wouldn't need one as a diabetic, they just provide more benefit.

I know plenty of people who are diabetic (including my wife), and none of them have one. My wife thought about it, then saw the cost and decided the benefit just wasn't worth that cost.
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
But if shes a diabetic she'd need one for medical reasons. Is she a diabetic or was it worn for performance??

I don't know but if I see her Alaska. :okay:

Apparently - the team said she had it fitted when she wasn't expecting to race. Then she was a last minute pick so she rode with the device present but not connected for data gathering. That was their story anyway, but the UCi was having none of it.

Anyway, it's nothing to do with doping so shouldn't be in this thread. It was an equipment infringement. Like socks. It's basically the UCI sulking and saying "we wish we'd banned power meters and heart rate monitors"
 
Last edited:

FishFright

More wheels than sense
And I've read Tommy Simpson's auto-biography.

NEWSFLASH: everyone knows doping has been a big part of cycle-sport. You're not some Pulitzer-candidate investigative journalist thanks to posting this news!

You've even worse when I agree with you than when I don't.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
You mean the Lance Armstrong who won the road race title in 1993 ?

That's a bit more than the average Pro ever does?

He was never a donkey.
He was doping from age 21 (so 1992? But probably before his first pro wins in 1993 in any case) according to some guy called Lance Armstrong: https://www.espn.com/espnplus/player/_/id/29188382

Before doping, he was the last rider to finish inside the time cut at San Sebastian 1992. More than most of us could ever do, but not the world-beater he became. I agree with Matt Rendell: Lance responded amazingly well to EPO, at least in his cycling results, but we'll never really know how he would have compared.
 
Last edited:
Armstrong was WC in 93. He didn't take EPO til 95 ?

That's not to say he wasn't on other stuff then - but I think most riders were on some kind of pills.

I think EPO was the game changer for performance.
 

Mike_P

Guru
Location
Harrogate
Article in today's Times sport section "Cycling records are tumbling - but can this era be trusted?" In summary largely yes; lighter riders, less body fat, tighter jerseys, lighter bikes, better gearing, better food, sleeker frames, far greater use of the hubs rather than drops, deeper wheels, thicker tyres, use of aerodynamic tools means riders today compared to the height of EPO use are saving a lot of wattage.

Jonathan Vaughter's is quoted "I can say very confidently that the peloton is infinitely cleaner than in the mid-90s and that it's also faster. Those things are not mutually exclusive. But if you're saying 'Oh, now it boils down to individual cases', that's much harder. And for me to whitewash that and say, 'Well, I'm not even going to look at that with a critical eye, because I just believe that the equipment and nutrition is so much better' - that's also not appropriate. Because, obviously, the history of the sport is what it is. And you can't just turn a blind eye."
 
Top Bottom