The other 35% were better at beating the tests & hiding their connections.
Fortunately, this would never happen in track & field/athletics.
The other 35% were better at beating the tests & hiding their connections.
Fortunately, this would never happen in track & field/athletics.
lol lol lol lol wrote:
The other 35% were better at beating the tests & hiding their connections.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2014/12/31/cycling-in-the-epo-era-65-per-cent-dirty-and-probably-more-311201/Fortunately, this would never happen in track & field/athletics.
LOL
Nope. Not in track. E. Africans avoiding out of season testing for the last 27 years means nothing.
American Ingenuity keeps American runners with ant TUE they need to be "all that they can be." And, American Ingenuity ensures that American runners will not test positive: new secret drugs (NOP #1), staying below testing thresholds, and proprietary masking agents.
Years ago, I came to the obvious supposition that those riding in the Tour had to be taking some form of chemical assistance to simply finish the race, never mind being in contention for the yellow jersey.
I wasn’t upset, cycling is not my sport and if they were all on drugs, the best riders would win notwithstanding.
Armstong was clearly the best cyclist of his generation, assuming a level playing field of drug takers - there wasn’t some clean rider (if there ever was such a person) in the rear of the peloton that was a better rider.
Right now in athletics, one is starting to get the same impression - is anybody clean anymore?
With the African countries the most corrupt in the world, it was always a bit naive to imagine in one single area of endeavour, they were totally honest and squeaky clean.
Some feel that Floyd Landis had more raw talent. Even if everyone was doping, Postal had it down to a science and squeezed a lot more out of it than teams doing it more haphazardly. I would say Lance was incredibly driven, and more than a little lucky....until the end.
Binks wrote:
Armstong was clearly the best cyclist of his generation, assuming a level playing field of drug takers - there wasn’t some clean rider (if there ever was such a person) in the rear of the peloton that was a better rider.
I used to care when no one believed me when I would say that innocent 3rd world Kenyans or the entire Tour de France were doped to the gils. Now that everyone knows.... well I just don't seem to care anymore! HA. Let them all cheat. My reward is being right!
Back in the early 2000s, it was widely believed that Kenyans never doped because of cultural, economical and ethical reasons. Those who claimed to have been to Kenya said they possessed some unique attribute that made them resist putting any chemical substance in their body. In one decade, it is a miracle how far we have come and now know this isn't true
Who was the guy who only doped half of his body?
Which half left, right, top or bottom?
Is this one of the Common Core Curriculum Math problems that plague today's inner city yoot?
Duh,
and, something we don't know??
Binks wrote:
.....cycling is not my sport and if they were all on drugs, the best riders would win notwithstanding.
....
Typical response used by ignorant amateurs. They all cheated so it was an even playing fields....
Never mind that the cheating happened in the labs supervised by scientists trying to give the best possible magic formula to each specific cheaters/so called athletes.
I guess some people believe there was just one type of cheating bottle shared among all cheaters and may the best cheater win.
WRONG!! This is not like all runners cheating by taking the same shortcut on the course so there is no unfair advantage, this is more like runners taking different shortcuts and the one finding the shortest one wins the race.
The rider with the most funds to pay for the best lab doctors and constant supply chain of best cheating methods won.............NOTHING TO DO WITH BEST RIDER. or the best dirty riders because at this level of outside influence (unnatural enhancements) there is no such a thing as an even playing field.
please change your user name to "pollyanna"
cheese wiz math award winner wrote:
Who was the guy who only doped half of his body?
Which half left, right, top or bottom?
Is this one of the Common Core Curriculum Math problems that plague today's inner city yoot?
That's what I was wondering
2/3 of Top 35 all time 100m performances (all those 9.80 or better) are by athletes who have been suspended for doping. Only 14 (listed below) are left of an original 38, including ties, removing Gatlin, Gay, Powell, Blake, Carter, and Mullings (Johnson was already removed):
1 9.58 +0.9 Usain Bolt JAM 21.08.86 1 Berlin 16.08.2009
2 9.63 +1.5 Usain Bolt JAM 21.08.86 1 London 05.08.2012
3 9.69 ±0.0 Usain Bolt JAM 21.08.86 1 Beijing 16.08.2008
7 9.72 +1.7 Usain Bolt JAM 21.08.86 1rA New York City 31.05.2008
12 9.76 +1.8 Usain Bolt JAM 21.08.86 1 Kingston 03.05.2008
12 9.76 +1.3 Usain Bolt JAM 21.08.86 1 Bruxelles 16.09.2011
12 9.76 -0.1 Usain Bolt JAM 21.08.86 1 Roma 31.05.2012
16 9.77 -1.3 Usain Bolt JAM 21.08.86 1 Bruxelles 05.09.2008
16 9.77 -0.3 Usain Bolt JAM 21.08.86 1 Moskva 11.08.2013
29 9.79 +0.1 Maurice Greene USA 23.07.74 1r3 Athínai 16.06.1999
29 9.79 -0.2 Usain Bolt JAM 21.08.86 1 Saint-Denis 17.07.2009
29 9.79 +0.6 Usain Bolt JAM 21.08.86 1 Oslo 07.06.2012
35 9.80 +0.2 Maurice Greene USA 23.07.74 1 Sevilla 22.08.1999
35 9.80 +0.6 Usain Bolt JAM 21.08.86 1 Bruxelles 06.09.2013
So, to this point, Bolt and Greene are the only athletes at 9.80 or faster who have not been suspended for doping. Greene was named by Angel Heredia in 2008 as having paid him $40,000 for performance enhancing drugs, but I haven't found any follow-up with proof. Greene denied the charges.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/2298150/Maurice-Greene-doping-allegations-hit-IAAF.html
but stride length and all that jazz
and high cadence pedaling too
So how do you get 65% out of a sample of 10? Does Lance count as 5% because he only has one ball?
lol lol lol lol wrote:
The other 35% were better at beating the tests & hiding their connections.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2014/12/31/cycling-in-the-epo-era-65-per-cent-dirty-and-probably-more-311201/Fortunately, this would never happen in track & field/athletics.
You are a few decades late to the party.
Binks wrote:
Armstong was clearly the best cyclist of his generation, assuming a level playing field of drug takers - there wasn’t some clean rider (if there ever was such a person) in the rear of the peloton that was a better rider.
Landis stated that the drugs he got while on US Postal were simply not available on any other team. PED's will never provide an equal playing field. Us will always be at or near the top of that game.
Landised wrote:
Binks wrote:Armstong was clearly the best cyclist of his generation, assuming a level playing field of drug takers - there wasn’t some clean rider (if there ever was such a person) in the rear of the peloton that was a better rider.
Landis stated that the drugs he got while on US Postal were simply not available on any other team. PED's will never provide an equal playing field. Us will always be at or near the top of that game.
Landis is of course full of a known quantity...
Armstrong was much better than everyone. He raced a horde of drug users. Similar to Geb. He was the best of his time - and doped to the gills. He was racing a bunch of doped guys at the top and he beat them. LOL