Page 986 of 1889

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:13 am
by Tinea Pedis
I'd love to gain an inch between doctors visits :lol:

Maybe not in my legs though...

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:19 am
by nathanong87
quick question, for the bay series criterium, why does jonathan cantwell ride for bikebug and not saxo tinkoff? (just an example). Do pros have their own teams in non-world tour races? just trying to understand why his team was bikebug.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:19 am
by Weenie

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:35 am
by Tinea Pedis
Because it was exactly that, a non-sanctioned race. They're all paid a handsome appearance fee and still have their trade team knicks and bike.

It's just an ultimate-level club race series really.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:39 am
by nathanong87
did he approach bike bug? or was that the club he was on before going pro? what's the relationship between bike bug and him (and other pros and their non-wt teams)

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:50 am
by Tinea Pedis
I'd say the relationship was built on what all good relationships are founded on...

Image

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:22 pm
by Kermithimself
Michael Rasmussen admits to doping, basically saying that he has used everything from bloodtranfusions to insulin.

He has recieved a ban, and has ended his career, but will return as DS of Christina Onfone Watches.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:38 pm
by euan
Is that a second ban? Surely that means he isn't allowed to be a DS or is that only a rule for WT Teams?

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:12 pm
by JamieL
My understanding is that the first ban was for whereabouts violations and so a second ban doesn't become a lifetime one. Not sure how that affects becoming DS of a team though.

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:15 pm
by aerozy
For some reason Michael Rasmussen admiting to doping annoys me so much more compared to Lance Armstrong. No idea why! :noidea: Perhaps because he played the innocent "victim" role so vehemently... I hope they dont let him back as a DS.

So looking back at all the great cycling performances of the last 25years pretty much everyone has been caught except for Andy Schleck, Sastre, Wiggins and Contador.. well not him :lol: . Is it a matter of time?

EDIT: Oh and Lemond

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:22 pm
by Ghost234
You forget Indurian.



Something smells fishy when a guy that big is doing sub 40 minute Alpe D'Huez.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:36 pm
by djconnel

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:42 pm
by NS
I don't believe there has ever been a tour winner without, as Armstrong called it, help.

As for Ashenden the bloke is like a sulky child who takes his ball home!

Re:

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:43 pm
by djconnel
aerozy wrote:For some reason Michael Rasmussen admiting to doping annoys me so much more compared to Lance Armstrong. No idea why! :noidea: Perhaps because he played the innocent "victim" role so vehemently... I hope they dont let him back as a DS.


I didn't see hemopure mentioned explicitly.

LeMond's generation took stuff, as documented by Fignon, just not blood boosters. Indurain was likely the first Tour winner to hop on that train. It's when riders stopped having bad days.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:45 pm
by Anders3404
Kermithimself wrote:Michael Rasmussen admits to doping, basically saying that he has used everything from bloodtranfusions to insulin.

He has recieved a ban, and has ended his career, but will return as DS of Christina Onfone Watches.


And rumor has it that he named current WT riders for using PED's

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:06 pm
by NS
@djconnel

The EPO generation was certainly of the 90's but blood transfusions were their predecessor, I seem to recall they were quite widely acknowleged to have been used in particular by the US cycling team at the 84 olympics and banned in 85. I would seriously doubt if that stopped it being used as there was no test for it. That would includethe generation of Fignon, Hinault Lemond et al.

Not saying any of them did or didnt use it but you could certainly have "not doped"

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:06 pm
by Weenie