Nice. Great to see another ex-cyclist from the darkest years of the sport come over to the light 
Well done to you.
oh great. âcrazy legsâ
Heâs actually a very talented athlete and has been racing triathlons for several years now.
A few years ago, he submitted his blood passport numbers on his blog for what it is worth given the past at Quickstep and the undertone of accusations just by being a rider from that time now in triathlon.
Heâs actually a very talented athlete and has been racing triathlons for several years now.
Clearly very talented - he just won an Ironman?
Did it cover his time at Quick Step back in 2003? They were SOME years eh? 
Be interested to see a link to the blog Dev so I can have a read.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sinkewitz-claims-systematic-doping-at-quick-step
Maybe long course triathlon is just the natural evolution for these guys? Maybe we just accept it.
I dunno - but something doesnât sit well with me.
I hope he was the shining beacon of light at the team in 2003, I hope they threw him off because he wouldnât agree to the systematic doping that was going on there. Truly - I do.
Did it cover his time at Quick Step back in 2003? They were SOME years eh? Be interested to see a link to the blog Dev so I can have a read.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sinkewitz-claims-systematic-doping-at-quick-step
Maybe long course triathlon is just the natural evolution for these guys? Maybe we just accept it.
I dunno - but something doesnât sit well with me.
I hope he was the shining beacon of light at the team in 2003, I hope they threw him off because he wouldnât agree to the systematic doping that was going on there. Truly - I do.
I know a lot of guys are in the camp of âif they doped in the past the gains are foreverâ, but if it truly worked that way you would not have to top up on blood bags part way through the tour. I know a lot of guys disagree, but I am yet to see a paper showing the long term gains from blood vector doping. Once they stop they lose the gains. Others say the long terms gains are from the physiological adaptations of sustained doping periods where higher training loads were possible and that is perhaps a plausible view, but I guess the main problem is that you canât do a research paper on dopers who train 30 hours per week and a control group who does not and then come around 13 years later and see what happened. I have found that in general, once the training load goes away, the gains go away. There are countless ex pro triathletes that come back from 10 year hiatuses and get beaten by age groupers who used to be much slower than them, who just kept up their training load.
In any case Iâm of the view, of âthose guys did what they did in another eraââŚlet them move on as long as they are clean now and proving it, but I know that is the not the view for many here.
âŚand if there is any uproar today, there should have been one when he was 6th at Tremblant last summer. We shouldnât just look at his 2003 pro cyclist time on days when he wins.
I will forward the link. I believe it was from around 2010-2012 range.
Here you goâŚhard to read, from back in 2010:
http://domenicopassuello.blogspot.ca/2010/10/antidoping-control-2010.html
.
Watched him racing at Challenge Philippines, his cycling skills make him catch up so much time on technical courses, guy can run fast too.
More on him: http://www.asiatri.com/2015/04/meet-domenico-passuelo-the-new-king-of-triathlon-in-asia/
I know a lot of guys are in the camp of âif they doped in the past the gains are foreverâ,
I would think the more relevant camp would be âif they doped in the past, they could be doping nowâ. I have never even heard of this guy to be honest so really am not making any opinions but I really donât think people would be concerned about any long-lasting residual benefits he might have from doping 10 years ago.