What constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping? - Page 3 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-11-12, 12:54
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,016
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebandit View Post
proof...........something specific that can be verified

not............it looks like

................just join the dots

................data from an unconfirmed source

...............because (a) did it so if (b) make similar lifestyle choices they

...............must be doing it too

most definitely not stuff that the hog has made up
If two people were working with members of the Escobar family and travelling to Mexico on a regular basis - questions would be asked? It would be a fair and reasonable assumption to make that they're involved in drug trafficking.

Person x, Person y, Escobar family members -> Mexico -> Drugs.

Wiggins/Froome -> Rogers/Yates/Julich (LANCE) -> Tenerife -> Extremem weight loss -> Absurd Tour performances - Ferrari.

What's unconfirmed in regards to this? Sounds like critical reasoning based on fact.

I mean you thought Ferrari was banned worldwide! Not sure how astute your critical reasoning is going. Sounds skewed to me!

Last edited by thehog; 11-11-12 at 13:28.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-11-12, 13:01
cocteau_ireland cocteau_ireland is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: belfast
Posts: 741
Default

Thanks gallic ho, for that prolonged intellectual suicide note.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-11-12, 13:13
Grandillusion Grandillusion is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferminal View Post
Normal people aren't bound to the same requirements of proof as the authorities. There was more than enough proof for any normal person to be convinced long before USADA decided to find enough to have a case.
The authorities are normal people too. Difference is they can actually do something about the incredibly obvious, it's supposed to be their job.

Travis Tygart just happens to be the first person to actually do his job. And it only took him a few weeks. Using intelligence and lateral thinking.

If the hardcore fans were so certain for so long and so disturbed by it all, why weren't they lobbying at the most influential level in the loudest voice?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-11-12, 13:17
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandillusion View Post
The authorities are normal people too. Difference is they can actually do something about the incredibly obvious, it's supposed to be their job.

Travis Tygart just happens to be the first person to actually do his job. And it only took him a few weeks. Using intelligence and lateral thinking.

If the hardcore fans were so certain for so long and so disturbed by it all, why weren't they lobbying at the most influential level in the loudest voice?
So you're saying that if a rational observer is able to conclude someone is doping, that should be enough for the authorities to bring about a sanction?

Why then are Menchov, Klöden, Scarponi, Horner etc still riding?

That would go really well in front of CAS.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-11-12, 13:22
Grandillusion Grandillusion is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferminal View Post
So you're saying that if a rational observer is able to conclude someone is doping, that should be enough for the authorities to bring about a sanction?

Why then are Menchov, Klöden, Scarponi, Horner etc still riding?

That would go really well in front of CAS.
The authorities are supposed to be rational people too. Travis Tygart seems eminently rational to me. And his reaction to the information his faculties were telling him was.... Mmmmm, I think I'm going to do my job, this shouldn't take me long>
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-11-12, 17:25
trailrunner's Avatar
trailrunner trailrunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UTC-5
Posts: 251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CobbleStoner View Post
anybody that has had surgery has had EPO in them
Not true.

I've had three surgeries in the last three years. I did not have EPO for any of those.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-11-12, 18:01
silverrocket silverrocket is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polyarmour View Post
If you want to start a thread on blocking and sprinting go ahead but these two things have nothing to do with doping.
I think Cobblestoner makes a fair point. Blocking, drafting off team cars, blood transfusions, and taking PEDs are all forms of cheating.

He/she may be overlooking the fact that all those forms of cheating have penalties (time penalty, warning, suspension) based on how serious the cheating is. As for Armstrong, the evidence eventually mounted that he was not just doping, but trafficking and encouraging others to dope, and so his penalty was lifetime.

We can relate other forms of cheating to the OP. It is still cheating even if you disguise your intentions when you are blocking, or if you draft off the team car when nobody is around to see it. The question could be posed then: if the race director doesn't catch a rider blocking for another, but countless other riders come forward as witnesses, there is video evidence, and the rider has had his blocking practices investigated by authorities in the past, would that still convince you that they were cheating?

For me the answer for doping and other forms of cheating is that it is a threshold of evidence, similar to most courts, beyond which there can no longer be any "reasonable doubt" that the rider was guilty. For me I didn't reach this with Armstrong until l'Equipe reported on the retroactive EPO in the 1999 samples.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-11-12, 22:01
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,016
Default

The more I read the more I realise people throw the word "proof" around but fail define what proof they're looking for or what it means in the context of doping in cycling.

Appears more like a defensive mechanism to support their favourite team. It's also a cop out from debating suspicious/suspect behaviour from their favourite team.

Disappointing. I'm still yet to learn the meaning of "proof".
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-11-12, 23:57
del1962 del1962 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,082
Default

There is evidence and there is speculation

Evidence

Sworn affidavits from people who would know this, teamates, close friends of teammates, sougnours etc,

Failed drug tests and deleberately missing drug tests

Being caught with PEDs in car/flat etc

Taped conversations with doctors discusing this

If the evidence is solid enough a proof can be made.


Then there is speculation

Such as he performed well he must be on dope.

He went to tenerife so he must be on dope.

It is far better to concentrate on evidence than speculation
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-12-12, 00:02
wannab wannab is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
What does it take to prove doping to the general public that a rider or team are doping?

I would add that "not testing positive" or "passing all the tests" certainly doesn't mean "not doping".
While "not testing positive" doesn't mean "not doping" as we all know, it does prove legally your not guilty, in absence of substantial indirect evidence.

And I think that's a good thing, no-one wants to be considered guilty until proven otherwise I think.

So all speculations about Tenerife, sudden peaks, etc. aside, how suspicious we may find them, they don't mean sh!t in the end. That doesn't mean we should stop asking these questions, they are very important and keep us vigilant and help the anti-doping stance.

Because of the direct evidence of a positive test, this should be top priority. However, it's a hard fight, that's why I already pointed out once the importance of retro-active testing, as of Out of Competition testing.

This however, should be coupled to an independent authority which guarantees transparency and integrity. Throw in bio-passport etc. and you got a pretty good system to guarantee, to some extend, a level playing field.

This truly will be proof of guilt and cannot be considered allegations or suspicion
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:48.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.