What constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping? - Page 4 - 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
  #31  
Old 11-12-12, 05:09
nighttrain nighttrain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
So what is proof of doping? A positive test, rider testimony etc.?

What does it take to prove doping to the general public that a rider or team are doping? .
After 20 years of doping scandals ruling the sport, it is more appropriate that the teams/racers prove to us that their results are untainted.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-12-12, 05:21
Galic Ho's Avatar
Galic Ho Galic Ho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
It's a little frustrating but not unexpected.

You put forward some fairly damming associations and all you get back is: "it's not 100% proof" - so you ask - what would be proof in this particular context? - silence - nothing.

It's obvious many are freighted to use: "never tested positive" but that's the level of critical reasoning that's being presented.

I think there is a lot of proof. No wonder cycling is in a mess. The fans will pretend their heroes are clean regardless.

What hope is there?
There is plenty of hope. Sticking with an Irish theme here...how about Paul Kimmage. His donation fund is proof enough people care. People care enough that an injustice is being perpetuated. So much so they give their own $$$ to support a man who only ever stood up for the truth when he saw proof of fraud and cheating going on. Time provided him right, but what constituted proof was not shown or reported.

So how to change that? Simple...call it out. The masses are hearing, my point in my original post is about perception versus reality. At what stage does one deem the evidence as 'proof'. And by proof, I mean proof enough to adopt a different ideological stance, or a change in opinion. We need more voices questioning in the media. We need morally sound people in positions of power. People who have a loyalty first and foremost to the truth. Not people who deflect. Not people switch blame from one person to another. People of compassion and understand, but tempered with enough strength that they stay the moral and right course.

To do that requires institutional change. There is talk of this new movement backed by the Czech businessman Bakala. The head of the RCS, Acquarone, is talking with him. I'm not sure on the methodology they have planned, but any major change needs to involve a clearing out. The Power That Be (PTB) need to go, whether they are team directors/owners, UCI officials/reps or at the ASO and RCS. National level scum bags need to be given the boot. They all need to go. The fans need to be vocal about this. I have no problem with a sponsorship program like Bakala's entering the sport IF the UCI is reshaped. The enablers and drug pushers need to be booted. CONI and the Italians are doing quite a lot. I think the reason all their older GC riders have slowed down was fear. The message is getting through to some people. Wonder why Nibali left Liquigas? I don't think it was for the money alone. I think it was to get away from Italy. The Belgians are thinking of reform. The Australians are having a minor probe into the business.

I'd love for the new French President to change the law and force the ASO to take doping seriously. They know it goes on. They met with Sky before the Tour to do what with Bio profiles? Discuss cadence and marginal gains? We all know why they met and it was to ensure the Tour didn't become a complete farce, which it was close to reaching. Heck we've got Froome laying the smack talk down early for next July. No need to wonder how that will pan out is there? No the French can change the law to allow the AFLD to march into the Tour and raid everyone. Everyone on the days most akin to doping with blood vector boosters. Allow them to wake everyone up at 1-2am and do a mass peloton blood test. Catch them microdosing. Put the literal fear of God into the race. They'll back off, just like the Italian big names have. Nobody wants to the gendarmerie matching them down to the slammer and doing a strip search. Force them to clean up. There is a way, but is their a will?

The media need to atone for their complicity. They've allowed a lot to go on. Kimmage practically stood alone. I say invite him to the TdU and put Liggett to the pulpit and get him to answer questions. I saw on Scott LeMond's twitter months back a suggestion that P&P were supposedly talking aloud about LA doping at the 2007 Tour (think that was it). Grill the man. He was the big journalist who championed the cause. Force the others to follow suite of be ridiculed by the masses. You see it's like riding a wave. It's building and people are trying to catch on, it's just at this stage we don't know whether it'll break or continually build and take one into the beach. The momentum is there, it's just only a few are fighting.

And yeah, the Irish can do everyone a world of good and remove McQuaid themselves. If team Sky of all groups can remove minor guys who enabled doping and not on that basis, then with all the garbage and ammunition McQuaid has given people, surely, surely, they can stand up for Kimmage and knock him back. It shouldn't be up to some lone cowboy lawyer from Switzerland to lay the smack down.

People are learning from the past. Look at the number of new posters on here. Yes, some of them aren't here for the right reasons, but they are here. The most cycnical views on here from a societal point have shown to be the most realistic...people are catching on and learning that they have been conned by many. Their patience is thinning. As I said, there are no absolutes. The anti-doping fight will never end. It's part of the human condition that someone somewhere is cheating. The right people doing the fighting need to remain vigilant and hold their own. I really hope the Italians and French uncover some serious stuff in their races next season as it will force the peloton to really change. And yes, I have seen change from a lot of the elite riders. Maybe not a lot, but enough that I think some of them desire the doping to be gone entirely and not just those who use psuedo code words that uphold omerta.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-12-12, 05:28
Galic Ho's Avatar
Galic Ho Galic Ho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain View Post
After 20 years of doping scandals ruling the sport, it is more appropriate that the teams/racers prove to us that their results are untainted.
The Clinic has been asking for this. It's been suggested many times. Greg Lemond gave a nice example of keeping power and physiological readings.

Having the physicists on the forum helps. Sure they get off track occasionally and don't like some lines of questioning, but they are giving actual feedback. Giving a framework. If you get enough data, you can gather a very strong picture of what has and is going on and what shouldn't be. Now that's just power outputs. Of course Bio Passport stuff doesn't count.

That's where the media step in. They can demand the transparency and shame those who don't provide it. Is it in their interests to do this? You know, not bite the hand that feeds them? Your best guess is anyone's.

Hard data that is accurate, well that is proof. Where should we start? I'd say a nice look at the UCI's suspicion index from before the 2010 Tour is a nice start. After all the winner was stripped. Show the public the figures and samples that lead to that list. Then explain it...but they can't. They'd have to sanction half the peloton in all likelihood or admit that the Bio Passport actual functions as a warning system for going too far in ones doping. The proof is there, getting access to it or having the PTB address it is another matter.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-12-12, 06:07
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galic Ho View Post
The Clinic has been asking for this. It's been suggested many times. Greg Lemond gave a nice example of keeping power and physiological readings.

Having the physicists on the forum helps. Sure they get off track occasionally and don't like some lines of questioning, but they are giving actual feedback. Giving a framework. If you get enough data, you can gather a very strong picture of what has and is going on and what shouldn't be. Now that's just power outputs. Of course Bio Passport stuff doesn't count.

That's where the media step in. They can demand the transparency and shame those who don't provide it. Is it in their interests to do this? You know, not bite the hand that feeds them? Your best guess is anyone's.

Hard data that is accurate, well that is proof. Where should we start? I'd say a nice look at the UCI's suspicion index from before the 2010 Tour is a nice start. After all the winner was stripped. Show the public the figures and samples that lead to that list. Then explain it...but they can't. They'd have to sanction half the peloton in all likelihood or admit that the Bio Passport actual functions as a warning system for going too far in ones doping. The proof is there, getting access to it or having the PTB address it is another matter.
As you probably can guess, my position on doping is that the burden of proof needs to be pretty strong. I have a good reason for this position and it relates to what Rob Parisotto, Ken Sharpe, Chris Gore and Michael Ashenden had to go through when they first tried to get the EPO test sanctioned by the IOC in time for the Sydney Olympics. They had huge battles with the IOC lawyers specifically regarding the issue of false positives.

The problem is simple.... if the burden of proof (threshold) is set too low then you increase the risk of false positives. If you increase the risk of false positives by too much then everyone has a full proof legal defense and nobody gets done. Ever. Hence you end up catching LESS dopers than you would if you simply kept the threshold higher.

This reasoning of course only applies to proof that requires a threshold be broken eg: the biopassport and various other tests, or any such system such as Lemond proposed that would use performance or physiological measures. The best proof IMO though is catching teams with doping products red handed. I wish the authorities or race organisers could simply "inspect" team buses and hotel rooms or have independent observers stationed inside the bus during stage races and literally go everywhere with the team. It's pretty hard to stick a blood bag in your arm for 30min when you've got some anti-doping official watching you 24/7. That official carries a sample kit with them and if they suspect something dodgy for a second they just order an on the spot urine or blood test, and/or they have permission to search personal belongings. I think it is a drastic invasion of privacy and the teams and cyclists would arc up massively, but f@#& it, if you want to be a professional athlete, there are rules that you have to abide by (not cheating for starters). If you don't like those rules, then get another job.

Last edited by Krebs cycle; 11-12-12 at 06:09.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-12-12, 06:16
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,704
Default

Sky could have done that with Kimmage this year.

Wiggins said no.

Not all independent observers are going to be as lovey dovey as Kimmage - so ... yes that certainly would have helped them, I think.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-12-12, 06:17
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

I also want someone to develop a total Hbmass test method that is sabotage proof unlike the rebreathing method.

All you need to do is take a sample of the athlete's blood, and analyse it for %carboxyhemoglobin, then inject the remaining blood with CO, analyse that sample to get a precise measure of the amount of HbCO, then re-inject it into the athlete. Wait 10min and take another sample and check the %HbCO. You can then work out total Hbmass, and when you add this measure into the biopassport it gets real tough to beat it.

Some technical details obviously need to be worked out (like how to mix the CO into the blood sample) but the principle is sound.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-12-12, 06:22
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
Sky could have done that with Kimmage this year.

Wiggins said no.

Not all independent observers are going to be as lovey dovey as Kimmage - so ... yes that certainly would have helped them, I think.
Kimmage was a journalist though who wants a story. If for example ASO say here are the rules.... if you want to enter the TdF you must allow an independent observer (who sits quietly in the corner) to follow you everywhere. This observer is an anti-doping official who has the following permissions... yada yada. If you don't like it, you cannot enter our race with our rules.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-12-12, 06:26
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
Kimmage was a journalist though who wants a story. If for example ASO say here are the rules.... if you want to enter the TdF you must allow an independent observer (who sits quietly in the corner) to follow you everywhere. This observer is an anti-doping official who has the following permissions... yada yada. If you don't like it, you cannot enter our race with our rules.
Disagree. The precedent set in 2008 with Garmin he had the same attitude and came away a believer.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-12-12, 06:34
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
Disagree. The precedent set in 2008 with Garmin he had the same attitude and came away a believer.
Yep, but that doesn't stop people looking twice at CVV.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-12-12, 07:12
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
Kimmage was a journalist though who wants a story. If for example ASO say here are the rules.... if you want to enter the TdF you must allow an independent observer (who sits quietly in the corner) to follow you everywhere. This observer is an anti-doping official who has the following permissions... yada yada. If you don't like it, you cannot enter our race with our rules.
I think you need both and there is no reason you can't have both. The jobs are totally different.
__________________

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”

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 08:39.


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.