What constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping? - Page 9 - 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
  #81  
Old 11-13-12, 02:44
Grandillusion Grandillusion is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
What?
Who said it was separate from real life (what does that even mean?).

It is a Internet forum - not a Court of Law. No one passes sanctions or judgements.



Constitute = establish.
What do you use to establish if someone has doped. What is your threshold?
"Because in the real, non-clinic world, riders have both legal rights and lawyers"

I think Martin himself seems to have said it was separate from real life. Then changed his mind in the next post.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 11-13-12, 08:05
armchairclimber's Avatar
armchairclimber armchairclimber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
If that was your point all along - then why bring legalize in to it?

To the highlighted - proof is proof in a court, in a forum "proof" is entirely individual. I have no problem if a poster remain skeptical or believing, it's a forum - I do have a problem when they apply different standards to different riders or teams.
Ah right. A "positive test" and "witness testimony" is legalese. Ok, if you say so.

My view on doping changed during the 2011 tour. Personally, I wouldn't have needed much convincing that anyone in the peleton was doping prior to that.
For nigh on 30 years I'd taken the view that most were...Armstrong in particular.

Then, in 2011, I started to pay attention to the performance numbers a little bit. I felt that what I was seeing was closer to "real"....the numbers backed that up. The voices saying that the peleton was cleaner were louder and, crucially, coming from places that I trusted. As a consequence, I, as a citizen of this here clinic, want to see more than a string of flimsy "circumstantial" or worse "made-up" evidence. Frankly, that's exactly what I see most of.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 11-13-12, 09:08
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandillusion View Post
"Because in the real, non-clinic world, riders have both legal rights and lawyers"

I think Martin himself seems to have said it was separate from real life. Then changed his mind in the next post.
I'm afraid you have misinterpreted my meaning .

The Clinic is not separate from 'real life' - the good Dr seems to feel it should be; that people can say what they like regardless of evidence. My point was that in the real world, outside the Clinic bubble, that it doesn't work that way, and if Clinicians think it does, they are badly mistaken. And that this being the Clinic gives no protection from that real life.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 11-13-12, 09:32
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,484
Default

Whatever happened to Quickstepper?
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 11-13-12, 09:47
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
What?
Who said it was separate from real life (what does that even mean?).

It is a Internet forum - not a Court of Law. No one passes sanctions or judgements.

Poppycock. the Clinic is all about passing judgements.


Quote:
Constitute = establish.
What do you use to establish if someone has doped. What is your threshold?
Thank you.

Firstly, there is a difference between someone doping, and establishing that someone is doping. The latter should always be smaller than the former; otherwise innocent people are smeared.

As to what I consider conclusive proof? I set that out already - Blood and urine test positives; robust and verifiable eye witness evidence; other reliable scientific evidence backed up by trustworthy science in a robust and verifiable way.

What is not conclusive proof - rumour, innuendo, clinic 'join-the-dots', animus, unpleasant rider personality, team origin, success.

Now, there will be occasions where I have suspicions, or concerns. inappropriate and self-serving rider comments; bizarre behaviour; certain outlandish individual feats.

But it is vitally, and I repeat VITALLY, important to remember, that is all they are - they are not in any way 'proof'. And to my mind far too many clinicians, rather than actually support investigation, are content to say - "I don't like that rider/believe that performance - that's all the proof i need! And my opinion is the be all and end all"

Frankly, a someone who fervantly wants doping eradicated, i find that tiresome. It seems an awful lot more to do with the ego of the clinician than actually cleaning up the sport.

A lot of Clinicians are under the impression that riders and teams are always ten steps ahead of the anti-dopers, and always will be. That is an opinion, and can be genuinely held - but it's not verifiable.

I take some minor comfort in the fact that Armstrong got caught; as did Vinikorov, Zulle, Riis, Valverde, Ulrich, Pantani, Franck Schleck, Millar, Hamilton, Landis, Contador and by extension the rest of the US Postal. It took years to catch Armstrong. It took days to catch Landis. But both were caught. That's progress, I suppose.

Now, if you want 'idle' speculation, I can do that for you.

I'm not all that worried by Wiggins, much, no doubt, to fellow clinicians disgust. His tour win this year was not a dominating tour de force - it was a Big Deisel behind a superstar team on a very very friendly parcours with a weak field. Armstrong, Ulrich, Contador, Andy Schleck on form would all have destroyed him.

Nor do i think Sky has a team doping structure. I just see no evidence of it.

Froome, however, in my opinion, requires very close scrutiny. As does Jon T-Locke. And I am very glad Yates is gone. For the record, I think the zero tolerence policy is sponsor driven, and bonkers - i feel Brailsford's own instincts are much closer to Garmin.

I have no real reason to doubt Vaaghter's sincerity. He's a former doper, and clearly full of himself, but again 'unlikeable' rider personality trait -> fraud.

Dave Millar is an interesting personality - again, much to Clinician's disgust, no doubt, I think, on the balance of probabilities that he is now genuine. He strikes me (pop psychology alert) as someone whose self-identity was completely broken when he was caught - and his new self-identity, the redeemed anti-doping crusader, is very dear to him for that reason - he seriously overplays it, and says stupid things regularly - it doesn't mean, however, that's its fraudulent.

I wouldn't however let him near power in the UCI - he doesn't strike me as suited to that role.

The dirtiest race currently, in my personal and uneducated view, is the Vuelta. I simply don't think the spanish authorities are serious about doping control, and culturally, there is simply far, far too much forgiveness of it.

The 2012 Vuelta troubled me intensely. Of the top three, Valverde is the rider I have most difficulty with. Entirely personal.

The French and italians were once as bad, but events appear to have changed their broad feelings somewhat - not totally, but somewhat. I await the italian case coming up with interest, however.

Some parts of the world have worse 'cultural' problems re: doping than others; that's not racism, it's just the facts. Doesn't mean that riders from that country are clean, or dope.

But if we leave cycling for a second, and look at athletics, for example - only the wilfully blind would not accept that parts of eastern europe, particularly some of the former soviet states, have an endemic doping culture in certain events. The trail of middle distance russian women, running unbelievable times in Russia, and the wilting overseas; the systemic problems of doping in Belarus; the long history of East German women doping (koch, anyone?); the long and tainted history of american sprinting.

In cycling, there appear to be some parts of the globe where the disgust with doping simply doesn't run as strong. That's just reality. How we tackle that is an an interesting question.

Enough idle speculation for ya?
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 11-13-12, 10:27
M Sport's Avatar
M Sport M Sport is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 617
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".
Another way to look at it is let the pro riders prove they're clean. The sooner we get some independent testing body that starts out with the basic assumption that they are all guilty and therefore put in place a testing regime to prove that the better off and cleaner cycling will be.

Otherwise define proof, legal proof is obviously very difficult, just look at how long it took to get Lance. Scientifically the experts had him long ago, it's an easier standard of proof. And don't confuse needing a positive test to prove use, a positive test result and scientific proof of use are quite different.

Could proof be the top 35 times up Alpe D'Huez? Arguably yes. Once you understand natural physiological limitations then the dirty results stand out like an elephant in the room.

Anyway, back to my first point. Let them prove they're clean, the last 25 years of deception demands that.
__________________
Lo Sceriffo - To call him the Fabian Cancellara of his day would be more accurate when Fabian wins yet another Paris-Roubaix, a few more classics, the World Championship road race, a Grand Tour and continues to kick @rse for another five years. - Velominati
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 11-13-12, 11:22
Mrs John Murphy's Avatar
Mrs John Murphy Mrs John Murphy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Stamping on Cadel's dog
Posts: 2,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElChingon View Post
1. Always getting angry at being asked about it.
2. Never open to criticism of it.
3. Hire known banned people outside the team to train you.
4. Employ others to run propaganda on your behalf.
5. Hide under the cloak of a cause.
6. Always looking to the future and wanting to forget the past.
7. Can never answer a question about it to a reporter.
8. Claim to know nothing about it when the average fan knows what it is or what is going on.
9. Require a lawyer even when you've never tested positive.
10. Claim some homeopathic remedy is the root of your new found performance. (get it root )
11. Train in extremely remote locations away from home or the race schedule where the UCI/WADA testers have a tough time getting to.


Imagine if anyone of you's could get away with that your current school/work place?
LOL. Works for me.
__________________
Justcycling

...girls and ****ed 'em at school. All I know is that there were rumours he was into field hockey players

"the only thing worse than reading Cycling News is talking to them" Paul Kimmage

"The four most beautiful words in our common language: I told you so." Gore Vidal
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 11-13-12, 11:51
peterst6906 peterst6906 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Sport View Post
Another way to look at it is let the pro riders prove they're clean. The sooner we get some independent testing body that starts out with the basic assumption that they are all guilty and therefore put in place a testing regime to prove that the better off and cleaner cycling will be.
I agree, and particularly for Australia, that approach should be extended to society in general.

Authorities should start with a premise that all citizens are convicts and put in a regime of property and personal searches until there is proof that the citizens are not criminals. After all, 224 year old history of European settlement suggests the population are a bunch of thieves.

Oh no, wait. That's just compete rubbish. Just the same as the suggestion to invade the privacy of all riders to any length just to please some observers.

Maybe a more balanced approach involving multiple approaches to reduce the incentives to dope, backed by a reasonable level of intrusion and harsher penalties for breaches is a more realistic.

It's only sport after all, not a murder investigation.

Last edited by peterst6906; 11-13-12 at 11:55.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 11-13-12, 12:10
del1962 del1962 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peterst6906 View Post
I agree, and particularly for Australia, that approach should be extended to society in general.

Authorities should start with a premise that all citizens are convicts and put in a regime of property and personal searches until there is proof that the citizens are not criminals. After all, 224 year old history of European settlement suggests the population are a bunch of thieves.

Oh no, wait. That's just compete rubbish. Just the same as the suggestion to invade the privacy of all riders to any length just to please some observers.

Maybe a more balanced approach involving multiple approaches to reduce the incentives to dope, backed by a reasonable level of intrusion and harsher penalties for breaches is a more realistic.

It's only sport after all, not a murder investigation.
The biggest question about anti-doping control is who is going to pay for it.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 11-13-12, 12:26
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by del1962 View Post
The biggest question about anti-doping control is who is going to pay for it.
The answer is those who profit from the sport.

If you profit from the sport, part of that profit should go to ensuring the integrity of the sport.

So professional teams profit,riders profit, uci profit, TV profit - they can all pony up as far as i'm concerned
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 07:36.


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.