At what point did cycling become "clean"? - Page 5 - 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
  #41  
Old 11-13-12, 23:06
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zinoviev Letter View Post
Ok, this is potentially interesting.

Firstly, lets establish the trend before we start looking for explanations. What super-skinny climbers are suddenly great in the ITT?

Froome, obviously. Who else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmcg76 View Post
Skinny guys? What skinny guys? Wiggins!! Froome!! Contador!! Who else??

Even if you are right about those guys of whom I get the suspicions, if 10 top guys are still doping big time it does not negate the overall premise of cycling getting cleaner.
Err... Schlecks... Sastre...

TdF Headline: Time trial specialists Fabian Cancellara, Tony Martin upstaged by Sky speedsters

...Cancellara eventually took over as provisional leader. But first Froome, then Wiggins pushed him down a place each to third....


F. Schleck beating Zabriskie?

Not normal.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-13-12, 23:17
pmcg76 pmcg76 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,974
Default

Holy ****, how often have the Schlecks or Sastre finished in the Top 10 of TTs in the Tour.

So now we are comparing Wiggins and Froome to guys who struggle in TTs, the evidence is getting more desperate methinks.

Which TT are you referring to where Schleck beat Zabriskie??
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-13-12, 23:24
blackcat's Avatar
blackcat blackcat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
Interesting topic; We're now being told that clean teams and riders win can win GT's and that its a victory for 'clean cycling".

What changed in cycling? When did this change occur? Was it testing? Was it a cultural shift? What year did it occur in? Did the governing body make a significant change? Is it marketing?


It appears to occurred with;

Evans, Ryder and now Wiggins.

Why do these cyclists represent "clean cycling" and not others?


I'm a little cynical. I fail to see what was the "turning point" in cycling to take it from a sport which has a high level of drug use to a completely clean environment whereby you could win GT's clean.

But I'm willing to be shown where I've missed the sea change.
English is their native language. Michael Rogers tells us in Canberra where he is from, they have a different mindset and values.
__________________
there are few genius
ricky riccio is a savant genius
the rest of us are freeloading intellectual proletariat
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-13-12, 23:26
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmcg76 View Post
Holy ****, how often have the Schlecks or Sastre finished in the Top 10 of TTs in the Tour.

So now we are comparing Wiggins and Froome to guys who struggle in TTs, the evidence is getting more desperate methinks.

Which TT are you referring to where Schleck beat Zabriskie??
Stage 9, 9 July 2012.

Now, before you continue suggesting I am Chicken Little, didn't Schleck actually get popped?

Hmmm.... a real doper after all.

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-13-12, 23:40
Zinoviev Letter Zinoviev Letter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
Slow down.

We have to stop taking the portions of cycling in isolation.

Climbing, ITT'ing and recovery consistently together have improved massively. Not by all but some. I didn't expect to see Wiggins and Froome be so so so strong in the ITT.

Then the climbing was just as superior. Wiggins is no Contador in climbing but the performances were very very strong.

It's the weight and power produced which worries me most along with the recovery.

But this thread is not about Sky. It's about cycling in general.
The problem with this is that your counter theory seems to be very focused on Sky. One or two riders at Sky, even.

We know that across the sport, riders are markedly worse at climbing than they were ten years ago. That, along with what we know about the parallel decline in "unusual" blood values, points towards a decline in the kind of doping practices we are used to and which transformed the sport from 1990.

If there has been a general marked improvement in the ITT, or even a marked improvement by a swathe of guys with non-traditional ITT physiques, that would provide evidence that something less obvious might be going on. At the very least we'd have to look at that improvement and seek to explain it.

But first, we need to know if this is actually happening. And I haven't seen any evidence (so far) of a sweeping change in that direction. I'd be interested in seeing it if anyone has.

Last edited by Zinoviev Letter; 11-13-12 at 23:43.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-13-12, 23:44
pmcg76 pmcg76 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Queued View Post
Stage 9, 9 July 2012.

Now, before you continue suggesting I am Chicken Little, didn't Schleck actually get popped?

Hmmm.... a real doper after all.

Dave.
That is **** poor, your so-called amazing revelation is that Schleck finished 44th and Zabriskie 54th. Clearly Zabriskie was in top form as he was beaten by 52 other guys as well.

If you had presented the TT from the Tour 09/10 and shown Schleck beating Zabriskie when Zabriskie finished Top 10 I would have given some credence.

Last edited by pmcg76; 11-14-12 at 00:02.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-13-12, 23:46
blackcat's Avatar
blackcat blackcat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs John Murphy View Post
2006 as per the USADA affidavits. In 2006 the peloton had a pauline conversion on the road to paris and forswore the needle and syringe for a diet of warmdowns, winter training in Tenerife and marginal gains.
garginal mains. yep.
__________________
there are few genius
ricky riccio is a savant genius
the rest of us are freeloading intellectual proletariat
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-13-12, 23:50
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Some important conceptual points to consider in this debate.

When considering the question of "clean", or rather better -in my view - "cleaner" there are 2 independent variables to consider:
- the number or % of riders doping
- extent/amount to which each of them dope

The extent/amount needs to be further broken down to:
- the number of races in a season
- the amount of doping in each of these races (how close to the detection limit, or if doping controls are highly unlikely, or "positives" are highly unlikely, how "extreme" is a rider prepared to go

My personal conclusion is that whilst overall the number of riders and extent/amount may be down, the level of sophistication of the remaining dopers has just increased. And whilst in the past a "doctor" was essential, with the know how now widespread a well organized rider and spouse/trusted support person program is quite feasible.

- Individual blood bag (combined with microdosing) programs on GT rest days (or mini bag programs) are still very feasible and relatively low risk
- one day races can be optimally prepared for. No reason to have a Hct below 50% and be "suboptimally" prepared
- there are still major events where one knows drug testing is unlikely to happen, eg recent ToC
- there are events where one knows UCI cannot afford to have a high profile doping positive, eg recent World cup road race Phil Gilbert win

So I see no reason why any pro rider with fame and money ambitions that does not have a super strong moral/ethical compass would not continue the above approach. And that does not yet cover any new (gene doping, etc) approaches for which the method to stay within detection limits are as yet relatively less publicized.

So I for one am not subscribing to clean, or an end to the dark era, as per Hiero2's mail last month, at all. Cleaner, maybe. But cleaner merely meaning more sophisticated...
__________________

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


Last edited by Tinman; 11-14-12 at 01:20.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-13-12, 23:56
pmcg76 pmcg76 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinman View Post
Some important conceptual points to consider in this debate.

When considering the question of "clean", or rather better -in my view - "cleaner" there are 2 independent variables to consider:
- the number or % of riders doping
- extent/amount to which each of them dope

The extent/amount needs to be further broken down to:
- the number of races in a season
- the amount of doping in each of these races (how close to the detection limit, or if doping controls are highly unlikely, or "positives" are highly unlikely, how "extreme" is a rider prepared to go

My personal conclusion is that whilst overall the number of riders and extent/amount may be down, the level of sophistication of the remaining dopers has just increased. And whilst in the past a "doctor" was essential, with the know how now widespread a well organized rider and spouse/trusted support person program is quite feasible.

- Individual blood bag (combined with microdosing) programs on GT rest days are still very feasible and relatively low risk
- one day races can be optimally prepared for. No reason to have a Hct below 50% and be "suboptimally" prepared
- there are still major events where one knows drug testing is unlikely to happen, eg recent ToC
- there are events where one knows UCI cannot afford to have a high profile doping positive, eg recent World cup road race Phil Gilbert win

So I see no reason why any pro rider with fame and money ambitions that does not have a super strong moral/ethical compass would not continue the above approach. And that does not yet cover any new (gene doping, etc) approaches for which the method to stay within detection limits are as yet relatively less publicized.

So I for one am not subscribing to clean, or an end to the dark era, as per Hiero2's mail last month, at all. Cleaner, maybe. But cleaner merely meaning more sophisticated...
I think the term 'sophisticated' usually means something that is done better or more effectively which=better, if that is the case why are the numbers worse?.

Last edited by pmcg76; 11-14-12 at 00:03.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-13-12, 23:57
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
Forget the result for one moment. Watch the race again. 4 guys rode 200km on the front. I've never seen anything like it. I thought it was non-human like. The tactics were poor but their strength was obvious. Then was backed up with 1-3 in the ITT.
It was generally accpeted at the time, and certainly noted by both the british and the germans, that the other teams prettty much LET them lead for that long because they were unwilling to help GB only to let Cavendish rock to victory - only in the last 40K did the germans, in particular, realise that this tactic also hurt them.
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 20:27.


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.