At what point did cycling become "clean"? - Page 8 - 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
  #71  
Old 11-14-12, 03:03
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiero2 View Post
You've been given some in this thread. The numbers behind the graphs aren't made up, ya know. Sorry I don't know the link to the guys that post all the power data, but there is practically tons of that out - and compared to pre-1990, too. Ryder's blood data for his Giro win - go to CaptainBag. CaptainBag is definitely sceptical, but it is there to see. Google is your friend. There was never anything like what we have today out in 2K, it's only been the past few years. Start with Cozybeehive's blog. Move out from there.
Hiero2 let me assume you have not read my posts in this thread, and stay polite.

I will not repeat my comments on the graph. It does not show "clean". It shows "less positive test results and less serious positive test results. That's all. But with no better understanding whether that is due to less tests done or whatever.

Even if new mean value power/speed data shows pre EPO era values we cannot draw conclusions about "clean". Mean values mean jack s**t.

All that matters is that the winners of the major races are clean. And that's what we need data on. Bloods, powers, speeds, sure. But most of all more tests of those that are most likely to win. And retrospectively analyzed. And announced as such now (ie retrospective). And better guardianship of the testing process. Blah blah blah.
__________________

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

Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-14-12, 03:04
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferminal View Post
Let's not forget that Hesjedal beat many doped up times from the previous 15 years. Tailwind though.
I've ridden uphill with a tailwind - it makes it harder, ime, due to the lack of cooling. This was on a 7%, 16km climb I've done every now and then. Much more pleasant with a slight headwind.

Depending on the grade of the climb, I'm also dubious of the assistance of the tailwind too - are there stats on gradient of the tailwind climb(s) in question, or duration? Takes me an hour to do that climb but a pro would do it in 35-40 minutes so probably not as damaging having no cooling and more wind from their speed leading to more cooling also.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog

Last edited by Dear Wiggo; 11-14-12 at 03:07.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-14-12, 03:08
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinman View Post
I will not repeat my comments on the graph. It does not show "clean". It shows "less positive test results and less serious positive test results. That's all. But with no better understanding whether that is due to less tests done or whatever.

It also shows % of samples, not % of riders

The raw data should be released, and crowd-sourcing of the analysis would result if a far more rigorous analysis imo.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-14-12, 03:12
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,522
Default

I don't want to get into a debate about specific individuals/performances.

I think the point is that the "we can believe the numbers" is shaky. We can probably find numbers to suit both arguments. There are certainly some more moderate performances but at the same time there are still some performances which would not be out of place in 2005. If you believe that heavy numbers make cycling dirty, then lighter numbers must make cycling cleaner (and same the other way). We can't just ignore one set of data because it doesn't suit our argument.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-14-12, 03:15
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zinoviev Letter View Post
2) There are the blood values. This graph illustrates the trend very well:


What's with the 0-0.2 values for the 2 outside periods. Ie. why is there no data on this? Methodology changes? Or just not reported? Looks odd.

And is there data on the sample tested. How has the sampling methodology changed over the years? Which we know it has. And how these changes may (I said "may") affect the results.

And changes in the testing technology/methods itself and how this may affect testing result/accuracy.

Has this data been published in a formal paper with subsequent discussion?
__________________

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

Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-14-12, 03:19
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
It also shows % of samples, not % of riders
Exactly. One of the points i raised earlier in this thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
The raw data should be released, and crowd-sourcing of the analysis would result if a far more rigorous analysis imo.
Yes, or the data published somewhere reputable and subject to "peer" review, or as you may infer in this case "clinic" scrutiny .
__________________

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

Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 11-14-12, 03:25
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,522
Default

Also that 1.99 is good but 2.00 is bad (admittedly its an improvement on the 50% era).
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 11-14-12, 03:37
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

And for the large elephant in the room:

What do we know about "more recent doping techniques" and the effect on elevated retics?

This graph tells us nothing about more or less doping, or more or less clean. It tells us something has changed.
__________________

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

Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 11-14-12, 03:41
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiero2 View Post
Who in their right mind would suggest Frank Schleck as a clean rider?

...
Not me.

Frank is a one time 3rd place finisher, a two-time top 5 (up one spot thanks to Lance), and a three time top 10 TdF finisher. All accomplished in the 'dark' era.

In a 'cleanish' Tour, he should be a hands-down favorite.

If he isn't, then he is a good reference for establishing the level of doping.

Again, the comparison with Z in that 2012 TT does lend support to Garmin's claims of a clean team.

Other performances, though, raise questions regarding claims of clean performances by other riders.

In the '09 Tour, for example, Schleck was only one second behind Wiggins in the final classification and just 42 seconds behind a disqualified Armstrong.

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 11-14-12, 03:50
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Queued View Post
All accomplished in the 'dark' era.
One could argue that today is 'darker' than 1998-2005 or so. We knew damned well then that EPO was happening big time. Maybe not exactly how. But we knew a lot more then about what was happening then than we do now about what is happening now.

It's possible it's darker now than it ever was in the past 20 years.
__________________

“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 04:37.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.