Money Laundering & Doping In Italy. Armstrong, Menchov named - Page 25 - 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
  #241  
Old 11-21-12, 16:29
Aapjes Aapjes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyFingers View Post
I think you need to qualify that remark
Skoda has been more succesful in rallying than Ferrari has in F1, I think. I suspect that is what he's talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 11-21-12, 19:34
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
Yes of course. Because being up and down is a sure sign of doping, whereas dominating multi-stage races from February to July after being a nobody autobuser in said races is quite plainly an indication of sparkling cleanliness.

This is the same argument David Millar used in his infinite wisdom of declaring Contador clean as his performances were so consistent. Clenbutador!

Another stunning display of PhD sciency stuff. Chapeau, Krebs Cycle.
response taken to the Sky thread.....
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 11-21-12, 20:41
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferminal View Post
snip for brevity...

So suspicious! At least compared to the amazingly consistent record of Evans. Again, my point isn't that Evans is more suspicious (and I apologise for singling Evans out), but you can look at anyone's record and pretend it fits your viewpoint with relative ease. What is there in Menchov's history that makes him welcome of suspicion above the others, now that we've debunked the myth that he is an inconsistent TT'er?
Actually what you just posted there shows that in virtually every one of those ITTs Evans is within, or very close to (ie: time behind the winner), the coefficient of variation for laboratory ITT performance of that length which is about 3%. So in actual fact you pretty much just proved my point that Evans has been consistent in ITTs over the years. You didn't post any results for Menchov so you didn't "debunk" that myth. I suppose I didn't either and I can't really be bothered going through all of Menchov's ITT results. I remember in the past seeing some big swings in his ITT performances, but I haven't double checked and I admit I could be wrong.... hence.....

what I will say though and I strongly agree with you on this, is what I bolded above. You may have noticed that for months now, I have been using this exact same reasoning wrt the Wiggins debate (hence its relevance). From the very beginning, I stated that GC placings are not the best way to determine if someone is doping or not because of the influence of team strategy. However, if you remove that influence and look at ITT performance alone OR hill climbing performance (which is still confounded by the effects of drafting and also not knowing exact times over certain sections of the climb) then this is a better indicator of an individual's level of consistency. There is a vast array of data that shows elite athletes across a wide range of events, exhibit very low variability of performance (against the clock) across a season. Picking out one spurious result here or there (such as what poor wiggo keeps doing) is a flawed approach. The best way is to look at many performances. Those athletes that seem to have higher variability against the clock in many performances IMO are more likely to be the dopers. The problem of course is that we aren't dealing with a lab. The course and environmental conditions play a role in avg velocity so we have to compare against some other rider (or the winner), but maybe that other rider is doping themselves??



Quote:
Does that mean Contador was clean in 2011? It's impossible to say being consistent over the course of a year or in consecutive GTs makes someone more or less likely to be a doper. But sticking with the games - Menchov was very strong in four consecutive GTs (Tour 2007 - Tour 2008).


Looking back I've found some great names who were very strong in consecutive GTs: Basso, Savoldelli, Heras, Beloki added to the aforementioned Contador and Sastre (though we think he's clean, don't we?). What about Pantani? Armstrong's 12th and 3rd wasn't bad, and he used blood bags in both races! So many dopers... I'm confused
I think it is possible that Contador was clean in 2011 because in 2009 he was climbing at speeds that are considered to be unphysiological, but in 2011 he slowed down to speeds that are considered to be humanly possible. Looking back you need to include the effect of the biopassport which was introduced in 2010. Before then, the incidence of extreme blood profiles is much higher, which generally indicates a greater level of blood manipulation. Pre 2000 it was easy to perform well in consecutive GTs because EPO use was unrestricted. From 2000-2009 it got harder and the shift to transfusions occurred. From 2010 it has become really hard unless you are actually clean (or just doping less).

As stated, I feel as though we have touched on something we agree upon here though. I'm just as confused as you... if not more.... at the accusations that get thrown around in the clinic. Virtually every accusation around here simply looks at rider's GC record, which as you have stated can easily be fitted to some preconceived bias that they are doping. You have basically just used my own argument (that GC placing is not the best indicator of doping because you can fit whatever scenario you want to it) on myself. I accept that and this is why I prefer to look at general trends across a group in order to come to the conclusion that cycling has gradually become cleaner since 2010. The main reason I think Cadel is clean is because he is producing about the same w/kg now that he was when he was 22-23yrs old or thereabouts. He never magically improved this value and ended up winning the TdF by a solid margin as a result prior to 2010. He only won after a general trend occurred in which the average performance of the top 10-20 GC contenders or so became slower than it was only 3 or 4 yrs ago. What could possibly be the reason for that? Why are the best riders (not just one or two individuals but the entire top 10) going slower now than the top 10 from several years ago? Are the best riders o fhte last 2-3yrs just physiologically inferior? or maybe their doping programs are inferior? If the latter is the case then it is a step in the right direction because it allows the best of the best clean riders to actually compete and win. As of 2013 I believe that anyone who wins a GT could be clean.

Last edited by Krebs cycle; 11-21-12 at 21:46.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 11-21-12, 22:58
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
Looking back you need to include the effect of the biopassport which was introduced in 2010.
BP was introduced in 2008. Or are you trying to rewrite history?
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 11-21-12, 23:22
ElChingon's Avatar
ElChingon ElChingon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: En el Internet, and Hiding from the UCI
Posts: 5,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EarnstMorrissey View Post
Well we got some pretty conclusive stuff from the USADA investigation. Obviously this is different, but one can always hope. Even if it doesn't reach any conclusions on doping-related matters, it could provide some good leads for future investigations (like the federal postal case). Who knows who they'll crack?
Only the weak and those who are switching sides are falling, the strong Omerta boys are still there and far from falling. USADA pinched a few weaklings and out of reach riders (no longer racing so no effect), Lance has taken a hit but not the big one we'd all like. Then, the investigation has only hit the initial surface, it goes deep and that incision has yet to hit pay dirt and I don't see it being able to hit the center due to people out of their reach. If Europe picks up the baton then maybe they can get somewhere, but will they bite the hand that feeds?
__________________
CyclingNews Forum Member Number 1. (verified)
All my posts are of my own opinion.
October 10, 2012 The Reasoned Decision
Points: 10 CN Infraction Points
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 11-21-12, 23:29
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
BP was introduced in 2008. Or are you trying to rewrite history?
Sorry 2008. 2010 was the year that they began sanctioning riders based on biopassport data. From memory Ashenden said the panel gave 5 positives to the UCI but then the UCI only acted on 2.

2 is better than none however and as I've stated before, the goal of anti-doping tests can only ever be to discourage doping by having the threat of catching the cheats, not to catch every single one of them which will never happen. Same logic applies to speed cameras, you won't catch everyone who speeds, but you discourage everyone from speeding all the time.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 11-22-12, 03:02
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
As stated, I feel as though we have touched on something we agree upon here though. I'm just as confused as you... if not more.... at the accusations that get thrown around in the clinic. Virtually every accusation around here simply looks at rider's GC record, which as you have stated can easily be fitted to some preconceived bias that they are doping. You have basically just used my own argument (that GC placing is not the best indicator of doping because you can fit whatever scenario you want to it) on myself. I accept that and this is why I prefer to look at general trends across a group in order to come to the conclusion that cycling has gradually become cleaner since 2010. The main reason I think Cadel is clean is because he is producing about the same w/kg now that he was when he was 22-23yrs old or thereabouts. He never magically improved this value and ended up winning the TdF by a solid margin as a result prior to 2010. He only won after a general trend occurred in which the average performance of the top 10-20 GC contenders or so became slower than it was only 3 or 4 yrs ago. What could possibly be the reason for that? Why are the best riders (not just one or two individuals but the entire top 10) going slower now than the top 10 from several years ago? Are the best riders o fhte last 2-3yrs just physiologically inferior? or maybe their doping programs are inferior? If the latter is the case then it is a step in the right direction because it allows the best of the best clean riders to actually compete and win. As of 2013 I believe that anyone who wins a GT could be clean.
I don't disagree with anything you say.

But I like to think (hope) that I apply my suspicions evenly across the field. I think there are very few cases where you can look at someone's career progression or lack of consistency and say it's a strong sign of doping. Plus you actually have to correlate that with a doping event which would say why they had a better/worse season. People have bad seasons for plenty of reasons and these need to be explained first (but can't if we just look at results and say that's that). Additionally if we apply the microscope looking for explanations to one rider, others deserve that same treatment even if our knowledge of their circumstances is not as strong.

Nor should we look at riders we think are clean and then use them as a benchmark for what others should achieve if they want to be credible. Unless they are at Moncoutie levels of verifiable cleanliness then I don't think it's reasonable to use them as a benchmark. Also, what is to say a sample of clean riders should perform alike? Will there not be psychological, physiological, circumstantial differences between them which might make one or the other more able to podium in consecutive GTs, or not have a bad one or two seasons across their career?

Most of my doping convictions on these types come from who they have performed against. It is very difficult for me to reach those same levels of conviction just by considering career progression against themselves, not relative to their rivals. There is not a case-study deep enough for anyone to be called a doper without considering who they were competing against.

Again, my point is not to change people's views, just to ensure that they are making their decision based on (what I believe to be) an accurate interpretation of results.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 11-22-12, 04:42
blackcat's Avatar
blackcat blackcat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
Sorry 2008. 2010 was the year that they began sanctioning riders based on biopassport data. From memory Ashenden said the panel gave 5 positives to the UCI but then the UCI only acted on 2.

2 is better than none however and as I've stated before, the goal of anti-doping tests can only ever be to discourage doping by having the threat of catching the cheats, not to catch every single one of them which will never happen. Same logic applies to speed cameras, you won't catch everyone who speeds, but you discourage everyone from speeding all the time.
introduced in 2008.

and...

manipulated, in January 2008 by the alchemist hema boffins like ferrari.
__________________
I am the Cobra
August Rodin plagiarised le Poseur on The COBRA!. The cobra is not happy in the third person.
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 11-22-12, 09:27
JimmyFingers's Avatar
JimmyFingers JimmyFingers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aapjes View Post
Skoda has been more succesful in rallying than Ferrari has in F1, I think. I suspect that is what he's talking about.
Off topic I know but really? Skoda has won more in rally than Ferrari have in racing? F1 is just the tip of the iceberg for Ferrari, plenty of endurance/GT/Sportscar titles in there, like Le Mans, and older races like the Mille Milgia and its ilk
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 11-22-12, 20:23
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,509
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
Sorry 2008. 2010 was the year that they began sanctioning riders based on biopassport data. From memory Ashenden said the panel gave 5 positives to the UCI but then the UCI only acted on 2.

2 is better than none however and as I've stated before, the goal of anti-doping tests can only ever be to discourage doping by having the threat of catching the cheats, not to catch every single one of them which will never happen. Same logic applies to speed cameras, you won't catch everyone who speeds, but you discourage everyone from speeding all the time.
Two is a wonderful number.

Wahoo, success.

Odd, though, how 'two' reaffirms Phat's claim of 1-2% of the Peloton are doping.

Two is also a good way to count success.

You count it as two positives. That is one way to measure success.

If Tyler is right, and 80% of the Peloton are doping, then a second way of looking at success is that the Passport shielded 156 of the 2010 TdF dopers from testing positive.

Now that is a real success. Sacrifice two so that 156 can ride 'clean'.

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"
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 06:56.


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