The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get - Page 69 - 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
  #681  
Old 12-27-12, 12:03
King Of The Wolds King Of The Wolds is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 944
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
Surely if they are 100% sure to arouse suspicion and questions, then if they are dodgy, it would make most sense simply not include them? In other words, if wiggins were a doper, and these numbers were a clear red flag on the issue, why would he publish it at all?

Why would he leave such obvious breadcrumbs?
Quite. The fact that he and Rogers give us these tit bits, but stop short at issuing their full files suggests, to my mind, that my theory re: trying to tell the opposition how good they are, is far more likely.

Neither of us really know, of course, but the fact that people believe every word suggests it's working, whether that was the intention or not. Convincing the opposition that you can't be beaten - a veritable marginal gain, right there.
Reply With Quote
  #682  
Old 12-27-12, 12:24
King Of The Wolds King Of The Wolds is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 944
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fearless Greg Lemond View Post
it would be stupid not to take Fignon and Hinault as a benchmark for what is supposedly humanly possible.
In every sport, training methods are still improving. Sports science is a very young science, remember, and even in sciences which have been known about for much longer, like chemistry and physics, improvements are still being made all the time, so you'd expect that advances are still fairly significant. To state that what Fignon and Hinault were capable of 25 years ago, is as far as we can humanly go, is to suggest that sports science hasn't advanced, at all, within that time period, which is clearly nonsense.
Reply With Quote
  #683  
Old 12-27-12, 13:30
will10's Avatar
will10 will10 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,993
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
I think some of the misunderstood science that I've read on this forum these past months are a good indication as to why Wiggins is unlikely to release his blood profile data.

Besides, why on earth do a bunch of people on an Internet forum think they will spot something that the bio-passport panel have missed?
They seemed to miss a few things in Lance's data.
__________________
Quote:
...[Walsh] thinks we're ahead of the curve. But think about it for a sec. We're building long-lasting, trusting relationships with people who are spending a lot of money - Coke, Nike, Subaru. If we're f***ing lying, we can kiss it all goodbye. And if we were lying we'd do some stupid stuff to try to cover it up, wouldn't we? Does anybody think for a second that a secret that big wouldn't come out? Bill Stapleton
Reply With Quote
  #684  
Old 12-27-12, 13:41
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by will10 View Post
They seemed to miss a few things in Lance's data.
When did the blood passport start?
Reply With Quote
  #685  
Old 12-27-12, 13:42
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Will, On the contrary, that was presented in the USADA file as evidence, IIRC.

Don't get me wrong, I find the whole UCI/Lance donation/TdS/Landis telling Hamilton that Lance grassed him up things massively suspect. I also think Lance's re-entry into the sport to be suspect, and you are correct in that the requirement for data was waived in his case demonstrating just what a cash cow the man was, and how rules were bent accordingly.

I'm not sure if the bio-passport committee were complicit in this or whether it just didn't get as far as them.
Reply With Quote
  #686  
Old 12-27-12, 13:55
Fearless Greg Lemond's Avatar
Fearless Greg Lemond Fearless Greg Lemond is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by King Of The Wolds View Post
In every sport, training methods are still improving. Sports science is a very young science, remember, and even in sciences which have been known about for much longer, like chemistry and physics, improvements are still being made all the time, so you'd expect that advances are still fairly significant. To state that what Fignon and Hinault were capable of 25 years ago, is as far as we can humanly go, is to suggest that sports science hasn't advanced, at all, within that time period, which is clearly nonsense.
So, watts per kg have changed as well?

''My wattage, relative to VO2 Max...a VO2 Max of 92 or 93 in a fully recovered way...I think I was capable of producing 450 to 460 watts. The truth is, even at the Tour de France, my Tour de France climb times up l'Alpe d'Huez yielded a wattage of around 380 and 390. That was the historic norm for Hinault and myself. You've got times going back many, many years. But what was learned recently, in the last 5 years, was that when you start the Tour de France, you start with a normal hematocrit of, say, 45 percent. By the time you finish, it's probably down 10 or 15 percent. Which means my VO2 Max dropped 10 or 15 percent. So that's why I was never producing the same wattage. And then there a lot of other factors that help performance if you've recovered. My last time trial in '89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was.

Of course, in the '90s drugs came on the scene, so the wattages have gone out. There are some things that are just not explainable, people with VO2 Maxs in the low 80s producing 500 watts. A physiologist friend of my said that for a person to do that, 500 watts, he has to have to have nearly 100 milliliters of Oxygen. There are a lot of questions there for me.''


http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

So, when Ritchie Porte is making Ivan Basso make doing 420 watts [=6w/kg] Porte is doing 372 watts. U really want to make me belief a domestique like Porte is able to equal or better Hinault/Fignon/LeMond due to sports science? Yes, bikes got better, nutrition got better but let's not forget the dope.

Quote:
I'm not sure if the bio-passport committee were complicit in this or whether it just didn't get as far as them.
They couldn't even prove Contadope had a transfusion...
Reply With Quote
  #687  
Old 12-27-12, 14:55
will10's Avatar
will10 will10 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,993
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
When did the blood passport start?
Start of the 2008 season IIRC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
Will, On the contrary, that was presented in the USADA file as evidence, IIRC.

Don't get me wrong, I find the whole UCI/Lance donation/TdS/Landis telling Hamilton that Lance grassed him up things massively suspect. I also think Lance's re-entry into the sport to be suspect, and you are correct in that the requirement for data was waived in his case demonstrating just what a cash cow the man was, and how rules were bent accordingly.

I'm not sure if the bio-passport committee were complicit in this or whether it just didn't get as far as them.
By the UCI's own guidelines, a biopassport irregularities case should've been opened against Lance in 2009/2010. Ashenden's comments on the matter are somewhat illuminating.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13...s-experts.aspx
__________________
Quote:
...[Walsh] thinks we're ahead of the curve. But think about it for a sec. We're building long-lasting, trusting relationships with people who are spending a lot of money - Coke, Nike, Subaru. If we're f***ing lying, we can kiss it all goodbye. And if we were lying we'd do some stupid stuff to try to cover it up, wouldn't we? Does anybody think for a second that a secret that big wouldn't come out? Bill Stapleton
Reply With Quote
  #688  
Old 12-27-12, 15:10
Fearless Greg Lemond's Avatar
Fearless Greg Lemond Fearless Greg Lemond is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by will10 View Post
By the UCI's own guidelines, a biopassport irregularities case should've been opened against Lance in 2009/2010. Ashenden's comments on the matter are somewhat illuminating.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13...s-experts.aspx
To add to that:
http://endurancesupport.com/bloedpro...nce-armstrong/
[google translate]

Quote:
Originally Posted by endurancesupport
''BLOOD PROFILE LANCE ARMSTRONG
*
Peter Janssen and Hans Strijbosch
*
*
BLOOD VALUES OF ARMSTRONG
The New York Daily News, the blood levels of Lance Armstrong published when the USADA his indictment Armstrong bases. Across the board, his blood profile fairly stable at two suspicious fluctuations after which additional suspicious because of the time they occur.
The increase in Ht, Hb and RBC between 31/5 and 16/6 is very suspicious. The Ht even increasing by 7.5 percentage points. Which can not be explained by a high altitude training of two weeks at an altitude of 2400 meters. The decrease in the number of reticulocytes at 16/6 is not in line with expectations. Because of the altitude training is an additional production of Retis more obvious.
The increase of Ht, Hb and RBC during the round between 11/7 and 14/7 is also highly suspicious. Because during a large round these values ​​never increase.
Conclusion could be: the high value of mid-June was followed by a blood test which the values ​​decreased. This stored blood was later during the Tour again gere´nfuseerd.
It is also possible that Armstrong already issued blood (donation) during the last days of the Giro. Its low Hb, Ht, RBC from 31/5 can fit thereto. Also, the reduced S-index can thus be explained. The reduced S-index indicates that the blood production is stimulated. Which is the normal reaction after a blood donation.
During altitude training would micro doses EPO, and at the end of the altitude training reinfusion of blood from the Giro ensure that on 16/6 Hb, Ht and RBC significantly increased. The increase in the S-index indicates that the blood production is slowed down. Which occurs after an EPO treatment and / or after a blood transfusion.
Shortly after 17/6 is again a donation later during the Tour is infused.
See results 11/7 and 14/7.
The UCI after the Tour de France of 2009 not responded to these results by Lance Armstrong. That in fact these results approved.
In May 2011, the UCI embarrassed by a publication in the French sports newspaper L'╔quipe. Which revealed a list containing all the riders in the Tour de France of 2010 are ranked based on their dopingverdenkingen. The list was drawn up for the start of the round. Each rider is a digit from 0 to 10 assessed on its credibility.
In determining the risk rating also examined the biological passport of the rider. By the results of doping controls in succession to put suspicious variations can be detected that might indicate doping.
Also played a role or a rider at the Giro of 2009 was suspected of EPO use.
Also, some riders looked great variations in the Hb content which may be an indication that blood transfusions are used.
A rider scores a 10, then he is closely monitored. A 0 means that there is no reason to suspect this rider. On this list, Armstrong risk figure 4.
Barredo and Popovych score a 10. Menchov a 9.

The UCI shall investigate how this list at L 'Equipe ended.
The blood profile of Lance Armstrong until just before the start of the Tour de France 2010 should be reviewed by the UCI panel of experts. The result of this is a risk factor for Armstrong, 4.
Given the marked fluctuations in 2009, it is incomprehensible that Armstrong was not much higher estimated.
Possibilities
The UCI dare or do not tackle Armstrong.
Not want to address means that the UCI Armstrong consciously protects.
Do not dare approach may mean that the UCI is afraid of possible legal consequences.
It may be that the range in which the riders can operate so large that a controlled manner can be continued with blood doping. This could mean that the fluctuating values ​​of Armstrong not large enough to explain to him positively.

*
THRESHOLDS COMPARED WITH THE HIGHEST / LOWEST VALUES OF ARMSTRONG.
*
*Thresholds Highest / Lowest Values ​​Armstrong
Hematocrit> 50% 45.7
Hemoglobin> 170 g / L 160
OFF-score> 133 112
Reticulocytes # High> 120 70.5
Reticulocytes # Low <20 9.21
Reticulocytes% High> 2.4% 1.49
Reticulocytes% Low <0.4% .51
*
Table thresholds used by the UCI and the highest and lowest values ​​that Armstrong scores.
Armstrong exceeds the thresholds thus not once. The bandwidth is much too large.
It is now abundantly clear that without exceeding the limits of the threshold values ​​to exceed the EPA there can be used. The individual blood profile, the smaller bandwidths. So it is difficult to manipulate. However, the above-described example of Armstrong shows that the individual blood profile is not sufficiently precise. It is namely not picked.''
The whole bio-passport is a hoax, stay between the [very broad] parameters and you will be fine.
Reply With Quote
  #689  
Old 12-27-12, 15:16
thehog's Avatar
thehog thehog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15,223
Default

Well I never. Sky fans becoming supporters of the UCI.

Cycling really did die on the 24th December 2012
Reply With Quote
  #690  
Old 12-27-12, 15:48
red_flanders's Avatar
red_flanders red_flanders is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
Surely if they are 100% sure to arouse suspicion and questions, then if they are dodgy, it would make most sense simply not include them? In other words, if wiggins were a doper, and these numbers were a clear red flag on the issue, why would he publish it at all?

Why would he leave such obvious breadcrumbs?
I would feel very comfortable defending the numbers if they were legit, wouldn't you? My point was (is) that I think it very unlikely that someone would exaggerate those numbers up into the suspicious realm. Way too much flak and folks are much less likely to put themselves knowingly in a position to have to defend a lie.

Not saying it can't happen, just not as likely.
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 12:19.


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