frisenfruitig wrote: ToreBear wrote: frisenfruitig wrote:
Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.
Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.
It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).
Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.
Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.
Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.
It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.
It might just be that they have stopped doping riders? Are you for real dude? There are thousands of doctors to choose from yet these teams go for the fishy types but not for doping?
Also just look up Valverde's palmares after his return, it's insane. He's still performing at a ridiculously high level despite his age. You'd almost think he never needed dope to begin with going by your logic.
I would love it if cycling were clean now but I just don't see any indications this is true. It's you that is seeing what he wants to see.
We're still seeing ridiculous performances; people beating Armstrong's/Pantani's times on climbs etc. I'm not one to fall for fairy tales personally.
What is a fishy doctor? One mans fish may be another mans dolphin.
Did Valverde dope in the period up to his ban? I doubt it since that would leave him in hot water with his Puerto case still ongoing. Or could it be that it was dirty when he was banned, then everyone including him got clean, and we are only now seeing their real capabilities?
When you use performance relating to his previous self, or previous others/current others, the variables become to complex. Hence performance is not a good measure of doping.
I'm not really that into "seeing" since what I see that I find outside the norm can have many different explanations unrelated to doping.
I can't say ive noticed many "ridiculous performances". There are just too many variables to count that could explain why a time is so good: Wind strength/direction, drafting or not. Day climb occurs in tour. When climb is on the stage. What the stage was like the previous day. I'm sure there are more.