2013 Cleanest Peloton Ever

[DirtyWorks]

Why don't you just explain why nobody in the past 2yrs has been able to match the level of performance that was commonplace from the early 90s up to and including 2009?

All those DS's got religion, told the dope suppliers to find new customers and everyone stopped doping. Uh huh. Someone should have informed Lienders his services were no longer required.

I happen to know Robin Parisotto personally......

No pain here. To summarize your argument, "To the cynics and the sceptics – I feel sorry for you that you can’t dream big – and I’m sorry you can’t believe in a clean peloton.”

Good job on the veiled personal attack. I like how you added the fallacious appeal to authority in there as well. Science is in good hands with those rhetorical skills. Stay classy.

 

[Krebs cycle]

All those DS's got religion, told the dope suppliers to find new customers and everyone stopped doping. Uh huh. Someone should have informed Lienders his services were no longer required.

Really is that the best you can come up with? How disappointing. I take back I said about you making some decent posts. This is truly disgraceful.

And don't play the victim regarding "thinly veiled personal attacks". You and your cronies are the biggest trolls on this forum. You think you own this place and you cry like a baby when anyone who can see straight through your BS calls you out on it.

 

[Galic Ho]

I am going to buck the trend and say that I believe this year is probably the cleanest in many years simply because of the attention busting Lance has brought. I think that many riders will question whether it is wise in this atmosphere to dope. Certainly there is doping, but I really believe (on a gut level mind you) that it is cleaner this year.

We'll see if a doping scandal during the Tour changes my mind.

Seeing Igor Anton struggle to get any ground on other riders on a CAT 2 climb that is 3km is a tell. Some are going cleaner. Others aren't. Astarloza will be a big tell on Euskatel.

If what you say is right, then the few dopers will be obvious. They'll make everyone else look positively crap. Not that I believe it's clean.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Really is that the best you can come up with? How disappointing. I take back I said about you making some decent posts. This is truly disgraceful.

.

Yeah Dirtyworks. You need to school up and get yo self a PhD, yo. Then you can dazzle us with posts like this

yeah apparently if you have puffy cheeks you're a doper, but also if you are as thin as a rake then you're also doping.

So when you take the dope that causes puffy cheeks and combine it with the dope that helps you lose weight, the effects cancel each other out and thus if you appear normal looking on the "looks like quacks like" anti-doping test, you are a doper.

Since all cyclists are either thin, or normal looking, or have puffy cheeks this means that everyone is still doping and nothing has changed. And since Lance never tested positive you can't actually catch anyone with the test, therefore, it's sole purpose is to promote interweb mass debate.

 

[meat puppet]

how about veloclinic's posts about nibali? trending downwards in comparison to pre-2005 performances but...

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/54388530328/a-thousand-words-on-doping

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The bottom line is this: as soon as someone dopes, there is no longer a level playing field, even if everyone is doping.

A difference in performance of 1% can make a difference between winning or losing, or making the front group and a top 10 / 20 or not.

So despite the observed drop in performance, anyone gaining 1% improvement in training ability through OOC training enhancement aids, anyone using something like cortisone (Europcar anyone?) for recovery, not even counting the EPO cases still being paraded as "winning the doping fight" or the lack of testing to pick up transfusions, means "cleaner" is a play on words. Anti-doping theatre.

The cleaner = less doping benefit argument is like saying you only have a little bit of excrement on your hands, and don't need to wash them to eat. I disagree. Ironically, so would Brailsford.

 

[Galic Ho]

how about veloclinic's posts about nibali? trending downwards in comparison to pre-2005 performances but...

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/54388530328/a-thousand-words-on-doping

Images are broken. They are not showing.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that nobody will go under 40min up Alpe d'Huez this year.

Very scientific.

You know what time Armstrong did in 1999 on the Alpe? Was he doped?

More interestingly would be to look at Alex Zulles time differences. A Terrados prepared young man was able to do the Alpe in low 38 minutes, 4 years later he did a 41 half. Only 3 minutes plus slower.

Same goes for Hautacam.

Who is doing what and where, the why isnt even that interesting.

But hey, that wouldnt be scientific.

Why don't you just explain why nobody in the past 2yrs has been able to match the level of performance that was commonplace from the early 90s up to and including 2009?

So, because hematocrits are not jacked up to 50/60/64 therefore doping is gone.

Way to go.

Cleanest peloton ever, laziest scientists ever. Wait, Conconi said the same as you way back.

 

[Von Mises]

The cleaner = less doping benefit argument is like saying you only have a little bit of excrement on your hands, and don't need to wash them to eat. I disagree. Ironically, so would Brailsford.

Bad analogue. For arguments sake lets bring up Greg LeMond once agin. He was clean and he was successful, but it did not mean that the whole peloton was clean back then. It just meant that there was less doping, less effective doping, so talented rider like LeMond was able to compete with them. I doubt that today situation is same, but what I do think, is that we have moved towards this situation. It is cleaner, but not clean. You can be clean and be successful (I am not sure that you can win GT clean, yet), it is not anymore choice between dope or quit pro cycling.

So, because hematocrits are not jacked up to 50/60/64 therefore doping is gone.

Who has said that doping is gone? I havent read it. I dont think that Krebs Cycle is saying it.

 

[notrolfsorensen]

haha

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that nobody will go under 40min up Alpe d'Huez this year.

I'm pretty sure alot of guys will go under 40 this year. The fact is that all last season pretty much only 4 teams were really winning anything so the incentive to dope is just to big. Lance might have made a scare for some individuals - but then again... Michael Rasmussen said that he used doping on the night of Operacion Puerto yesterday on danish TV2. Scandal scares the riders - nut doesn't make them stop. At least didn't make Rasmussen stop

 

[Krebs cycle]

Yeah Dirtyworks. You need to school up and get yo self a PhD, yo. Then you can dazzle us with posts like this

Poor baby. Plays the victim card in one thread, trolls in the other. Hypocrite.


I'll ask you and DW one simple question.

Why are you guys so opposed to the possibility that cycling is actually getting cleaner? Why is it sooooo important to you that everyone is still doping?

The evidence is clear. The times are slower, the incidence of extreme blood profiles has dropped, there are many within the anti-doping community saying that change is occurring. You refuse to accept all of this, stick your head up your own ar$e and repeat the same lamo cliches day in day out. But when anyone asks you to explain why they are going slower you cry like a baby and start trolling.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The evidence is clear. The times are slower, the incidence of extreme blood profiles has dropped, there are many within the anti-doping community saying that change is occurring.

I'll ask you a question: why is it that this year CADF did not release any summarised BP data in their annual report.

From the studies released post 2008/9 introduction of the BP, to the 2010/11 report, we had summaries of retics and Hgb values.

This year: nada.

Every time I post in this forum I do so with the intent of stimulating proper and decent discussion of the facts, but without fail, you and others come along and derail the discussion with idiotic troll rubbish almost every time. It is childish and stupid.

Uh huh...

You refuse to accept all of this, stick your head up your own ar$e and repeat the same lamo cliches day in day out. But when anyone asks you to explain why they are going slower you cry like a baby and start trolling.

Of course we notice things have slowed down.

That's not the same as being a dope free peloton.

Quit stawmanning your posts, it's transparent.

 

[UlleGigo]

I'll ask you and DW one simple question.

Why are you guys so opposed to the possibility that cycling is actually getting cleaner? Why is it sooooo important to you that everyone is still doping?

I'm going to guess that your vast and innumerable studies have not yet involved a foray into the glorious arena of mathematics because that's clearly two questions.

 

[Taxus4a]

Dear me you guys act like babies sometimes. Just grow the f up and be normal. Nobody who knows anything about pro cycling or anti-doping said these things. Maybe some PR hack at the UCI did, but sif you'd believe anything Pat McQuaid said on the topic though.

Why don't you just explain why nobody in the past 2yrs has been able to match the level of performance that was commonplace from the early 90s up to and including 2009?



edit: Can we not allow this thread to be a discussion surrounding the question "is cycling cleaner now?" and do away with the hysterics?

The operative word being "cleaner" NOT "clean".

I posted a good article once and I'll post it again...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features...vided-key-information-in-lance-armstrong-case

Paul Scott says the following....



I happen to know Robin Parisotto personally. He sits on the UCI blood doping panel and has access to all of the biopassport data. I spoke with him recently and told me exactly the same thing as Paul Scott.

DW you are entitled to your opinion, that is fine, but people like Paul Scott and Rob Parisotto are far better informed than you and their opinion is worth more than yours. I'm sure this pains your heart to hear this, but its true.

For me the most interesting of that link is this:

Scott says the risks of being caught doping, while higher than previously, are still "relatively low". "But I think for many teams, and in general, the culture has changed, and specifically with regard to several teams, including the one that won this year, the culture has been actively anti-doping."

But, he says, "It would be naive to think there will be a switch turned off. Hopefully we'll see a continued decrease in the significance and prevalence of it, in the long run, hopefully it will look like doping in many other sports.

"When you think about it, it's cheating much in the same way that many other things that go on are cheating. It just seems to have a greater moral outrage about this particular type of cheating. Cheating is prevalent in all sport, and when we catch it, we penalize it.


I always said to the clinic: when you talk about doping you are looking in the wrong direction, but anyway I think WADA is interesting always in show more doping than there is, but I agree with his statements, I must believe, they are the most informed and neutral.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I'm going to guess that your vast and innumerable studies have not yet involved a foray into the glorious arena of mathematics because that's clearly two questions.

I'm guessing that you've got nothing to contribute except being a troll?

 

[Krebs cycle]

I'll ask you a question: why is it that this year CADF did not release any summarised BP data in their annual report.

From the studies released post 2008/9 introduction of the BP, to the 2010/11 report, we had summaries of retics and Hgb values.

This year: nada.

Lol the thing that is so laughable about you is that below you accuse me of using strawman arguments but you don't even understand what that means because you're doing it right here.

I don't know the answer to any of this, but I do know that if the retics and Hb results have not been released it doesn't mean that EVERYONE is doping.

Uh huh...

You're a complete moron if you think we don't notice things have slowed down.

That's not the same as being a dope free peloton.

Quit stawmanning your posts, it's transparent.

The fact that the peloton has slowed does not mean it is dope free. I've never seen anyone in this forum say that. I've never said it.

Why are you unable to explain why the peloton has slowed down?

Why didn't you answer my questions? Why is it so important to you that nothing has changed and everyone is doping? Why don't you believe those in the anti-doping community who say that change is occurring?

 

[willbick]

Ha ha you guys are all crazy!! I think you should get out more, the sun is shining and life is short. 3 Cheers for team sky leading the way in a new clean era for pro cycling! Ok so some guys may still be bending the rules a little but the advantage is so much smaller than in the past and that is a great thing

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am going to buck the trend and say that I believe this year is probably the cleanest in many years simply because of the attention busting Lance has brought. I think that many riders will question whether it is wise in this atmosphere to dope. Certainly there is doping, but I really believe (on a gut level mind you) that it is cleaner this year.

We'll see if a doping scandal during the Tour changes my mind.

I was going to joke earlier that this month has seen less doping than June, which had less doping than May. Therefore cycling is much cleaner.

I agree with what you say, but that's just everyone dropping their bung when a cop car appeaers. If it stays it may have an effect, if it drives on things will start back the way it was.
The biggest issue presently is removing anti-doping from the hands of the UCI. That is on the cards and if it happens has the potential to do more than any single advance in the last 10 years, including the Bio Passport.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Why are you unable to explain why the peloton has slowed down?

Because the tree of ridiculous performances put in by Bradley Wiggins from Jan to Aug 2012 far outweighs any forest of an entire peloton slowing down.

Brad is now replaced by Froome, and to a lesser extent Porte.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Very scientific.

You know what time Armstrong did in 1999 on the Alpe? Was he doped?

More interestingly would be to look at Alex Zulles time differences. A Terrados prepared young man was able to do the Alpe in low 38 minutes, 4 years later he did a 41 half. Only 3 minutes plus slower.

Same goes for Hautacam.

Who is doing what and where, the why isnt even that interesting.

But hey, that wouldnt be scientific.

So, because hematocrits are not jacked up to 50/60/64 therefore doping is gone.

Way to go.

Cleanest peloton ever, laziest scientists ever. Wait, Conconi said the same as you way back.

Seriously. Why did you write all this?

Krebs said no such thing, they didn't even allude to anything like that.
What value to debate (let alone anti-doping) does making up something do? If you have a valid argument why not make it clearly and stand by it.

The people who shout down and object to anyone stating the word 'cleaner' do far more to pollute the argument and undermine their position than any hardheaded fan.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I was going to joke earlier that this month has seen less doping than June, which had less doping than May. Therefore cycling is much cleaner.

I agree with what you say, but that's just everyone dropping their bung when a cop car appeaers. If it stays it may have an effect, if it drives on things will start back the way it was.
The biggest issue presently is removing anti-doping from the hands of the UCI. That is on the cards and if it happens has the potential to do more than any single advance in the last 10 years, including the Bio Passport.

This..............

 

[DirtyWorks]

Poor baby. Plays the victim card in one thread, trolls in the other. Hypocrite.

I'll ask you and DW one simple question.

Why are you guys so opposed to the possibility that cycling is actually getting cleaner?

I see you are staying classy. Another personal attack followed by a fallacious appeal to widespread belief. There is no independent proof cycling is getting cleaner except your earlier fallacious appeal to authority. There's less oxygen vector doping as various power metrics suggest, but that's not the same thing as a dope-free(er) peloton.

Why is it sooooo important to you that everyone is still doping?

It invalidates the premise of the game. The list in my first post shows most of the long time team management that embraced oxygen vector doping are still around and most likely pushing the leading edge of doping technology.

 

[SeriousSam]

There's less oxygen vector doping as various power metrics suggest, but that's not the same thing as a dope-free(er) peloton.
.

Actually it is, if cleanliness is measured in terms of how much performance is enhanced by banned substances

 

[TheBean]

Testing is by definition always the best its been. And evading anti doping is also always the best it's been.

Excellent point. This will ALWAYS be the case.

It's a tough tricky right now. Nearly every DS has been implicated himself, or linked to a team or rider(s) that have been caught.

Now, the 1998 blood results are coming out and even more implications are baing made.

I just saw Eddy Merckx (three positives during his career) shaking hands on the podium with riders after the TTT. Even the "royalty" of the history of the sport have tarnished pasts.

The cheaters in the earliest years werehopping on trains - literally - instead of actually riding from point to point. It was easy to put a stop to that. Then, the riders were using cocaine, amphetamines, and other "street" drugs to get a boost. That also seems to have been fixed (except maybe Boonen in the off-season). Then came steroids, followed closely by EPO/CERA. The testing seems at least marginally effective for those. The whole electric-motors-in-down-tubes romors seem to have come and gone as bikes were examined with x-ray. That ended up being a non-story.

The big question I have is this: What are the riders using NOW?

The thought that they are all playing by the rules is beautiful, but it seems completely contradictory to the history of the sport and the histories of the individuals who govern and direct the sport.

The way I see it, I can be a fan and enjoy the show, or be a sceptic and ignore it all. I choose to be a fan and even celebrate that the chess match of doping vs. controls is part of the game.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Because the tree of ridiculous performances put in by Bradley Wiggins from Jan to Aug 2012 far outweighs any forest of an entire peloton slowing down.

Brad is now replaced by Froome, and to a lesser extent Porte.

No - one performance, or even a number of performances does not invalidate that the peloton is slowing down.