• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

70% of Podium Riders Since 2008 Clean

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Zam_Olyas said:
I think he is another one of those sky fanboy who is an "expert" in cycling and terribly smug..

No need to be insulting just because someone posts something at odds with your views. I'm no fan of SKY at all as it happens.

I happen to like what Ashenden has to say on the whole and, as this tallies with what the SoS boys have been saying for over a year, I'm happy to be a bit more optimistic for the future. Let's face it, looking back at cycling's past is pretty depressing.

Mind you, if you find my posts troubling, you may be amongst those that appear to WANT cycling to be dirty.
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
1
0
Visit site
30% minimum

armchairclimber said:
Ashenden's figures are vague and we don't even know which races he's talking about. However, if you take them at face value then 30% dirty means 70% clean. And yes, that's absolutely what it means.

If you are going to use the 30% figure to draw negative conclusions then you have to accept that it's perfectly legitimate to use the 70% more optimistically.

Sorry I forgot to link the Guardian article in the OP. :)

Dude we know from elsewhere that Ashenden thinks the biopassport can be beaten using microdosing. Also he says "30% of podium finishers are implicated in doping" - that's not mentioning his estimate of how many actally are, just the facts of those who have accepted links to it. It would be sensible to assume he's referring to the Tour podiums from 2008 and appearances from Contador, Armstrong and Menchov (humanplasma?) - only well founded links to doping in the public domain. He's unlikely to flag up any private suspicions in a Guardian article, as the public figure he is.

Not trying to put words in his mouth, but he's not removing suspicion from the rest of the peloton in that statement.
 
armchairclimber said:
According to Michael Ashenden. Good news that. Not good enough, but encouraging. :rolleyes:

NiggaPlease.png
 
taiwan said:
Dude we know from elsewhere that Ashenden thinks the biopassport can be beaten using microdosing. Also he says "30% of podium finishers are implicated in doping" - that's not mentioning his estimate of how many actally are, just the facts of those who have accepted links to it. It would be sensible to assume he's referring to the Tour podiums from 2008 and appearances from Contador, Armstrong and Menchov (humanplasma?) - only well founded links to doping in the public domain. He's unlikely to flag up any private suspicions in a Guardian article, as the public figure he is.

Not trying to put words in his mouth, but he's not removing suspicion from the rest of the peloton in that statement.

It's actually consistent with what he has been saying for a while: that the BP has made it much more difficult for the dopers. There would be no point in mentioning a 30% figure at all unless he was implying that 70% of the peleton is clean.

It's also consistent with what the likes of JV are telling us. Frankly, joining the dots (in the same was as dots are joined to conclude that Wiggins is doping for instance) the sport is much cleaner and the dopes are now the exception rather than the rule.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,136
4
0
Visit site
roundabout said:
Bull****.

Pellizotti tainted, fact.

Ricco tainted, fact

Di Luca tainted, fact

Kohl tainted, fact

Mosquera tainted, fact

Not to mention Schleck, Armstrong, (possibly) Leipheimer and potentially Menchov and a previous cheat like Valverde

It's not negative conclusions, it's the ****ing reality.

these are correct. others are not from what we can tell so far. still, that isn't 30% of the past 4 years and it's nothing in the past 2 seasons for instance
 
armchairclimber said:
It's actually consistent with what he has been saying for a while: that the BP has made it much more difficult for the dopers. There would be no point in mentioning a 30% figure at all unless he was implying that 70% of the peleton is clean.

It's also consistent with what the likes of JV are telling us. Frankly, joining the dots (in the same was as dots are joined to conclude that Wiggins is doping for instance) the sport is much cleaner and the dopes are now the exception rather than the rule.

Funny, only yesterday Ashenden was saying how the ABP hadn't worked as well as they hoped and that there was plenty of suspicious data (in your clean 70%) which just couldn't be acted on.
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
1
0
Visit site
armchairclimber said:
It's actually consistent with what he has been saying for a while: that the BP has made it much more difficult for the dopers. There would be no point in mentioning a 30% figure at all unless he was implying that 70% of the peleton is clean.

It's also consistent with what the likes of JV are telling us. Frankly, joining the dots (in the same was as dots are joined to conclude that Wiggins is doping for instance) the sport is much cleaner and the dopes are now the exception rather than the rule.
He mentions the 30% comparing it to the 70% "through to 2010" to illustrate that there has been an improvement in the last few years. Not to state that 70% are now reliably clean.

It would be interesting to hear his off-the-record best guess of how many in the WT were doping.
 
roundabout said:
Bull****.

Pellizotti tainted, fact.

Ricco tainted, fact

Di Luca tainted, fact

Kohl tainted, fact

Mosquera tainted, fact

Not to mention Schleck, Armstrong, (possibly) Leipheimer and potentially Menchov and a previous cheat like Valverde

It's not negative conclusions, it's the ****ing reality.

Maybe he meant that after those guys were disqualified, 30% of the podium finishers were implicated in doping :D
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
In politics, they occassionally use a leverage type effect when determining impact of an issue. eg: if 100 people complain about something, they multiply that by 10-1000, as often people do not actually complain about things.

Here, we see 30% of podium places implicated.

But this is clearly not a count of the dopers - it is a count of the obvious dopers, particularly when you recall failing a doping test is akin to failing an IQ test. ie the process of anti-doping per se is not the mechanism whereby dopers are caught; rather it is the dopers making a mistake.

So the statement is in fact saying, 30% of podium placed riders failed the anti-doping IQ test through their own inability to avoid getting caught.

This is reinforced by studies proving, for example, micro-dosing EPO does not raise any ABP flags. There is also testimony from people like Kohl, Hincapie, Millar, White, et al who either never tested positive, despite placing on the podium, or passed hundreds of tests before being caught. Caught due to a mistake, not due to an anti-doping test per se.

“The reality is that one third of podium finishers since 2008 have been tainted by doping in one form or another. I just don’t get how anyone can see that as anything but a terrible indictment.

To my way of thinking, the reality of the situation is there are smarter / luckier / better connected dopers passing the anti-doping IQ test, and the number of dopers (vs the number of caught dopers) on the podium is higher.

If the UCI are catching 50% of all dopers (which seems a ridiculously high percent, but I'm feeling generous), it is more likely that 60% of podium placers are doped, but only half of them have actually been tainted.

We still have a long way to go.
 
To be honest, it would be more interesting just to know from him what that 30% is...GT podiums? TDF? And to know where his figure is from. We're all just speculating really.

Personally, I believe that the peleton is MUCH cleaner now since the BP was introduced. I'm not sure where we are...I doubt anyone knows...50%, 70%?

I look forward to the day when micro-dosing can be reliably identified but, actually, I think that we have got to the stage where the risks of being caught probably outweigh the gains...which seem to be minimal.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
armchairclimber said:
To be honest, it would be more interesting just to know from him what that 30% is...GT podiums? TDF? And to know where his figure is from. We're all just speculating really.

Personally, I believe that the peleton is MUCH cleaner now since the BP was introduced. I'm not sure where we are...I doubt anyone knows...50%, 70%?

I look forward to the day when micro-dosing can be reliably identified but, actually, I think that we have got to the stage where the risks of being caught probably outweigh the gains...which seem to be minimal.

It's patently clear what he's talking about. I am not surprised given your energy was spent in twisting his message that you missed the words written on the page entirely.

Nor is Ashenden mollified by claims that results of recent Tours indicate a cleaner race generally.

“The reality is that one third of podium finishers since 2008 have been tainted by doping in one form or another. I just don’t get how anyone can see that as anything but a terrible indictment.

"I can’t think of any other federation who would be claiming their sport was in good shape if one third of their recent champions were tainted by doping."
 
Jul 16, 2012
45
0
0
Visit site
Turner29 said:

That's disingenuous. It implies that he is suspcious of them in terms of being potential dopers. That is not what he says. He is arguing tha there are holes in their policy of asking all employees about their past.

Despite what the conspiracy loons would like to read into what he writes, this does not mean that he thinks that their employees are engaged in doping, simply that he believes that there needs to be a more thorough process to detect any who might be either now or at any time in the past, in order that their claim (which he does not dispute) of their cleanliness can be watertight.

Interesting that yuou fail to highlight the fact, also mentioned in the same article, that there is no mention at all of Sean Yates in the USADA report. Much of the baseless nonsense aimed at Sky on here concerns Yates. The USADA's reprt, rightly praised by the vast majority for being a thorough examination of a systematic doping regime, has found, through the omission of his name, that he had nothing to do with it.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Visit site
Wow. So many. To one poster, I wanted to say HTFU. To another, I wanted to say STFU AND HTFU. And, I also wanted to say Lighten Up!

Listen to me. The logic behind reversing Ashenden's 30% to make it 70% is, ahem, INVALID. This is a commonly used argument technique - taking the opposite of a statement. But, the opposite is NOT necessarily true. The posters who point this out are correct. However, what they are so happily pointing out fails to recognize that MORE riders are clean - based on the same figures. We aren't talking figures accurate to four points here. We knew that, right?

Ok - moving on to the 30%. Please, poster, READ the references BEFORE you post!?@#!? It is patently obvious that several of you did NOT read the referenced article before posting. The reason you post is because you want me, and others, to seriously consider what you have to say. But, if it is OBVIOUS that you don't know what you are talking about, WHY should I listen to you? Ashenden CLEARLY stated that, since 2008, 30% of GT winners had been implicated in doping. Depending on your count, the actual number turns out to be 27.something percent - or something like that. So he rounds it to 30%. No problem by me - and I don't want to hear anybody complaining about a microscopic 3% difference. Depending on how you interpret events, it could be 32%. NO BFD!

What we DO have - approx 30% +/- 3%. Implicated in doping. GT podium. Ok. Next.

From 1995 to 2005, if you look at the GT podiums, I think your percent is gonna be like 95%. This has been the topic of other threads, and it was quite controversial trying to figure out who might have ridden CLEAN in those years. As I recall, only 3 riders in that 10 year period were NOT tagged by a direct doping accusation or test.

30% < 95%. You wanna argue that? Please - feel free.

You can hammer away at the 70%. You can righteously hammer away that it is false logic to say 70%. But we KNOW, based on the starting numbers, that things are better today than they were 5 years ago! Much better!

End result, we take Ashenden's negative spin, and try to find a positive spin. It is the same facts, the same numbers, but instead of pointing fingers of blame, we are trying to see where there might exist "HOPE".
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
so how many of those 30% tested positive? The non-70%

So I reckon the 70% clean is bunkum.

Less than 50% are not doing anything.

More than 50% are doing something
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
hiero2 said:
End result, we take Ashenden's negative spin, and try to find a positive spin. It is the same facts, the same numbers, but instead of pointing fingers of blame, we are trying to see where there might exist "HOPE".

Kinda reminds me of all those people at uni who were "hoping" to pass their exams. If you keep failing, you need to change what you are doing. If changing how you are judging pass / fail means it looks like more people are passing, like they did here in Aus when they brought in TER and suddenly noone "failed" per se, they were all just on a bell curve somewhere and it shifted so 50% of people passed (the analogy works so well now that I recall how it was originally described) - it doesn't mean you're not failing in reality.

I believe we need to change what we are doing. And by we I don't mean us, I mean them - the entire structure of professional cycling.

PS: Passive aggression doesn't suit you, Hiero2.
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
1
0
Visit site
blackcat said:
so how many of those 30% tested positive? The non-70%
Very good point. Or tested positive for stuff like clenbuterol which is not the rocket fuel which will win you the Tour (IMO).
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Visit site
hiero2 said:
... we are trying to see where there might exist "HOPE".

I'm all for supporting your Hope, and a closing of the dark era.

But only after a change in UCI leadership, doping testing independently from UCI, significantly more tests, and retrospective analyses.

Until such time, business as usual, same s**t different day. More sophisticated and maybe less dramatic doping, but still doping in significant numbers of riders. Certainly with the current majority of team managers and doctors. And continuing journalism Omerta...?
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
armchairclimber said:
I'm no fan of SKY at all as it happens.

Really? There I was thinking your postings in the Sky thread were quite tell tale. The tendency to run from facts and cling onto everything Krebs writes are suggesting some bias ;)
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Franklin said:
Really? There I was thinking your postings in the Sky thread were quite tell tale. The tendency to run from facts and cling onto everything Krebs writes are suggesting some bias ;)

It's a subtle objectivity meme. It fails for anyone with a grasp of the English language, but probably fools some people (eg: JimmyFingers) already drinking from the fountain.

It's used to remove the premise of "Conflict of Interest". If they are a fan - it taints their defense of Sky.

Occassionally armchairclimber has a dig at Froome, but the reliable message he tries to communicate is Sky = clean.

Because "fandom" is a subjective opinion, you cannot easily disagree with it - it's your word against his as it relates to his opinion. An argument easily won by the claimant.

Krebs even went so far as to write, "I actually think Wiggins is a ^&%&^%$" - but when I went to find the post later, it was either unfindable, or he edited it out after the fact.

As a debating / communication device, it is of interest to me.

The most curious anomaly for me is acoggan - whose identity is easily known. He rebuts the slightest error or twists posts to discredit their intent, unless it's one of the cabal (at least recently).

armchairclimber actually posted that Wiggins was training on steep climbs at altitude - something that is actually very damaging to your fitness and strength as a rider. Yet acoggan left it untouched. Given that it was part of a conversation between the two, it was truly telling. And galling.

It's a shame there isn't a way of proving "clean". That would rock.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Visit site
blackcat said:
so how many of those 30% tested positive? The non-70%
So I reckon the 70% clean is bunkum.
Less than 50% are not doing anything.
More than 50% are doing something

Shall I respond? Ah, but I know you like stirring the pot! :D

Dear Wiggo said:
Kinda reminds me of all those people at uni who were "hoping" to pass their exams. . . .

I believe we need to change what we are doing. And by we I don't mean us, I mean them - the entire structure of professional cycling. . . .
Have you emailed your UCI rep yet this week? Step on it, friend, the meeting is Friday! We need to keep on them. We must be worth something or JV would never have come here to post. He didn't do his bit in some other forum, he did it here. TELL THEM McQUAID and VERBRUGGEN MUST GO.

Dear Wiggo said:
PS: Passive aggression doesn't suit you, Hiero2.
Thanks for the laff! Passive aggressive, eh? Is that what I was doing? I was afraid of getting censored for using htfu and stfu!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzD6L8DmE-c from 1:14 to 1:35.

Tinman said:
I'm all for supporting your Hope, and a closing of the dark era.

But only after a change in UCI leadership, doping testing independently from UCI, significantly more tests, and retrospective analyses.

Until such time, business as usual, same s**t different day. . .
You said it, buddy. Fact.

Have you emailed your UCI mgmt rep today?

Dear Wiggo said:
. . .
It's a shame there isn't a way of proving "clean". That would rock.

You are SOOOO right. And everybody who is talking openly and rationally is saying the same thing. Except the apologists who are saying "everything is fine now, nothing to see here, move along, move along". We do get them too. But from Ashenden to Phinney, and every letter in between and beyond, they are saying
1. We have to have a reliable and trustworthy anti-doping program.

AND, to GET that - we have to get rid of the current system and we have to have BIG change!

Have you written your UCI rep today and told them McQUAID and VERBRUGGEN MUST GO?

[there goes that broken record again! srry - on a roll here. We have to try. This has got to stop, and McQuaid has made it utterly obvious in the last two days he fully intends to maintain the status quo, and the status quo is not good enough. ]

McQUAID and VERBRUGGEN MUST GO.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=19076
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
hiero2 said:
Thanks for the laff! Passive aggressive, eh? Is that what I was doing? I was afraid of getting censored for using htfu and stfu!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzD6L8DmE-c from 1:14 to 1:35.

I'm a big boy - if you disagree with something I write, let me know. You're not going to go Krebs Cycle about it, so like Pedro or Wallace or any of the other rational but dissenting posters we can discuss and clarify. "Some of you need to STFU / HTFU" comes across as PA to me, yes. :D

hiero2 said:
Have you written your UCI rep today and told them McQUAID and VERBRUGGEN MUST GO?

No. Primarily for the same reason I have not done a host of other things espoused here: namely, removing the UCI heads is a short-sighted and imo ineffective measure for the problem, which exists at a system level. It seems a little knee-jerky and overly expedient. I would say the same for replacing the UCI. Have you seen the statement from the IOC? NO investigation, plus a little pat on the back for the biopassport. Is replacing the UCI really going to change that? I say no.

People seem keen to replace Pat coz they don't like him as much as they want to fix the problem.

Trust me, I don't like him much either, but don't think replacing him fixes a problem. One read of the minutes from the last UCI "oversight" meeting has me convinced a solution needs to be able to stand apart from external influences as much as possible.

There's a lot more votes in Africa than Oceania, and noones writing to their UCI delegates there asking for change, at a guess.

I'm uh working on other things instead :D
 

TRENDING THREADS