• 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!

All pro-cyclists?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
D-Queued said:
Grossly underestimates big names, and you should minimally add your medium names - otherwise your statistics are distorted by only including the GC leaders of the top teams, for example. Minimally, you must include all GC Leaders and the super domestiques as Big Names. In addition, those who test positive twice (e.g. Nozal) should be counted for each positive.

e.g.

Victor Hugo Pena - first Colombian to wear the yellow jersey; former Postie
Tyler Hamilton - Hello?
Sinkewitz - T-Mobile, winner of the Tour of Germany, consistent top 5 in classics
Nozal - ONCE, Liberty Seguros, Runner Up in 2003 Vuelta
Triki Beltran - Hello?
etc.

Dave.

Von Mises said:
I counted by date of violation, not by date of suspension. So, some names from 2007 I did not count.

I do not have time to go over all names, but ...

Moreni is a stage winner of Vuelta and Giro + Italian road race champion. Not sure is it small fry...
Sinkewitz is at least med name.
Horillo was cleared later.
Leukemans is a med name.
Beltran 6th overall Vuelta + 9th overall Vuelta.
Casper - med name at least.
Sosenka - hour record holder.
Pfannberger - top10 places Amstel, LBL, World Road Race, Fleche.
Caucchioli - top 10 Giro, 11th at Tour.
etc...


Feel free to redefine as you wish. Big name is in the eye of the beholder. You can apply as broad or narrow definition as you see fit. We have 99 positive/violations since 2007 based on the reports on dopeology.

I'm sorry for applying elementary statistical concepts to criticize your faulty reasoning. How rude of me

Except you didn't did you ****face? You picked a few words to make yourself sound like you knew what you talked about and tried to claim that a survey of who has been popped is more than it is.

Nevermind, back to trolling the Sky threads for you.
 
Oct 1, 2010
78
0
0
Visit site
Mrs John Murphy said:
Except you didn't did you ****face? You picked a few words to make yourself sound like you knew what you talked about and tried to claim that a survey of who has been popped is more than it is.

Wrong. He posted a perfectly valid point and then you started acting up like a ****ing ***.
 
Nope. His point wasn't valid because he was trying to claim that it was something that it wasn't.

However, if you and he want to design a much better way to analyse who gets popped in the peloton, go for it. Show me how it should be done.

levione said:
That's a lot of agression. When Wiggins let rip like that a tthe tour people said it was evidence that he was doping...

A ****faced troll is a ****faced troll and I treat them as such.
 
Mrs John Murphy said:
Feel free to redefine as you wish. Big name is in the eye of the beholder. You can apply as broad or narrow definition as you see fit. We have 99 positive/violations since 2007 based on the reports on dopeology.



Except you didn't did you ****face? You picked a few words to make yourself sound like you knew what you talked about and tried to claim that a survey of who has been popped is more than it is.

Nevermind, back to trolling the Sky threads for you.

I think a preliminary objective way to analyze that would be to take each rider's average cq score for, say, the 2 years prior to them getting popped, and then compare the collective average of those popped with the entire peloton in a given year. Of course, just to avoid total messiness, you might want to eliminate all the positives of non ProTour riders and just focus on the average score of ProTour riders vs. average score of ProTour riders busted. Otherwise you'd be averaging the score of every rider who rides, which would take the average rider score down quite a bit (and my understanding is that doping controls are far more frequent on the WT level than every little CT race).

(note: although I find this interesting, I don't have the time to do it right now)

Nevertheless, eyeballing what you put together (thanks for that) seems to suggest to me a couple of possible observations:

1) it's not just 'small fry'. I don't see how that claim could be supported. Imagine a peloton of 200 riders, all doping, and 22 'big names' were caught. That would be pretty much every team leader in the race. Having 22 out of 99 (fewer total riders, if you only focus on PT and eliminate riders who are caught at the CT or PCT level) seems to be a pretty big argument against the idea that it's only 'small fry' that get caught.

2) this would also suggest that doping is more skewed towards the riders at the pointy end of the peloton, ie. not distributed evenly throughout it.

Of course, either of these observations depend on how much you want to 'correct' for the fact that winners get tested more often. But then, if you're going to argue that, you're going to argue that testing works. Aside from the fact that the whole premise of doping is that you presume you won't get caught, ie. you presume the testing won't work, I've often seen people here make the assertion that both testing doesn't work and that only the small riders get caught. Based on this rudimentary analysis, these seem like they might be contradictory claims.

Anyway, if anyone wanted to do some real analysis I'd be super interested, I'm kind of a stat head.

(just to be clear, MJM although I'm replying to your post, I'm using 'you' in the general sense, not suggesting that I know what your personal theory is on everything)
 
The thing that leapt out to me is how the number of positive tests seem to have dropped away over the last 24 months.

There is always the context element.

2008/9 - the year the CERA test comes in and that seems to catch a chunk of people

2009/10 - the biopassport introduced - catches a chunk of people.

Looking at the 2012 poppings:

Houanard - EPO
F.Schleck - Xipamide
Di Gregorio - blood transfusion
Furdi - Amphetamine
Grabovski - EPO
Galimzyanov - EPO
Offredo -whereabouts/missed tests

Bertagnolli (who I missed on my original list) - biopassport

2011
A.Rasmussen - missed test/whereabouts but cleared on a technicality
Andrenacci - EPO
Pont - EPO
Muto - EPO
Sinkewitz - HGH
Kolobnev - Hydrochlorothiazide (HCT)(cleared later)
Baptista - whereabouts
Lopes - whereabouts
Knopf - undisclosed - 4 year ban
Kugler - blood transfusion

It has to be said dopeology is a great site and L'Arriviste really should be praised for his work in compiling it.

EPO seems to be the drug of choice or at least the drug that you can catch people with.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
ABP was introduced in 2008, and the bulk of testing was done then. I did rudimentary calcs based on a UCI press release for 2010/11.

It went something like this:

2008 - ~8000 ABP tests
2009 - ~9000 ABP tests
2010 - ~3000 ABP tests
2011 - ~3000 ABP tests

There are less ABP tests now than there were in 2008, and even in 2008, consider this:

8000 tests / 800+ athletes is < 1 test / month on average. More than enough time to get your system clear of any help.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
8000 tests / 800+ athletes is < 1 test / month on average. More than enough time to get your system clear of any help.

And you have three chances to miss a test and not being available (not answer door) doesn't count as a strike.

Look at Armstrong's whereabouts in the USADA files.

Beating the bio passport is like passing a grade one spelling bee.

I don't know why people think that it unlocks the mystery of doping.

The 2008 figures to the 2011 says bullsh!t to Wiggins/Miller etc. saying there's "more controls" now etc.

Thats's clearly not the case.

Doping was as easy as it was in 2001. If not more so. The only thing holding them back is the EPO test - and trying to look "normal" rather than "not normal".
 
Dear Wiggo said:
ABP was introduced in 2008, and the bulk of testing was done then. I did rudimentary calcs based on a UCI press release for 2010/11.

It went something like this:

2008 - ~8000 ABP tests
2009 - ~9000 ABP tests
2010 - ~3000 ABP tests
2011 - ~3000 ABP tests

There are less ABP tests now than there were in 2008, and even in 2008, consider this:

8000 tests / 800+ athletes is < 1 test / month on average. More than enough time to get your system clear of any help.

I think you have to start off with a lot of tests, because you have to find a baseline to work from. Hence the reduction in testing seems normal. Thats my understanding of it anyway. Once you have the baseline you focus your testing on those with suspicious profiles. Surprise test at 06:00 etc.

So a guy with a suspicious profile is supposed to get tested a lot more than a guy with an unsuspicious profile.

But the problem is if one trusts the UCI not to massage things for whatever purpose. And that is kind of the problem with the UCI right now.
 
ToreBear said:
I think you have to start off with a lot of tests, because you have to find a baseline to work from. Hence the reduction in testing seems normal. Thats my understanding of it anyway. Once you have the baseline you focus your testing on those with suspicious profiles. Surprise test at 06:00 etc.

So a guy with a suspicious profile is supposed to get tested a lot more than a guy with an unsuspicious profile.

But the problem is if one trusts the UCI not to massage things for whatever purpose. And that is kind of the problem with the UCI right now.

So new riders joining the peloton in 2010 don't get baselined?

The reduction in tests was to fund McQuaid's GCP. That's where the money went and why there's less testing.

But as long as they can say they have a "bio" they have it.

Part of Pellozotti's defense was that he'd only ever had 3 bio tests in one year and how could anything be determined from that!?
 
thehog said:
So new riders joining the peloton in 2010 don't get baselined?

The reduction in tests was to fund McQuaid's GCP. That's where the money went and why there's less testing.

But as long as they can say they have a "bio" they have it.

Part of Pellozotti's defense was that he'd only ever had 3 bio tests in one year and how could anything be determined from that!?

People retire out of the bp group and join the bp group. So the numbers wouldn't vary that much.

Were the money went, I have no idea. Could also be Pat got scared from all the doping cases, and wanted to reduce it's effectiveness.

Yep the bio is only as good as it's implementation as far as I understand it.

On Pellozotti I don't know. But I think there might be more tests involved. Only 3 of them would be bio tests, while there were perhaps plenty of urin and blood tests as well?
 
ToreBear said:
People retire out of the bp group and join the bp group. So the numbers wouldn't vary that much.

Were the money went, I have no idea. Could also be Pat got scared from all the doping cases, and wanted to reduce it's effectiveness.

Yep the bio is only as good as it's implementation as far as I understand it.

On Pellozotti I don't know. But I think there might be more tests involved. Only 3 of them would be bio tests, while there were perhaps plenty of urin and blood tests as well?

Your math is bad.

9000/8000 tests with say 800 riders (ProTour/Conti etc.) = 11.25/10 bio tests per year.

3000 tests with say 20% est. retirement and new joiners @ 3.75 tests per year.

Thus 3000 now @ 2 years. It would only take 5 years @ 3000 tests for everyone in the peloton to be baselined only on 3.75 tests or riders remaining had significant time on 3.75 tests per year thus drawing a new correlative bio number.

The money did go to GCP. The UCI announced it.

There are simply less controls and its easier to get away wih doping than in 2008.

Miller & Wiggins are full of it.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
ABP was introduced in 2008, and the bulk of testing was done then. I did rudimentary calcs based on a UCI press release for 2010/11.

It went something like this:

2008 - ~8000 ABP tests
2009 - ~9000 ABP tests
2010 - ~3000 ABP tests
2011 - ~3000 ABP tests

There are less ABP tests now than there were in 2008, and even in 2008, consider this:

8000 tests / 800+ athletes is < 1 test / month on average. More than enough time to get your system clear of any help.

are you sure that your numbers are correct?

UCI numbers say
2008 - 8’404
2009 - 10’603
2010 - 8’342
2011 - 8660

Numbers are coming from. http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTU3Njc&LangId=1
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NzYyNjE&LangId=1


Edit: It also seems that not all tests are counted as BP tests. Total number of tests is even higher http://www.uci.ch/templates/BUILTIN-NOFRAMES/Template1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTY1MTU&LangId=1
 
Mrs John Murphy said:
Feel free to redefine as you wish. Big name is in the eye of the beholder. You can apply as broad or narrow definition as you see fit. We have 99 positive/violations since 2007 based on the reports on dopeology.

Sure, but you have listed no-names/small fry: Bernucci, Pecharroman, Moreni, Sinkewitz, Kopp, Casper, Beltran, Bossoni, Sosenka, Vila, Guerra, Nozal, Serrano, Caucchioli, Pfannberger, Costa, Zaballa, Giunti - they have all been top 100 in CQ rankings, several of them more than once. Some other riders, though not top 100, have been still been prolific scores.
BTw, UCI world+Europe tour lists about 1400 riders. CQ gives about 3000 riders who have scored at least 1 point.

I still think that it is not right to say that small fry/no-names get busted more often. I agree with skidmark.
 
In the Mises versus Mrs argument, Von Mises certainly comes out top, logically, but also because he/she refuses to respond to abuse: would every poster on the forum please be so well behaved?
And who is this Miller the Hog links with Wiggins: Robert, David & Fran are all Millars:rolleyes:
 
Von Mises said:
are you sure that your numbers are correct?

UCI numbers say
2008 - 8’404
2009 - 10’603
2010 - 8’342
2011 - 8660

Numbers are coming from. http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTU3Njc&LangId=1
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NzYyNjE&LangId=1


Edit: It also seems that not all tests are counted as BP tests. Total number of tests is even higher http://www.uci.ch/templates/BUILTIN-NOFRAMES/Template1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTY1MTU&LangId=1

Excellent post!
 
Sep 21, 2012
296
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
Your math is bad.

9000/8000 tests with say 800 riders (ProTour/Conti etc.) = 11.25/10 bio tests per year.
Where did the testing pool number of 800 riders come from?
The number of tested riders doesn't come from just the roadies. It also includes track, mountain, cross, BMX and the rest, doesn't it?
 
Sep 21, 2012
296
0
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
8000 tests / 800+ athletes is < 1 test / month on average. More than enough time to get your system clear of any help.

thehog said:
Your math is bad.

9000/8000 tests with say 800 riders (ProTour/Conti etc.) = 11.25/10 bio tests per year.
Where did the testing pool number of 800 riders come from?

The number of tested riders doesn't come from just the roadies. It also includes track, mountain, cross, BMX and the rest, doesn't it?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Von Mises said:
are you sure that your numbers are correct?

UCI numbers say
2008 - 8’404
2009 - 10’603
2010 - 8’342
2011 - 8660

Numbers are coming from. http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTU3Njc&LangId=1
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NzYyNjE&LangId=1


Edit: It also seems that not all tests are counted as BP tests. Total number of tests is even higher http://www.uci.ch/templates/BUILTIN-NOFRAMES/Template1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTY1MTU&LangId=1

Thanks for the update - I had looked around for the official figures but not been able to find them.

My estimate was based on a press release from UCI, who only included blood test data. My guesstimate was 3800 blood tests / year - UCI says they did ~5000 in 2010 and ~4600 in 2011.

So no, not correct at all. My bad!

They mention the fact that costs had to be cut and deficits from previous years made up - I'd still be keen to see a breakdown of contributions from pro teams and costs.

Is it 20 teams x 150,000 = $3,000,000 / 10,000 tests = $300 / test?
 
Dear Wiggo said:
They mention the fact that costs had to be cut and deficits from previous years made up - I'd still be keen to see a breakdown of contributions from pro teams and costs.

Is it 20 teams x 150,000 = $3,000,000 / 10,000 tests = $300 / test?

Contribution for the Biological Passport Program in 2010 and 2011

Stakeholders 2010 2011
UCI 1 093 200 1 105 000
Riders 250 000 260 000
Organisers 905 359 890 000
UCI ProTeams 3 141 300 2 700 000
UCI Continental Pro Teams 1 527 100 1 725 000

Pro Teams, organisers less, all others a bit more.
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NzYyNjE&LangId=1
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Von Mises said:
Sure, but you have listed no-names/small fry: Bernucci, Pecharroman, Moreni, Sinkewitz, Kopp, Casper, Beltran, Bossoni, Sosenka, Vila, Guerra, Nozal, Serrano, Caucchioli, Pfannberger, Costa, Zaballa, Giunti - they have all been top 100 in CQ rankings, several of them more than once. Some other riders, though not top 100, have been still been prolific scores.
BTw, UCI world+Europe tour lists about 1400 riders. CQ gives about 3000 riders who have scored at least 1 point.

I still think that it is not right to say that small fry/no-names get busted more often. I agree with skidmark.

Do you remain a 'big name' for life? I'd say that to be considered a big name you'd need to be top 50 at the time you are busted. Outside the top 100 at the time of your busting (and not a winner of a major race previously) then not a big name.

A narrower group but also by virtue of their position more likely to be tested.

Going down the list my response to the names was 'who' more often than 'big name'.

Do the testing numbers take into account tests by national feds as well. It would be interesting to compare and contrast the number of tests (in competition, OOC, UCI and national anti-doping) that:
Contador
Wiggins/Froome/Cavendish
Griepel
Basso
Voeckler
Phinney
Evans
Boonen
F.Schleck
Menchov

Had over the last 12 months vs say Muto, Furdi, Grabovski, Galimzyanov over the last 12 months.

However, someone else can do the data hunting for that.

It would be interesting to work out given the size of the testing pool just how often the average pro (ie not someone winning or placing in races) is tested over a 36 month period.
 
Von Mises said:
Contribution for the Biological Passport Program in 2010 and 2011

Stakeholders 2010 2011
UCI 1 093 200 1 105 000
Riders 250 000 260 000
Organisers 905 359 890 000
UCI ProTeams 3 141 300 2 700 000
UCI Continental Pro Teams 1 527 100 1 725 000

Pro Teams, organisers less, all others a bit more.
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NzYyNjE&LangId=1


Personally I would like the UCI pro teams(world tour teams?) to pay more. They are the ones who pay big money to riders who again can pay big money to Ferrari, which again needs costly testing to catch. Also I think they are the ones who can afford it the most.
 
Mrs John Murphy said:
Do you remain a 'big name' for life? I'd say that to be considered a big name you'd need to be top 50 at the time you are busted. Outside the top 100 at the time of your busting (and not a winner of a major race previously) then not a big name.

A narrower group but also by virtue of their position more likely to be tested.

True, but I think that situation is even more complicated.

- yes, narrower group by virtue of their position more likely to be tested.
- but also, if group is narrower, then it is also logical that number of busted from this group is smaller than number of busted from larger group. 22 busted from group of 50 vs 77 busted from group of 1350
- sometimes smaller names may be tested even more often than bigger names. I´d not be surprised if Galimzyanov or Casper are tested more often than Schlecks or Menchov only due to the fact that Galimzyanov and Casper have lot of podiums and lot of wins (from smaller races though). Lot of these no-names are actually prolific scores, good results from smaller races may not make you big name, but may result more frequemt testing.
- sometimes busting of "no-name" may come from the fact that this "no-name" decided to step up: started doping, got results, was tested, got busted. Grabovski seems to be good case for this. No results at all, then outclimbed everyone at Tour of Turkey. Pfannberger is similar. Regular 200 pointer turned into into close to 1000 pointers (decided to dope (again), got results, was tested, got busted).
 
Von Mises said:
True, but I think that situation is even more complicated.

- yes, narrower group by virtue of their position more likely to be tested.
- but also, if group is narrower, then it is also logical that number of busted from this group is smaller than number of busted from larger group. 22 busted from group of 50 vs 77 busted from group of 1350
- sometimes smaller names may be tested even more often than bigger names. I´d not be surprised if Galimzyanov or Casper are tested more often than Schlecks or Menchov only due to the fact that Galimzyanov and Casper have lot of podiums and lot of wins (from smaller races though). Lot of these no-names are actually prolific scores, good results from smaller races may not make you big name, but may result more frequemt testing.
- sometimes busting of "no-name" may come from the fact that this "no-name" decided to step up: started doping, got results, was tested, got busted. Grabovski seems to be good case for this. No results at all, then outclimbed everyone at Tour of Turkey. Pfannberger is similar. Regular 200 pointer turned into into close to 1000 pointers (decided to dope (again), got results, was tested, got busted).

In addition we have targeted testing, and that some national feds seem to be keener than others to test OOC.