At what point did cycling become "clean"?

[martinvickers]

Forget the result for one moment. Watch the race again. 4 guys rode 200km on the front. I've never seen anything like it. I thought it was non-human like. The tactics were poor but their strength was obvious. Then was backed up with 1-3 in the ITT.

It was generally accpeted at the time, and certainly noted by both the british and the germans, that the other teams prettty much LET them lead for that long because they were unwilling to help GB only to let Cavendish rock to victory - only in the last 40K did the germans, in particular, realise that this tactic also hurt them.

 

[SpeedWay]

Like all the haters around here have being saying for ages, when Armstrong is busted cycling will be clean. As laughable now as it was then. Oh well, that's what you get when choir boys try to interpret reality.

 

[Tinman]

2) There are the blood values. This graph illustrates the trend very well:

This doesn't mean that nobody is messing about with their blood by any means.

What the graph shows is that those who dope do so in less extreme ways. Maybe. Ie if the number of total tests conducted each year remains constant. It doesn't tell us anything about the number of riders doping per se.

Sot his can mean two things, either or, or both:
- less riders dope
- the remaining dopers test less dirty

The graph cannot even exclude the possibility that more riders dope, but do so in ways that reduce their incidence of getting caught, ie. by being less aggressive in the way they dope (number of races/amount in each race).

Or it may just mean that less tests were done.

This graph reminds me of a Netanyahu or Colin Powell snow job slide. In the absence of supporting data it does not tell us anything worthwhile, just seeds a likely erroneous impression.

 

[Tinman]

I think the term 'sophisticated' usually means something that is done better or more effectively which=better, if that is the case why are the numbers worse?.

"sophisticated"meaning with more knowledge and careful execution to stay within or closer to detection limits. So not as obviously dirty, but still doping. Just less likely to get caught.

Not sure what you mean by "why are the numbers worse".

 

[pmcg76]

"sophisticated"meaning with more knowledge and careful execution to stay within or closer to detection limits. So not as obviously dirty, but still doping. Just less likely to get caught.

Not sure what you mean by "why are the numbers worse".

If doping has not decreased, why have the power outputs and climbing speeds decreased?

 

[Tinman]

If doping has not decreased, why have the power outputs and climbing speeds decreased?

My hypothesis: because the amount/extent of doping has decreased. Ie. those who dope don't do it as extreme as in the past. I see no rationale for concluding that the number of riders doping has reduced.

I fact, with the knowledge of how to dope now so widespread, the health risks now better known, and the knowledge and precedents of the bio passport program, I think it can be justifiably argued that more riders dope now than ever before. As individuals just not as extreme as before, more "sophisticated", ie less likely to exceed the detection limits...

So the UCI spiel on "now clean"and "less doping" is just not supported by the data. It is purely speculative based on "less positive tests".

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Really looking forward to the 2012 UCI anti-doping data coming out. Should be a good read.

 

[pmcg76]

My hypothesis: because the amount/extent of doping has decreased. Ie. those who dope don't do it as extreme as in the past. I see no rationale for concluding that the number of riders doping has reduced.

I fact, with the knowledge of how to dope now so widespread, the health risks now better known, and the knowledge and precedents of the bio passport program, I think it can be justifiably argued that more riders dope now than ever before. As individuals just not as extreme as before, more "sophisticated", ie less likely to exceed the detection limits...

So the UCI spiel on "now clean"and "less doping" is just not supported by the data. It is purely speculative based on "less positive tests".

Sorry but if the numbers I mentioned are down, then there is less doping. You have zero evidence to back your view whilst at least we have the power numbers to suggest cycling is not as dirty whilst you somehow claim the opposite. You have nothing to argue with.

If the vast majority of the peloton were doping previously as generally accepted and stated by numerous riders, how can the amount of guys doping have increased. At what exact period can you point to that would suggest there were less riders doping than currently? When was this golden period?

 

[D-Queued]

Like all the haters around here have being saying for ages, when Armstrong is busted cycling will be clean. As laughable now as it was then. Oh well, that's what you get when choir boys try to interpret reality.

Interesting.

For over a decade - literally, ask my friends - I have stated that cycling cannot be cleaned up until Armstrong is exposed.

You may regard that as a subtle distinction.

I do not.

We have now achieved step 1.

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

That is **** poor, your so-called amazing revelation is that Schleck finished 44th and Zabriskie 54th. Clearly Zabriskie was in top form as he was beaten by 52 other guys as well.

If you had presented the TT from the Tour 09/10 and shown Schleck beating Zabriskie when Zabriskie finished Top 10 I would have given some credence.

No you would not have.

I don't mind debating with you, but you are at least as biased here as you are suggesting I am. Read your own rhetoric and watch your eye rolling.

Frank Schleck beating anyone in a TT is an amazing feat, let alone beating a former silver and bronze World TT medalist.

One claims to be clean, the other got popped for doping.

Was Z really out of form? Or, is the middle of the pack the best a TT specialist can do without a little help against the current field.

Schleck and Zabriskie arguably (yes, arguably not definitively) represent a cross over point of sorts.

Dave.

 

[Tinman]

Sorry but if the numbers I mentioned are down, then there is less doping. You have zero evidence to back your view whilst at least we have the power numbers to suggest cycling is not as dirty whilst you somehow claim the opposite. You have nothing to argue with.

If the vast majority of the peloton were doping previously as generally accepted and stated by numerous riders, how can the amount of guys doping have increased. At what exact period can you point to that would suggest there were less riders doping than currently? When was this golden period?

My friend no need to get aggressive.

Are power outputs and speeds down compared to the pre EPO era? One simple question... Or a qualitative one. Do you see a difference in the physical state of riders finishing 3 weeks of GT's now compared to the pre EPO era?

Do not misconstrue me saying "it can be justifiably argued", (ie. the graph does not dispell this) to mean I believe so. I don't. But I do not buy that based on the data before us we can conclude that the clean era has arrived, or that "there is little doping going on". Less, maybe, but less what? Less riders, less extreme HCt values, less racing days doped?

No substantial data, just spin and feel good for now. Yes, likely less of something, but still hugely significant doping in my view.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The 2010/2011 CADF business report was released in Feb 2012, so it looks like we must wait until Feb 2013 for 2012's numbers.

The problem with that graph above is this: IT IS OLD.

 

[Ferminal]

Some time in the future I will look at power numbers over the last decade. There is a lot of talk that current numbers are believable as they are slower than pre-EPO test. But the best part of the last decade was also known to be rife with doping.

Hypothesis is that today's numbers/times are not too dissimilar with some performances 04-07.

Additionally, when we look at the past we go for the achievements of the superdopers and use that as a benchmark. Maybe the alternative to look at the performance of the first clean rider would be more appropriate.

 

[hiero2]

. . .
Frank Schleck beating anyone in a TT is an amazing feat, let alone beating a former silver and bronze World TT medalist. . . .

One claims to be clean, the other got popped for doping.

Was Z really out of form? Or, is the middle of the pack the best a TT specialist can do without a little help against the current field.

Who in their right mind would suggest Frank Schleck as a clean rider?

I'm coming late to this convo. Been busy. Hog - if you aren't being sarcastic, your tongue is pushing your cheek out. And you disregarded Zinoviev's original arguments. He did an excellent job stating why things are not clean, but clean enough for a clean rider to win.

Recap. Blood history (passport) data is much better, speeds are down, power profiles are down. Of COURSE this isn't saying cycling is clean, and I, for one, am getting very tired of trying to get that point across. It isn't even as clean as it needs to be. But we DO have evidence it is clean enough for clean riders to win. Some people don't seem to want to hear it.

I know you are still cynical, and I don't blame ya for that. My scepticism lies only thinly buried. But lets not walk all over the reality of what we have too. We have some pretty good testimony now, not just from former doping cyclists, that the doping % got up to about 80-90% were doing something during the course of a year. Even if we have microdosing today, I find it difficult to believe we have anything like that today. Even though Ashenden didn't say his estimate today was 30%, he did point out that only 30% of the top finishers in the big GTs or the Tour, I forget, have gotten popped in the past 5 years. That is another big downturn.

And, yes, I'm still on board with getting rid of Pat and Hein. I don't think we can make it work with them - we have to do it without them. I can't see them doing anything except corrupting any real effort. Leopards can apply all the body paint they want - it still doesn't change their spots.

Cheers all.

 

[hiero2]

Some time in the future I will look at power numbers over the last decade. There is a lot of talk that current numbers are believable as they are slower than pre-EPO test. But the best part of the last decade was also known to be rife with doping.

Hypothesis is that today's numbers/times are not too dissimilar with some performances 04-07.

Additionally, when we look at the past we go for the achievements of the superdopers and use that as a benchmark. Maybe the alternative to look at the performance of the first clean rider would be more appropriate.

You know we have people out their already doing analyses, right? I forget the links - but get in touch with BusyBeehive - he'll know, I think. If he doesn't, get back to me, and I'll break out some time to go back and find what I'm talking about.

Correction: that shoulda been Cozy Beehive http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/search/label/Research

 

[Ferminal]

You know we have people out their already doing analyses, right? I forget the links - but get in touch with BusyBeehive - he'll know, I think. If he doesn't, get back to me, and I'll break out some time to go back and find what I'm talking about.

I've seen the numbers, hence why I think it warrants a closer inspection.

 

[Tinman]

And again back to the construct. Ie number of riders doping and amount/extent each one dopes.

If only a few riders dope, but their doping makes them win a GT, or some major classics, or the world champs, that still leaves the sport a travesty. So framing the argument to be about "less doping" as a generalization is just not appropriate.

It's convenient public pleasing by the UCI who are under enormous pressure to show some achievements, and to steer the argument away from lack of accountability in all respects (doping, financial and sports promotion/regulation wise).

 

[Tinman]

But we DO have evidence it is clean enough for clean riders to win.

Sorry if naive, but genuine question. What is that evidence? And what major events in the past say 4 years would you speculate have been won clean?

 

[hiero2]

Sorry if naive, but genuine question. What is that evidence? And what major events in the past say 4 years would you speculate have been won clean?

You've been given some in this thread. The numbers behind the graphs aren't made up, ya know. Sorry I don't know the link to the guys that post all the power data, but there is practically tons of that out - and compared to pre-1990, too. Ryder's blood data for his Giro win - go to CaptainBag. CaptainBag is definitely sceptical, but it is there to see. Google is your friend. There was never anything like what we have today out in 2K, it's only been the past few years. Start with Cozybeehive's blog. Move out from there.

Oh - and who has been clean? Ryder, Evans, Wiggo. I'm sceptical, but Rodriguez is a remote possibility in my mind. In spite of the performances - everything is within human range, there is no other smoke for a fire, and they are making credible claims. Contador as an outside maybe, mostly, kinda, know what I mean?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You've been given some in this thread. The numbers behind the graphs aren't made up, ya know. Sorry I don't know the link to the guys that post all the power data, but there is practically tons of that out - and compared to pre-1990, too. Ryder's blood data for his Giro win - go to CaptainBag. CaptainBag is definitely sceptical, but it is there to see. Google is your friend. There was never anything like what we have today out in 2K, it's only been the past few years. Start with Cozybeehive's blog. Move out from there.

The graph is 2 years old now. ie totally irrelevant wrt this and last year's performances. Ryder's blood values? Too many questions to call it proof of clean imo.

Wait till this year's UCI figures comes out, then we can talk turkey

 

[Ferminal]

Let's not forget that Hesjedal beat many doped up times from the previous 15 years. Tailwind though.

 

[Tinman]

You've been given some in this thread. The numbers behind the graphs aren't made up, ya know. Sorry I don't know the link to the guys that post all the power data, but there is practically tons of that out - and compared to pre-1990, too. Ryder's blood data for his Giro win - go to CaptainBag. CaptainBag is definitely sceptical, but it is there to see. Google is your friend. There was never anything like what we have today out in 2K, it's only been the past few years. Start with Cozybeehive's blog. Move out from there.

Hiero2 let me assume you have not read my posts in this thread, and stay polite.

I will not repeat my comments on the graph. It does not show "clean". It shows "less positive test results and less serious positive test results. That's all. But with no better understanding whether that is due to less tests done or whatever.

Even if new mean value power/speed data shows pre EPO era values we cannot draw conclusions about "clean". Mean values mean jack s**t.

All that matters is that the winners of the major races are clean. And that's what we need data on. Bloods, powers, speeds, sure. But most of all more tests of those that are most likely to win. And retrospectively analyzed. And announced as such now (ie retrospective). And better guardianship of the testing process. Blah blah blah.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Let's not forget that Hesjedal beat many doped up times from the previous 15 years. Tailwind though.

I've ridden uphill with a tailwind - it makes it harder, ime, due to the lack of cooling. This was on a 7%, 16km climb I've done every now and then. Much more pleasant with a slight headwind.

Depending on the grade of the climb, I'm also dubious of the assistance of the tailwind too - are there stats on gradient of the tailwind climb(s) in question, or duration? Takes me an hour to do that climb but a pro would do it in 35-40 minutes so probably not as damaging having no cooling and more wind from their speed leading to more cooling also.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I will not repeat my comments on the graph. It does not show "clean". It shows "less positive test results and less serious positive test results. That's all. But with no better understanding whether that is due to less tests done or whatever.

It also shows % of samples, not % of riders

The raw data should be released, and crowd-sourcing of the analysis would result if a far more rigorous analysis imo.

 

[Ferminal]

I don't want to get into a debate about specific individuals/performances.

I think the point is that the "we can believe the numbers" is shaky. We can probably find numbers to suit both arguments. There are certainly some more moderate performances but at the same time there are still some performances which would not be out of place in 2005. If you believe that heavy numbers make cycling dirty, then lighter numbers must make cycling cleaner (and same the other way). We can't just ignore one set of data because it doesn't suit our argument.