At what point did cycling become "clean"?

[Ryo Hazuki]

Interesting topic; We're now being told that clean teams and riders win can win GT's and that its a victory for 'clean cycling".

What changed in cycling? When did this change occur? Was it testing? Was it a cultural shift? What year did it occur in? Did the governing body make a significant change? Is it marketing?


It appears to occurred with;

Evans, Ryder and now Wiggins.

Why do these cyclists represent "clean cycling" and not others?


I'm a little cynical. I fail to see what was the "turning point" in cycling to take it from a sport which has a high level of drug use to a completely clean environment whereby you could win GT's clean.

But I'm willing to be shown where I've missed the sea change.

1998 was a huge turning point for doping use and at leats french teams who stopped doping and never again to the extent of the mid and early 90s, some of it came back because of lance and spanish teams, riis followed. but fuentes was again a big blow which cleaned up at least most of the wt and meant no more team doping in those teams. in recent years individualists are becoming less and less doped as well imo thanks to bloodpassport where even dopingdoctors like ferrari are afraid of(he stopped doing epo). not for the better of cycling entertainment though. only the colombians and a few others are worth watching now. also has to do with lack of personality of many riders, but mostly because they are clean now and (too) human

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Are riders "holding back"? It's conceivable that some doped up winner may hold back when he's sure he's beaten the rest. It is not really likely that the guys in second, third, fourth etc are going to hold back from winning.

I don't really see parity as having anything much to do with doping. We've had completely dominant riders both before and during the oxygen vector doping era.

On #2, your data is good.

Cyclists are smart.

All that we can conclude is that the type of doping appears to have changed. That the cheaters remain ahead of the testers.

No, that's not all we can conclude.

If the power outputs were increasing or remaining the same while the rate of "unusual" blood profile returns had gone through the floor, that would necessarily imply that the type of doping had changed. In such circumstances the simplest explanation would be that some new type of performance booster which was undetectable and which did not lead to odd blood readings had entered widespread use and was replacing oxygen vector doping. Or perhaps that doping doctors had found a way to manipulate blood to gain huge advantages while also being invisible to blood analysis.

But that's not what happening.

It's the combination of markedly lower power outputs with a dramatically lower rate of "unusual" blood profile results that necessarily points towards less effective doping and less widespread doping. They haven't found something else that allows them to go up mountains as if they have a rocket strapped to their bike. Because they are not going up mountains like that anymore. In turn, that necessarily means that a clean rider is at much less of a disadvantage, even though he will certainly be riding against people who are still doping.

The doping doctors are "ahead of the testers" only in the narrow sense that their expensive expertise still allows some benefit to be bought. But people make the mistake of thinking that because a cyclist has gone to a top of the line doctor that said doctor can magically enable him to supercharge. In fact, the expertise in question is largely about eking a smaller advantage out of smaller doses without tripping any wires.

And no, at least in my experience, cyclists do not tend to be notably smart. Some of them are smart. And some of them have smart doctors.

 

[sniper]

it was on the 18th of July 2012, a memorable day:

https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/225617454045478913

 

[thehog]

it was on the 18th of July 2012, a memorable day:

https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/225617454045478913

Well I guess they don't climb like Pantani but they certainly time trial better than him!

That's my point. You see some fairly impressive performances theses days in climbing, TT'ing and recovery. Some of is astounding.

Its not the same levels as Armstrong but the consistency is flabbergasting and by the same riders. They are strong in every discipline.

The Olympic road race was something I'd never seen anything like it in my life. I really didn't know what I was watching.

Its like the new cycling is to have one team ride the entire peloton off their wheels. 9 times out of 10 they do it.

That's why I'm still a cynical. The performances are not as erratic but there is some very strong performances going on. The consistency (to trick the passport) appears the new way of performing.

 

[D-Queued]

Are riders "holding back"? It's conceivable that some doped up winner may hold back when he's sure he's beaten the rest. It is not really likely that the guys in second, third, fourth etc are going to hold back from winning.

....

And no, at least in my experience, cyclists do not tend to be notably smart. Some of them are smart. And some of them have smart doctors.

LOL - exactly on the last part. Really smart doctors.

WRT to the former, you did watch this year's Tour?

That is not meant to be insulting.

But, you did watch the multiple times that Froome was told to chill out, right?

So, yes, guys are holding back. At least one of them is.

Just like Basso was obviously holding back when Lance passed him as though he was on a tricycle on the Alpe d'Huez TT in 2004. Of course, that was for a different reason - Armstrong had obviously paid off Basso (and Riis was furious).

Dave.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Well I guess they don't climb like Pantani but they certainly time trial better than him!

That's my point. You see some fairly impressive performances theses days in climbing, TT'ing and recovery. Some of is astounding.

Its not the same levels as Armstrong but the consistency is flabbergasting and by the same riders. They are strong in every discipline.

The Olympic road race was something I'd never seen anything like it in my life. I really didn't know what I was watching.

Its like the new cycling is to have one team ride the entire peloton off their wheels. 9 times out of 10 they do it.

That's why I'm still a cynical. The performances are not as erratic but there is some very strong performances going on. The consistency (to trick the passport) appears the new way of performing.

there was nothing abnormal about the olympic road race. sky lost hard there with only 5 guys, seemed very human to me.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

LOL - exactly on the last part. Really smart doctors.

Some of them. Hamilton's account is quite instructive in that regard - with the partial exception of some of the Italian school, doping doctors do not seem to be the elite of the medical world.

But, you did watch the multiple times that Froome was told to chill out, right?

I am not in general charitably disposed towards riders who come from nowhere that late in a career, but I find it very difficult to believe that someone in the Sky car had a panic attack about him suddenly putting out numbers that would have us hopping up and down in the Clinic. Not when there's a much less interesting and much more likely explanation available: He was under orders to shepherd his leader up each and every climb, that leader being ahead of him on time already and also being a rider with no ability to accelerate on climbs.

It is not unusual for a domestique to be ordered to hold back, for reasons that have nothing to do with doping.

 

[D-Queued]

Some of them. Hamilton's account is quite instructive in that regard - with the partial exception of some of the Italian school, doping doctors do not seem to be the elite of the medical world.



I am not in general charitably disposed towards riders who come from nowhere that late in a career, but I find it very difficult to believe that someone in the Sky car had a panic attack about him suddenly putting out numbers that would have us hopping up and down in the Clinic. Not when there's a much less interesting and much more likely explanation available: He was under orders to shepherd his leader up each and every climb, that leader being ahead of him on time already and also being a rider with no ability to accelerate on climbs.

It is not unusual for a domestique to be ordered to hold back, for reasons that have nothing to do with doping.

Yes, that does make sense. Under normal conditions.

But, have you ever seen such an obvious example of artificial restraint - when all the other top GC contenders were gassed?

Shouldn't Froome have been even somewhat fatigued on at least one of those occasions?

Dave.

 

[pmcg76]

LOL - exactly on the last part. Really smart doctors.

WRT to the former, you did watch this year's Tour?

That is not meant to be insulting.

But, you did watch the multiple times that Froome was told to chill out, right?

So, yes, guys are holding back. At least one of them is.

Just like Basso was obviously holding back when Lance passed him as though he was on a tricycle on the Alpe d'Huez TT in 2004. Of course, that was for a different reason - Armstrong had obviously paid off Basso (and Riis was furious).

Dave.

So the evidence that cycling is not getting cleaner is one guy allegedly holding back. Super evidence.

I think most people find the rise of Froome to be suspicious, I definitely do but that still doesn't negate the fact that overall, power numbers and climbing speeds have dropped. One guys holding back to protect a team-mate is believable but all the top rivals!!! That is just crazy talk.

Even if 10 of the big names are still doping, that does not necessarily negate the possibility that pro cycling as a whole is getting cleaner.

 

[thehog]

So the evidence that cycling is not getting cleaner is one guy allegedly holding back. Super evidence.

I think most people find the rise of Froome to be suspicious, I definitely do but that still doesn't negate the fact that overall, power numbers and climbing speeds have dropped. One guys holding back to protect a team-mate is believable but all the top rivals!!! That is just crazy talk.

Even if 10 of the big names are still doping, that does not necessarily negate the possibility that pro cycling as a whole is getting cleaner.

In the 90's with EPO the big guys were able to climb like the skinny guys. Now the really skinny guys, even the ones who weren't exceptional climbers to begin with can climb but also ITT like nothing I've ever seen before.

That's the part that worries me. Everyone looks to the climbing and says "see not as fast as Pantani" but the improvement in climbing coupled with the phenomenal strength in time trailing is - bizarre.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

But, have you ever seen such an obvious example of artificial restraint - when all the other top GC contenders were gassed?

I think that Sky's orders were indeed over the top. But they were also in keeping with their whole approach which they telegraphed from the start: Everything and everyone for Wiggins all of the time.

They clearly did not care about more stage victories, as can be seen from their lack of support for Cavendish. They also did not want an internal struggle for leadership developing, complicating their strategy and potentially allowing someone else to take advantage. And a Wiggins win was worth more to them in terms of publicity and attention at home. Ruthless, boring, controlling, yes, all of those things, and I cheered against them all the way, but not in and of itself indicative of doping. Rather a sign that they weren't 100% certain of their leader's superiority over his rivals.

 

[thehog]

there was nothing abnormal about the olympic road race. sky lost hard there with only 5 guys, seemed very human to me.

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.

I'm sorry but just started to shake my head at that point. Actually I think I gave up at that point!


But I don't want to get into the Olympic road race here. Not the thread.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

In the 90's with EPO the big guys were able to climb like the skinny guys. Now the really skinny guys, even the ones who weren't exceptional climbers to begin with can climb but also ITT like nothing I've ever seen before.

Ok, this is potentially interesting.

Firstly, lets establish the trend before we start looking for explanations. What super-skinny climbers are suddenly great in the ITT?

Froome, obviously. Who else?

 

[pmcg76]

In the 90's with EPO the big guys were able to climb like the skinny guys. Now the really skinny guys, even the ones who weren't exceptional climbers to begin with can climb but also ITT like nothing I've ever seen before.

That's the part that worries me. Everyone looks to the climbing and says "see not as fast as Pantani" but the improvement in climbing coupled with the phenomenal strength in time trailing is - bizarre.

Skinny guys? What skinny guys? Wiggins!! Froome!! Contador!! Who else??

Even if you are right about those guys of whom I get the suspicions, if 10 top guys are still doping big time it does not negate the overall premise of cycling getting cleaner.

 

[thehog]

Ok, this is potentially interesting.

Firstly, lets establish the trend before we start looking for explanations. What super-skinny climbers are suddenly great in the ITT?

Froome, obviously. Who else?

Slow down.

We have to stop taking the portions of cycling in isolation.

Climbing, ITT'ing and recovery consistently together have improved massively. Not by all but some. I didn't expect to see Wiggins and Froome be so so so strong in the ITT.

Then the climbing was just as superior. Wiggins is no Contador in climbing but the performances were very very strong.

It's the weight and power produced which worries me most along with the recovery.

But this thread is not about Sky. It's about cycling in general.

 

[pmcg76]

Slow down.

We have to stop taking the portions of cycling in isolation.

Climbing, ITT'ing and recovery consistently together have improved massively. Not by all but some. I didn't expect to see Wiggins and Froome be so so so strong in the ITT.

Then the climbing was just as superior. Wiggins is no Contador in climbing but the performances were very very strong.

It's the weight and power produced which worries me most along with the recovery.

But this thread is not about Sky. It's about cycling in general.

Once again, you are limiting your accusation to a handful of guys. How is a handful of guys performing suspiciously, evidence that the sport overall is not cleaning up.

 

[D-Queued]

Ok, this is potentially interesting.

Firstly, lets establish the trend before we start looking for explanations. What super-skinny climbers are suddenly great in the ITT?

Froome, obviously. Who else?

Skinny guys? What skinny guys? Wiggins!! Froome!! Contador!! Who else??

Even if you are right about those guys of whom I get the suspicions, if 10 top guys are still doping big time it does not negate the overall premise of cycling getting cleaner.

Err... Schlecks... Sastre...

TdF Headline: Time trial specialists Fabian Cancellara, Tony Martin upstaged by Sky speedsters

...Cancellara eventually took over as provisional leader. But first Froome, then Wiggins pushed him down a place each to third....

F. Schleck beating Zabriskie?

Not normal.

 

[pmcg76]

Err... Schlecks... Sastre...

TdF Headline: Time trial specialists Fabian Cancellara, Tony Martin upstaged by Sky speedsters

...Cancellara eventually took over as provisional leader. But first Froome, then Wiggins pushed him down a place each to third....

F. Schleck beating Zabriskie?

Not normal.

Holy ****, how often have the Schlecks or Sastre finished in the Top 10 of TTs in the Tour.

So now we are comparing Wiggins and Froome to guys who struggle in TTs, the evidence is getting more desperate methinks.

Which TT are you referring to where Schleck beat Zabriskie??

 

[blackcat]

Interesting topic; We're now being told that clean teams and riders win can win GT's and that its a victory for 'clean cycling".

What changed in cycling? When did this change occur? Was it testing? Was it a cultural shift? What year did it occur in? Did the governing body make a significant change? Is it marketing?


It appears to occurred with;

Evans, Ryder and now Wiggins.

Why do these cyclists represent "clean cycling" and not others?


I'm a little cynical. I fail to see what was the "turning point" in cycling to take it from a sport which has a high level of drug use to a completely clean environment whereby you could win GT's clean.

But I'm willing to be shown where I've missed the sea change.

English is their native language. Michael Rogers tells us in Canberra where he is from, they have a different mindset and values.

 

[D-Queued]

Holy ****, how often have the Schlecks or Sastre finished in the Top 10 of TTs in the Tour.

So now we are comparing Wiggins and Froome to guys who struggle in TTs, the evidence is getting more desperate methinks.

Which TT are you referring to where Schleck beat Zabriskie??

Stage 9, 9 July 2012.

Now, before you continue suggesting I am Chicken Little, didn't Schleck actually get popped?

Hmmm.... a real doper after all.

Dave.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Slow down.

We have to stop taking the portions of cycling in isolation.

Climbing, ITT'ing and recovery consistently together have improved massively. Not by all but some. I didn't expect to see Wiggins and Froome be so so so strong in the ITT.

Then the climbing was just as superior. Wiggins is no Contador in climbing but the performances were very very strong.

It's the weight and power produced which worries me most along with the recovery.

But this thread is not about Sky. It's about cycling in general.

The problem with this is that your counter theory seems to be very focused on Sky. One or two riders at Sky, even.

We know that across the sport, riders are markedly worse at climbing than they were ten years ago. That, along with what we know about the parallel decline in "unusual" blood values, points towards a decline in the kind of doping practices we are used to and which transformed the sport from 1990.

If there has been a general marked improvement in the ITT, or even a marked improvement by a swathe of guys with non-traditional ITT physiques, that would provide evidence that something less obvious might be going on. At the very least we'd have to look at that improvement and seek to explain it.

But first, we need to know if this is actually happening. And I haven't seen any evidence (so far) of a sweeping change in that direction. I'd be interested in seeing it if anyone has.

 

[pmcg76]

Stage 9, 9 July 2012.

Now, before you continue suggesting I am Chicken Little, didn't Schleck actually get popped?

Hmmm.... a real doper after all.

Dave.

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.

 

[blackcat]

2006 as per the USADA affidavits. In 2006 the peloton had a pauline conversion on the road to paris and forswore the needle and syringe for a diet of warmdowns, winter training in Tenerife and marginal gains.

garginal mains. yep.

 

[Tinman]

Some important conceptual points to consider in this debate.

When considering the question of "clean", or rather better -in my view - "cleaner" there are 2 independent variables to consider:
- the number or % of riders doping
- extent/amount to which each of them dope

The extent/amount needs to be further broken down to:
- the number of races in a season
- the amount of doping in each of these races (how close to the detection limit, or if doping controls are highly unlikely, or "positives" are highly unlikely, how "extreme" is a rider prepared to go

My personal conclusion is that whilst overall the number of riders and extent/amount may be down, the level of sophistication of the remaining dopers has just increased. And whilst in the past a "doctor" was essential, with the know how now widespread a well organized rider and spouse/trusted support person program is quite feasible.

- Individual blood bag (combined with microdosing) programs on GT rest days (or mini bag programs) are still very feasible and relatively low risk
- one day races can be optimally prepared for. No reason to have a Hct below 50% and be "suboptimally" prepared
- there are still major events where one knows drug testing is unlikely to happen, eg recent ToC
- there are events where one knows UCI cannot afford to have a high profile doping positive, eg recent World cup road race Phil Gilbert win

So I see no reason why any pro rider with fame and money ambitions that does not have a super strong moral/ethical compass would not continue the above approach. And that does not yet cover any new (gene doping, etc) approaches for which the method to stay within detection limits are as yet relatively less publicized.

So I for one am not subscribing to clean, or an end to the dark era, as per Hiero2's mail last month, at all. Cleaner, maybe. But cleaner merely meaning more sophisticated...

 

[pmcg76]

Some important conceptual points to consider in this debate.

When considering the question of "clean", or rather better -in my view - "cleaner" there are 2 independent variables to consider:
- the number or % of riders doping
- extent/amount to which each of them dope

The extent/amount needs to be further broken down to:
- the number of races in a season
- the amount of doping in each of these races (how close to the detection limit, or if doping controls are highly unlikely, or "positives" are highly unlikely, how "extreme" is a rider prepared to go

My personal conclusion is that whilst overall the number of riders and extent/amount may be down, the level of sophistication of the remaining dopers has just increased. And whilst in the past a "doctor" was essential, with the know how now widespread a well organized rider and spouse/trusted support person program is quite feasible.

- Individual blood bag (combined with microdosing) programs on GT rest days are still very feasible and relatively low risk
- one day races can be optimally prepared for. No reason to have a Hct below 50% and be "suboptimally" prepared
- there are still major events where one knows drug testing is unlikely to happen, eg recent ToC
- there are events where one knows UCI cannot afford to have a high profile doping positive, eg recent World cup road race Phil Gilbert win

So I see no reason why any pro rider with fame and money ambitions that does not have a super strong moral/ethical compass would not continue the above approach. And that does not yet cover any new (gene doping, etc) approaches for which the method to stay within detection limits are as yet relatively less publicized.

So I for one am not subscribing to clean, or an end to the dark era, as per Hiero2's mail last month, at all. Cleaner, maybe. But cleaner merely meaning more sophisticated...

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?.