being on the record...manifesto baby

[The Hitch]

I liked this post by member Saganftw

sometimes on twitter and forums you can find this 2 points of view

here is how this forum works:

you like a certain cyclist : he is not only clean,he also comes from middle class family and has never been given anything for free,he is tough,NEVER sits on anyones wheel,always in attack mode and is also a model professional,role model for kids and his hobby is fishing with dad and grandfather where they share heartwarming stories sitting around campfire

you dont like a certain cyclist: not only is he on PEDs,he is also probably a communist and homophobe,arrogant,hates american flag and apple pie,hates dallas cowboys and is a fan of patriots and real madrid...oh yeah,he is also vegan - so pretty much the most despicable human being you can imagine

WTF?

Are you trolling? Who of the clinic regulars believes the cyclists they like are clean?

Your post makes no sense. Pretty much all of us condemn all the top guys as dopers regardless of whether we like them or not.

 

[pastronef]

I liked this post by member Saganftw

sometimes on twitter and forums you can find this 2 points of view

here is how this forum works:

you like a certain cyclist : he is not only clean,he also comes from middle class family and has never been given anything for free,he is tough,NEVER sits on anyones wheel,always in attack mode and is also a model professional,role model for kids and his hobby is fishing with dad and grandfather where they share heartwarming stories sitting around campfire

you dont like a certain cyclist: not only is he on PEDs,he is also probably a communist and homophobe,arrogant,hates american flag and apple pie,hates dallas cowboys and is a fan of patriots and real madrid...oh yeah,he is also vegan - so pretty much the most despicable human being you can imagine

WTF?

Are you trolling? Who of the clinic regulars believes the cyclists they like are clean?

Your post makes no sense. Pretty much all of us condemn all the top guys as dopers regardless of whether we like them or not.

whoops

I forgot to change the font for "here is how this forum works" too

saganftw said "here is how this forum works" not me

I say "here is how twitter sometimes work"

 

[pastronef]

that's when I hope Porte can get ANY kind of "fuel" and regain 2 minutes

 

[pastronef]

Congratulations on your 55.291 Tony!

O yeah, nice try Bradley!

you see?

at the end we are just fans with weaknesses and favourite/hated riders

both on the juice
but isn't a climber without track experience doing 55.2 kmh stranger than a former track rider going 54.2 ?

anyway...

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Pastro, I was almost an adult when Rominger BECAME a climber, trust me, Rominger was Michele's baby, was never a climber or time trialler. Read Romingers Qualen, http://www.zeit.de/2005/27/Tour_27

After him there was Race Radio's raison d'existence...

Grow up and smell the BS.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

Pastro, I was almost an adult when Rominger BECAME a climber, trust me, Rominger was Michele's baby, was never a climber or time trialler. Read Romingers Qualen, http://www.zeit.de/2005/27/Tour_27

After him there was Race Radio's raison d'existence...

Grow up and smell the BS.

I was just 14 in 1993 when I started following cycling.

I know it's a BS environment, just look at the vips today on the track.

I was talking about people saying "my doper is better than yours"

but sometimes I forget the Clinic is not anti-doping, it's anti BS and hypocrisy. it does not always work though.

I mean, clean riders and clean cycling (if there is somewhere) are soooo far away from what we are discussing here.

I just sometimes here and on twitter get the impression of "holier than thou", "cleaner than your fav rider"

 

[pastronef]

I enjoyed today stage very much: Bardet attacking, Froome/TJ gaining time, Talansky not bad

 

[Bolder]

Alright well I'll bite:

Since in this case at least you can't prove a negative, I have no evidence that ANY rider is clean. Having said that, I do think there have been successful "bread and water" riders in the past five years or so, but I have no idea who they are, and I don't think anyone on this board does too. I suspect that most riders are microdoping at this point -- with what I have no idea. Probably some variant of EPO as on the face of it you would gain the most from that.

Have to say what really opened my eyes was Tyler Hamilton's bust. It's easy to have suspicions about nasty guys like LA and Il Pirata, but Tyler just seemed so...honest. After that a lot of the joy went out of pro cycling so now I watch it with a giant dollop of salt and try to enjoy individual stage battles rather than the overall race. Try it, it's not bad!

Now do I believe cycling is "worse" than other sports? Not really -- can't imagine that any top tier XC skiers are clean, we know that Russian racewalkers are on the program and as for U.S. team sports, well the NFL has been dirty since Bronko Nagurski's time. Everyone is looking for an edge -- look at golfers/baseball players getting retina surgery to improve vision and they're probably on adderall to help concentration. So I don't "blame" cyclists any more than others, and I still enjoy the sport. It's also kind of fun to watch the pros tie themselves in knots dancing around the doping question.

 

[pastronef]

1 people blame Sky for not joining MPCC

2 Jaksche tweets: MPCC is run by a bunch of hypocrite liars trying to wash their hands of guilt.

3 the tweet gets many RT and favourites

4 ok, Sky are doping, but don't ask them to join then agree MPCC is useless/hypocrite

there's something wrong: everybody loves Jaksche view on the MPCC, but forgot they are pissed at Sky because they don't join the MPCC

 

[The Hitch]

1 people blame Sky for not joining MPCC

2 Jaksche tweets: MPCC is run by a bunch of hypocrite liars trying to wash their hands of guilt.

3 the tweet gets many RT and favourites

4 ok, Sky are doping, but don't ask them to join then agree MPCC is useless/hypocrite

there's something wrong: everybody loves Jaksche view on the MPCC, but forgot they are pissed at Sky because they don't join the MPCC

I'm not active on Twitter so didn't see this incident and it does sound like some hypocritisy, but hrotha had a good post regarding sky and mpcc pointing out that they didn't even say anything or offer an alternative, just ignore it. Mpcc may be corrupt but the teams that sign up are making some sort of a sacrifice (at least until like vino they say "*** off")

 

[sniper]

1 people blame Sky for not joining MPCC

2 Jaksche tweets: MPCC is run by a bunch of hypocrite liars trying to wash their hands of guilt.

3 the tweet gets many RT and favourites

4 ok, Sky are doping, but don't ask them to join then agree MPCC is useless/hypocrite

there's something wrong: everybody loves Jaksche view on the MPCC, but forgot they are pissed at Sky because they don't join the MPCC

nothing wrong. there's no contradiction either in accusing both sky and mpcc of hypocricy.

1. sky scream antidoping, new generation, winning tdf clean, ztp, etc. but don't join the mpcc because they wanna jack up on cortisone.
#dothemath

2. of course, the mpcc teams all dope and they put in remarkably little effort to show the opposite, so there's quite some hypocricy there as well. But imo if you scream antidoping, at least you join the mpcc if only for the sake of PR consistency, and as hitch says at least those teams make some sacrifice (mainly wrt cortisone, and of course notwithstanding astana)

3. there's another way: the tinkoff way.
tinkoff don't scream antidoping, tinkoff don't join mpcc.
#likebutton

4. Another way, a fourth option so to say, would be to actually ride clean and do some effort to prove it (publish reliable power and blood profiles of your riders, etc.)
but no team as of yet has chosen that pathway.
#gofigure.

 

[gazr99]

I don't think Sky are doping, just more scientific and specific than most of the other teams, who are can be quite old school. Movistar have followed a similar style to Sky and look how strong they are.

Unfortunately for Sky, wanting to be the leaders in anti-doping whilst dominating, means they will get asked a lot of doping questions which they are clearly getting frustrated about now. Lets face it no one likes teams/riders who are dominant

I'm highly suspicious of Nibali's 2014 TdF win and Contador on Stage 16 of this year's Giro.

 

[biker jk]

I don't think Sky are doping, just more scientific and specific than most of the other teams, who are can be quite old school. Movistar have followed a similar style to Sky and look how strong they are.

Unfortunately for Sky, wanting to be the leaders in anti-doping whilst dominating, means they will get asked a lot of doping questions which they are clearly getting frustrated about now. Lets face it no one likes teams/riders who are dominant

I'm highly suspicious of Nibali's 2014 TdF win and Contador on Stage 16 of this year's Giro.

I think you meant that Sky wished to be perceived as leaders in anti-doping. After hiring Leinders, perceptions and reality pointed towards a dirty team.

I find it interesting that you call out Nibali and Contador yet Froome whips both but you believe Sky is clean.

 

[gazr99]

I don't think Sky are doping, just more scientific and specific than most of the other teams, who are can be quite old school. Movistar have followed a similar style to Sky and look how strong they are.

Unfortunately for Sky, wanting to be the leaders in anti-doping whilst dominating, means they will get asked a lot of doping questions which they are clearly getting frustrated about now. Lets face it no one likes teams/riders who are dominant

I'm highly suspicious of Nibali's 2014 TdF win and Contador on Stage 16 of this year's Giro.

I think you meant that Sky wished to be perceived as leaders in anti-doping. After hiring Leinders, perceptions and reality pointed towards a dirty team.

I find it interesting that you call out Nibali and Contador yet Froome whips both but you believe Sky is clean.

Nibali because of the fact he was dominant in 2014 even when Froome and Contador were in the race. But this year with more stringent testing taking place on Mt Teide he is struggling, which is why I am suspicious.

I don't believe in just because a rider is performing well he must be doping. But what is more suspicious Froome sitting in the wheels up to 6km to go on La Pierre Saint Martin then attacking or Contador being a minute down chasing down Astana & Katusha, passing them and then putting nearly 3 minutes on Aru.

But admittedly as a fan of Contador, I do hope it was a ridiculously good ride and he was clean. With the performances that followed this I'm less than 50% in actually thinking it's true.

It might be because I'm British and fan of Team Sky and want to believe their anti-doping stance which they had from the start which is why I don't call out Froome. I have similar views on Movistar and Quintana, as the team seems to have a similar approach to Sky

 

[Puckfiend]

Watching the U.S. feed, you constantly get "Dan Martin is at the back of the peloton, which is understandable, as he is paying for his effort yesterday on the Tourmalet".

Sep Vanmarcke is paying for his effort yesterday. Ryder is paying for his effort yesterday, etc. etc. etc.

When the guys on the top of the G.C. start paying for their efforts, is when I will begin to hope again in a clean peloton. All I see is the same 10 guys on mountain top finishes, grinding everyone else into submission. Then it is wash, rinse, and repeat the next day.

This isn't how it was pre-EPO.

 

[pastronef]

after Pierre S.Martin I was even thinking "Froome is too strong" and not enjoying very much his Yellow jersey

but after the full-on hysteria about watts, VAM, weight, etc I facking want him to smash it on Alpe

 

[SkyTears]

after seeing this tour i'm changing my stance from "almost all are doped" to almost all are clean.
few lone wolfs and lonely hits but i think the majority of the peleton is clean.

 

[argel]

I'm on the fence. My day job is in sports data but I have an MA in History that taught me to be empirical about evidence. I have read the Clinic for about 4 years now, but watched cycling since I was very small (I'm 32), so my background knowledge is good enough to make a relatively unbiased judgement.

I'm not too enamoured with SKY being involved in cycling the way they are, purely from a financial point of view. Their dominance will drive some small teams towards either doping or folding, neither of which are positive things for the sport. I also think that it's incredibly suspect how many of their domestiques become super-human. Froome I'm less bothered about. I kind of think he possibly did dope back in '11 with the old convenient illness, but equally, I've not seen any proof, and he did have some pedigree - even if it has been downplayed.

In terms of evidence, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that we can compare the doped era with today's cyclists. The professionalism on a team like SKY or the other big teams far outstrips that of Festina, Banesto, even USP to a degree. I think back then, so much went into doping that riders didn't push themselves like teams are now. It's a bit like the 100m record - there's a degree of sporting evolution that has to be accounted for in performances, with doping or without. That's why - within reason - I don't like the trend of saying 'Quintana went over in the same time as DOPED RIDERS' when it was 15+ years ago. Almost every athletics record falls as long as athletes refine training.

I also sometimes get annoyed with the anti-English bias on here. Obviously I am English, but I've spent considerable time in France and Spain, which helps me understand the frustration. Even so, the most ridiculous thing I've seen on here is a conspiracy involving Universities helping teams to dope. You have no idea how hard pressed universities are to stay viable. The idea that this would get past the multiple layers of ethics-based protocols that exist to prevent the uni being splashed all over the Daily Mail - and believe me, they'd LOVE that - is farcical.

Finally, my last bit of SKY propaganda (seriously, I'm unbiased here) is that it's odd that nobody has ever ratted on them. I know Walsh is a terrible source, but he's right, plenty of people will have an axe to grind personally with Brailsford, Kerrison or Froome himself. Why not blow it up? It makes little sense.

BUT

I believe SKY have something going on. I think it may be legal, but borderline. I can't explain some of the performances I've seen from Porte and Thomas, but then they're possible, and they've shown they're human at times too. I thought Thomas and Porte's evident collapse towards the end of this years TDF might be staged, since realistically 'G' (which is really annoying, call him his bloody name!) wasn't going to make the podium...

In short, I don't know. Nobody is providing hard evidence against sky beyond the circumstantial. I find it hard to buy into the cleanliness of them, but I find it equally difficult to condemn them on the same lack of evidence. It's like an internal stalemate.

I do think though, that SKY could handle the PR better. They want to be a 'clean' team, and that's fine, but that means giving unprecedented access to the media and independents. The fact they seem just as reticent as old teams to do that is another red mark against them.

 

[gazr99]

Re:

I'm on the fence. My day job is in sports data but I have an MA in History that taught me to be empirical about evidence. I have read the Clinic for about 4 years now, but watched cycling since I was very small (I'm 32), so my background knowledge is good enough to make a relatively unbiased judgement.

I'm not too enamoured with SKY being involved in cycling the way they are, purely from a financial point of view. Their dominance will drive some small teams towards either doping or folding, neither of which are positive things for the sport. I also think that it's incredibly suspect how many of their domestiques become super-human. Froome I'm less bothered about. I kind of think he possibly did dope back in '11 with the old convenient illness, but equally, I've not seen any proof, and he did have some pedigree - even if it has been downplayed.

In terms of evidence, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that we can compare the doped era with today's cyclists. The professionalism on a team like SKY or the other big teams far outstrips that of Festina, Banesto, even USP to a degree. I think back then, so much went into doping that riders didn't push themselves like teams are now. It's a bit like the 100m record - there's a degree of sporting evolution that has to be accounted for in performances, with doping or without. That's why - within reason - I don't like the trend of saying 'Quintana went over in the same time as DOPED RIDERS' when it was 15+ years ago. Almost every athletics record falls as long as athletes refine training.

I also sometimes get annoyed with the anti-English bias on here. Obviously I am English, but I've spent considerable time in France and Spain, which helps me understand the frustration. Even so, the most ridiculous thing I've seen on here is a conspiracy involving Universities helping teams to dope. You have no idea how hard pressed universities are to stay viable. The idea that this would get past the multiple layers of ethics-based protocols that exist to prevent the uni being splashed all over the Daily Mail - and believe me, they'd LOVE that - is farcical.

Finally, my last bit of SKY propaganda (seriously, I'm unbiased here) is that it's odd that nobody has ever ratted on them. I know Walsh is a terrible source, but he's right, plenty of people will have an axe to grind personally with Brailsford, Kerrison or Froome himself. Why not blow it up? It makes little sense.

BUT

I believe SKY have something going on. I think it may be legal, but borderline. I can't explain some of the performances I've seen from Porte and Thomas, but then they're possible, and they've shown they're human at times too. I thought Thomas and Porte's evident collapse towards the end of this years TDF might be staged, since realistically 'G' (which is really annoying, call him his bloody name!) wasn't going to make the podium...

In short, I don't know. Nobody is providing hard evidence against sky beyond the circumstantial. I find it hard to buy into the cleanliness of them, but I find it equally difficult to condemn them on the same lack of evidence. It's like an internal stalemate.

I do think though, that SKY could handle the PR better. They want to be a 'clean' team, and that's fine, but that means giving unprecedented access to the media and independents. The fact they seem just as reticent as old teams to do that is another red mark against them.

Great post

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

In terms of evidence, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that we can compare the doped era with today's cyclists. The professionalism on a team like SKY or the other big teams far outstrips that of Festina, Banesto, even USP to a degree. I think back then, so much went into doping that riders didn't push themselves like teams are now.

Given that this echoes almost verbatim a Sky press release, you have lost significant respect from me for the rest of the post. Unless you were embedded with USPS and Sky for a comparison, you cannot know this.

Suffice to say, doping does not add as much advantage without training to the new limit it avails. More blood (Hgb) is nowhere near as useful as training at the level the new blood allows. Testosterone allows you to train hard 6 days in a row instead of 3. There is no comparison in training intervention improvements that can match doping and training harder and more often. None. I realise this is an unfounded absolute statement, but I am pretty darn confident in its veracity.

It's a bit like the 100m record - there's a degree of sporting evolution that has to be accounted for in performances, with doping or without. That's why - within reason - I don't like the trend of saying 'Quintana went over in the same time as DOPED RIDERS' when it was 15+ years ago. Almost every athletics record falls as long as athletes refine training.

The comparison was made with Armstrong's last Tour win, which was 2006, ie 9 years ago.

2006 | Carlos Sastre 44:52
2012 | Thibaut Pinot 45:05
2015 | Nairo Quintana 44:30

 

[argel]

Re: Re:

In terms of evidence, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that we can compare the doped era with today's cyclists. The professionalism on a team like SKY or the other big teams far outstrips that of Festina, Banesto, even USP to a degree. I think back then, so much went into doping that riders didn't push themselves like teams are now.

Given that this echoes almost verbatim a Sky press release, you have lost significant respect from me for the rest of the post. Unless you were embedded with USPS and Sky for a comparison, you cannot know this.

Funnily enough I've just read your blog. It does sound similar to the Brailsford quote, but tough. It's not. It's my opinion based on watching the 100m, 200m, 10,000m etc records fall consistently over decades, even when doping is difficult as it is in many track sports. I think it's undeniable that in the space of a decade, 20 seconds is a plausible gain over doped riders.

And please, get off your high horse. I am a new poster but I'm not a new reader. There's too much of this 'I'm sorry but you said one thing therefore I'm ignoring everything you say' in here. I think you make valid points about Wiggins, for example, but when you say things I fundamentally disagree with, it doesn't change how I read the rest of your posts.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

And please, get off your high horse. I am a new poster but I'm not a new reader. There's too much of this 'I'm sorry but you said one thing therefore I'm ignoring everything you say' in here.

I try to be very clear with my words.

If I was going to ignore everything you say, I would ignore you using the ignore function, not respond to your post. What I said was: I have lost a lot of respect for the rest of your post.

I had 2 points wrt your claim of improvements in training:
1. DB said the same thing, therefore we can almost guarantee it is a lie / false
2. the paragraph I posted on training with dope vs training clean

Point #2 is undeniable.

The only way times can improve is through training harder or more often.
Doping allows you to train harder and more often.
No clean training intervention will ever allow you to train harder or more often than a doped training intervention.

The fact that you walked into the other talking point of doping comparisons being a generation ago when they were still ongoing less than a decade ago. Well. Whatever dude.

 

[argel]

Re: Re:

I had 2 points wrt your claim of improvements in training:
1. DB said the same thing, therefore we can almost guarantee it is a lie / false
2. the paragraph I posted on training with dope vs training clean

Point #2 is undeniable.

The bold bits highlight the problem for me. You don't trust Brailsford - fair enough - but you therefore assume everything he says is a lie. More to the point, you then use that entirely subjective opinion as incontravenable evidence that your opinion is correct. It might be, but presenting it as 'fact' or everything Brailsford says as a 'lie' is a flaw in your argument. It is neither.

As for point 2 being 'undeniable'... same thing. You know as well as I do that the science is not undeniable. As an example:

The only way times can improve is through training harder or more often.
Doping allows you to train harder and more often.
No clean training intervention will ever allow you to train harder or more often than a doped training intervention.

The fact that you walked into the other talking point of doping comparisons being a generation ago when they were still ongoing less than a decade ago. Well. Whatever dude.

Is it? So if a rider changed their diet, would that help? If a rider changed where they trained, or the frequency that they trained certain climbs? What if the weather was better? What if a rider changed X Y or Z... again, you are presenting your opinion as fact when it is pseudoscientific at best. There are dozens of factors that can help a rider ride faster, as well you know, however to acknowledge this, I suppose that would point out a pretty fundamental flaw in your theory.

And as an example, you use that fundamentally flawed viewpoint to then stack it up with a good point t create the impression that your whole point is sound - 'No clean training intervention will ever allow you to train harder or more often than a doped training intervention.' - that is correct, but nobody is suggesting that. They're suggesting that over a period of a decade, it is possible that the next generation of athletes will emerge that have different or better natural and nurtured ability (ie: talent identified and nurtured in a more refined way, or people from certain areas being funnelled towards professional sports when traits are identified). Note the word POSSIBLE. I don't necessarily say it is what has happened here, but if you deny it is possible, that is equally flawed.

As for the 9-10 years argument... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression as an example. You think all of those were doped performances? It's not an argument I want to get bogged down in because they are not like-for-like (nothing is) sports, but for a century we have watched times in all sporting arenas improve, we have seen people get stronger, leaner, fitter, refine their training to a quite amazing degree. To deny that any of that can help is to deny some pretty fundamental stuff...

Anyway look, you've got me sitting here talking myself into believing the 'marginal gains' argument and that's A) not something I'm convinced of in SKY's case, over such a short time and B) not what I wish to do. I am not in any way some Sky shill. I hate sky, I hate Rupert Murdoch, I hate the Times, and I really hate that they have effectively bought the yellow jersey 3 times, even if it does one day turn out to have been clean.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

I had 2 points wrt your claim of improvements in training:
1. DB said the same thing, therefore we can almost guarantee it is a lie / false
2. the paragraph I posted on training with dope vs training clean

Point #2 is undeniable.

The bold bits highlight the problem for me. You don't trust Brailsford - fair enough - but you therefore assume everything he says is a lie.

For the last time: I try to be very clear with my words. I won't respond to you again, having now seen you twist my words yet again, but for those who come afterwards, please note:

I wrote: we can almost guarantee it is a lie / false. Almost.

This is completely and irrefutably different to: "everything he says is a lie" -- an absolute, and nothing to do with what I wrote.

 

[argel]

So what percentage of statements that he makes are a lie? Almost guaranteeing is akin to what, 95%? It's disingenuous to sit and pretend that you aren't presenting his information as what you consider to be a lie, without - from what I can see - any evidence to the contrary.

I'm sure you'll also note that there was plenty more in that post that you didn't respond to...