• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

BMC Soigneur caught with 195 does of EPO

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 23, 2011
943
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
Umm you just agreed with me. Contador and Shleck were off form you say, but Evans must have been doping because he had good form? So if someone has good form they must be doping, but if they have bad form it doesn't indicate lack of doping, just "bad form" right whatever dude.
I did not agree with you at all. Contador had just finished the most difficult grand tour in at least a couple of decades. In addition to that he injured his knee. You cannot compare how he did at the Tour to previous years. You are left with only the Schlecks to compare, and Andy spends more time drinking than he does training. With all the other contenders out of contention, there is not enough data to do a meaningful comparison. I also point out that Evans' supporters are quick to play up Evans performance relative to the Schlecks as a sign that less doping has now made the clean Cadel a winner, but they are not too keen to draw the opposite conclusion by comparing Evans' performance to that of the riders like Cunego.

As I said, the GC situation of this year's Tour was too messed up to draw any conclusions about.
 
May 23, 2011
943
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
Of course Australians suspect Cadel to be clean because we know him. We know his personality, we know his physiology, our cyclists have ridden and trained with him on and off season, we know who has had close associations with and we can compare his data going back to 1995. You can't hide evidence of doping from experts when they are testing you several times per year, every year, for 15yrs.
You sound like you are angling for a job with Lance Armstrong's defense team.
 
Oct 25, 2009
320
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
What is this connection with Ferrari apart from the recent 53x12 post by Ferrari in which he discusses testing Cadel in 2000? What evidence is there that he worked with Ferrari throughout his career?

.....QUOTE]
There has been past speculation about a relationship between Evans and Ferrari (due principally) to the Rominger connection but no evidence at all of any such relationship. In fact it became clear that the teutonic press had confused Evans with compatriot Michael Rogers (and obviously continues to do so deliberately not deviating from the text of the initial errant story for want of "corroboration" anywhere else!). The latest repetition was in the Frankfurter Rundschau prior to the Galibier stage on 20/7/2011.

See the early thread on Evans' cleanlinessand the following posts in particular:-

minessa said:
I do not know if it is true, but it is in German Wikipedia: "There is evidence of cooperation between Cadel Evans and Michele Ferrari. According to Evans, this only relates to the preparation of training plans." http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadel_Evans
.....

Mambo95 said:
That rumour was printed by a single German newspaper, who later apologized for getting him confused with Mick Rogers.
Of course Ferrari's (hey look at me!) recent blog has emboldened regurgitation of the "training plans" story, but he would surely have claimed credit for training plans (and not just a single talent test) if indeed he had ever provided any.

I have not seen much evidence that Cadel has ever commented on Ferrari (or even Rominger for that matter) but it would help if he could clear the foul air stirred up by the good Doctor by doing so on this occasion!
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,235
0
0
Nearly said:
There has been past speculation about a relationship between Evans and Ferrari (due principally) to the Rominger connection but no evidence at all of any such relationship. In fact it became clear that the teutonic press had confused Evans with compatriot Michael Rogers (and obviously continues to do so deliberately not deviating from the text of the initial errant story for want of "corroboration" anywhere else!). The latest repetition was in the Frankfurter Rundschau prior to the Galibier stage on 20/7/2011.

See the early thread on Evans' cleanlinessand the following posts in particular:-

.....



Of course Ferrari's (hey look at me!) recent blog has emboldened regurgitation of the "training plans" story, but he would surely have claimed credit for training plans (and not just a single talent test) if indeed he had ever provided any.

I have not seen much evidence that Cadel has ever commented on Ferrari (or even Rominger for that matter) but it would help if he could clear the foul air stirred up by the good Doctor by doing so on this occasion!
Maybe he doesn't, because there is a tight association. Ferrari seems like the wrong person to disrespect. Is that guy now living on silence money?
 
Jul 19, 2009
819
0
0
Damiano Machiavelli said:
I did not agree with you at all. Contador had just finished the most difficult grand tour in at least a couple of decades. In addition to that he injured his knee. You cannot compare how he did at the Tour to previous years. You are left with only the Schlecks to compare, and Andy spends more time drinking than he does training. With all the other contenders out of contention, there is not enough data to do a meaningful comparison. I also point out that Evans' supporters are quick to play up Evans performance relative to the Schlecks as a sign that less doping has now made the clean Cadel a winner, but they are not too keen to draw the opposite conclusion by comparing Evans' performance to that of the riders like Cunego.

As I said, the GC situation of this year's Tour was too messed up to draw any conclusions about.
Right let me get this straight, you are saying that all the top riders have been on a level playing field wrt doping for the past 5-6yrs, however this year, Contador and Shleck performed worse, not due to advances in the bio passport detection method, but only due to ill preparation and injury. Whereas, Cunego has improved relative to Cadel this year and therefore, Cadel must still be doping because he won??

I disagree with this based on the following. For starters you simply cannot make assumptions about doping by comparing the results of different riders from one year to another alone. I am basing my opinion mostly on the published data which demonstrates that 1. there are fewer abnormal blood profiles this year than any point in the last 10yrs, and 2. blood transfusions are beginning to be detected with the bio passport. Regardless, even when we do use your line of reasoning it can be seen that Cunego didn't change his performance relative to Cadel this year. Cadel's palmares are slightly better overall than Cunego, and that is exactly how the tdf ended up this year. Secondly, Cunego also signed on to work with Aldo Sassi last year, yet he did NOT suddenly start performing noticeably better or worse, which according to your logic is an indication that Cunego hasn't changed his doping (or lack thereof) practices pre vs post undergoing the Mapei lab testing procedures. Thirdly, just as Cadel improved relative to Contador and Shleck, then so must have Cunego.

Cunego and Lampre-Farnese Vini poised to begin working with Sassi

Sassi is best known as the coach of 2009 world champion Cadel Evans, 2010 Giro d’Italia winner Ivan Basso and former world TT champ Michael Rogers. He works with riders on the basis that they undergo a full battery of anti-doping tests, including the full body hemoglobin measurements which help ensure they haven’t undergone transfusions.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5945/Cunego-and-Lampre-Farnese-Vini-poised-to-begin-working-with-Sassi.aspx#ixzz1Tqoeteyv
Cunego AND Cadel both improved relative to Contador and Schleck this year, so maybe you are right and they are all still doping mad, Aldo Sassi and his Mapei lab tests are bogus smokescreens, the published studies on the bio passport are rubbish, and Contador and Shleck only performed worse through ill prepartion and injury.

Or maybe, just maybe, we can derive only limited meaningful information regarding doping practices based on relative performances alone, the bio passport is working, Aldo Sassi is a man of integrity, and if those are true, the entire peleton is getting "cleaner", Cadel and Cunego are probably clean, and hence they rightly deserved their final standings in this yrs tdf.

The evidence supports my theory, not yours.
 
Oct 25, 2009
320
0
0
Cloxxki said:
Nearly said:
There has been past speculation about a relationship between Evans and Ferrari (due principally) to the Rominger connection but no evidence at all of any such relationship. In fact it became clear that the teutonic press had confused Evans with compatriot Michael Rogers (and obviously continues to do so deliberately not deviating from the text of the initial errant story for want of "corroboration" anywhere else!). The latest repetition was in the Frankfurter Rundschau prior to the Galibier stage on 20/7/2011.

See the early thread on Evans' cleanlinessand the following posts in particular:-


Maybe he doesn't, because there is a tight association. Ferrari seems like the wrong person to disrespect. Is that guy now living on silence money?
Cannnot be too close if he were come out with that hitherto unknown little teaser just after Evans wins the Tour unless you are right and there is some form of blackmail going down here. Then again with Interpol all over him he is hardly going to advertise to the world that he is desparately trying to extort money out of another doping customer.
 
May 23, 2011
943
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
Right let me get this straight, you are saying that all the top riders have been on a level playing field wrt doping for the past 5-6yrs, however this year, Contador and Shleck performed worse, not due to advances in the bio passport detection method, but only due to ill preparation and injury. Whereas, Cunego has improved relative to Cadel this year and therefore, Cadel must still be doping because he won??

I disagree with this based on the following.
Let me get this straight. You are completely making stuff up that is in direct opposition to what I wrote, attributing it to me, then responding to your made up points.

I disagree.
 
Jun 18, 2009
24
0
0
Nearly said:
I have not seen much evidence that Cadel has ever commented on Ferrari (or even Rominger for that matter) but it would help if he could clear the foul air stirred up by the good Doctor by doing so on this occasion!
He made a comment on his blog (?) when the original German article was published, but I don't think he actually named Ferrari; he referred to "controversial doctors" or something like that instead.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Nearly said:
There has been past speculation about a relationship between Evans and Ferrari (due principally) to the Rominger connection but no evidence at all of any such relationship. In fact it became clear that the teutonic press had confused Evans with compatriot Michael Rogers (and obviously continues to do so deliberately not deviating from the text of the initial errant story for want of "corroboration" anywhere else!). The latest repetition was in the Frankfurter Rundschau prior to the Galibier stage on 20/7/2011.

See the early thread on Evans' cleanlinessand the following posts in particular:-





Of course Ferrari's (hey look at me!) recent blog has emboldened regurgitation of the "training plans" story, but he would surely have claimed credit for training plans (and not just a single talent test) if indeed he had ever provided any.

I have not seen much evidence that Cadel has ever commented on Ferrari (or even Rominger for that matter) but it would help if he could clear the foul air stirred up by the good Doctor by doing so on this occasion!
Anyone have a link to the paper saying they confused him with Rodger?

Cadel worked with Ferrari, for more then just a single test. The German media talked about it 3 years ago as well. Cadel's response was interesting, he did not mention Ferrari by name but said that he had never worked with "Controversial doctors". Given the teams and managers Cadel has worked with in his career I can see how he might not think Ferrari is contraversial.

Even Richard Virenque thinks Ferrari is controversial

teaming up with Ferrari was like putting a saucepan up your backside: it was immediately obvious what you were doing
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
But Libertine is pointing out that Sastre didn't produce a better than normal ITT, he produced an ITT at around his normal level.
No, even Libertine acknowledges that Sastres ride was slightly better than he would normally do.

Libertine Seguros said:
But you specifically pointed at Sastre's 2008 ITT as one of these efforts that Evans hasn't gone off and done.

What I'm saying is that Sastre's time in 2008 was perhaps a bit better than his norm, but not by all that much. Sastre's time was a good one but still within the realms of the totally believable given what was on the line.

It certainly wasn't any more ridiculous than Evans' TT in Grénoble. When has Evans produced a TT like that recently?

Evans, assuming not injured, is always solid in ITTs. But we're going back to the 2009 Dauphiné if we're looking for a time when he's produced a real front-running long ITT, and in Grénoble he put a minute into everybody bar Martin. Is it ridiculous? No, not at all. Evans is always a solid ITT rider. But it's a performance better than his norm borne out of possibly an only remaining chance at the yellow jersey.

Is it really any less unusual than Sastre's? Really? If one of them is evidence of consistency, then the other one should be, as both performed round about their level given all the other parameters (length, end of GT etc), but with a little bit of extra, not enough to be suspicious for my money.
And that's all I am saying too - I would have expected CE to put more than 29s in to CS for a 53k TT.
My point is Evans did a consistent time, while Sastre did slightly better than expected, IOW, Evans didn't lose that Tour, Sastre won it.

You appear to be reading more in to my comments than I am actually saying.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
sniper said:
I guess I meant this:
How come Cadel was the big favorit before-hand according to insiders and people around him? Did people around him have inside information that there was going to be a level playing field this year? Of course, people didn't. Those people around him who called him a favorid and who said he was in the form of his life knew that even if others were doping, Cadel would still be prepared properly enough to beat these dopers.
Well, dah - of course his insiders and people close to him predicted all this, although I don't remember their comments before the Tour.
Even Braislford had Wiggins on the podium, teams will always put the positive spin on it.

But I don't remember any mainstream comments putting Evans as a clear favorite.
 
Damiano Machiavelli said:
Let me get this straight. You are completely making stuff up that is in direct opposition to what I wrote, attributing it to me, then responding to your made up points.

I disagree.
Well what he said kind of does sound like what you said. What were you trying to say? Maybe we can clarify. Here's your last post:

I did not agree with you at all. Contador had just finished the most difficult grand tour in at least a couple of decades. In addition to that he injured his knee. You cannot compare how he did at the Tour to previous years. You are left with only the Schlecks to compare, and Andy spends more time drinking than he does training. With all the other contenders out of contention, there is not enough data to do a meaningful comparison. I also point out that Evans' supporters are quick to play up Evans performance relative to the Schlecks as a sign that less doping has now made the clean Cadel a winner, but they are not too keen to draw the opposite conclusion by comparing Evans' performance to that of the riders like Cunego.

What I get from that is that you're saying Contador had knee problems, fatigue, etc, Andy is unpredictable, and all the other comparisons with other contenders are somehow meaningless. Then you suggest that Cadel fans are ignoring evidence that Cadel is doping, in the form of him doing better against Cunego than in the past (which implies that you think Cunego's clean). Is that right?

More specifically, a few things to clarify:

- why do you say 'Andy spends more time drinking than he does training'? Because he got kicked out of a race he didn't care about by a manager he was leaving last year, for staying out too late? I'd like to hear other evidence if you have it, because that's all the evidence I can think of and it's pretty weak. ASchleck doesn't seem to care about too many races, but the Tour is one that he does. I don't feel his preparation would have been derailed by some kind of lapse of partying in June or something... he's a top-level athlete earning millions of dollars, not a frat boy failing to study for exams.

- why are 'all the other contenders out of contention'? What about Sanchez? Basso? Frank Schleck? These are all guys that have done well in the Tour in the past. Is there a similarly spurious reason to write them off?

- the response to your post suggested that, if you're suggesting that Evans' performance relative to Cunego's is evidence of Cadel doping, you're wrong because Evans has done similarly better to Cunego in previous races. You don't respond to this point. Do you disagree?

I have to say that, aside from whispers of associations with doctors and all that, the narrative that krebs puts forward seems plausible to me (and, ever the optimist, I can only hope it's true). Perhaps what you're saying is equally plausible, but I don't know if I understand fully what you are saying, so if you clarify those points that will maybe help.
 
May 23, 2011
943
0
0
skidmark said:
Well what he said kind of does sound like what you said. What were you trying to say? Maybe we can clarify. Here's your last post:

I did not agree with you at all. Contador had just finished the most difficult grand tour in at least a couple of decades. In addition to that he injured his knee. You cannot compare how he did at the Tour to previous years. You are left with only the Schlecks to compare, and Andy spends more time drinking than he does training. With all the other contenders out of contention, there is not enough data to do a meaningful comparison. I also point out that Evans' supporters are quick to play up Evans performance relative to the Schlecks as a sign that less doping has now made the clean Cadel a winner, but they are not too keen to draw the opposite conclusion by comparing Evans' performance to that of the riders like Cunego.

What I get from that is that you're saying Contador had knee problems, fatigue, etc, Andy is unpredictable, and all the other comparisons with other contenders are somehow meaningless. Then you suggest that Cadel fans are ignoring evidence that Cadel is doping, in the form of him doing better against Cunego than in the past (which implies that you think Cunego's clean). Is that right?

More specifically, a few things to clarify:

- why do you say 'Andy spends more time drinking than he does training'? Because he got kicked out of a race he didn't care about by a manager he was leaving last year, for staying out too late? I'd like to hear other evidence if you have it, because that's all the evidence I can think of and it's pretty weak. ASchleck doesn't seem to care about too many races, but the Tour is one that he does. I don't feel his preparation would have been derailed by some kind of lapse of partying in June or something... he's a top-level athlete earning millions of dollars, not a frat boy failing to study for exams.

- why are 'all the other contenders out of contention'? What about Sanchez? Basso? Frank Schleck? These are all guys that have done well in the Tour in the past. Is there a similarly spurious reason to write them off?

- the response to your post suggested that, if you're suggesting that Evans' performance relative to Cunego's is evidence of Cadel doping, you're wrong because Evans has done similarly better to Cunego in previous races. You don't respond to this point. Do you disagree?

I have to say that, aside from whispers of associations with doctors and all that, the narrative that krebs puts forward seems plausible to me (and, ever the optimist, I can only hope it's true). Perhaps what you're saying is equally plausible, but I don't know if I understand fully what you are saying, so if you clarify those points that will maybe help.
When quoting me it was nice of you to conveniently [an innocent oversight I am sure :rolleyes:] leave out the last line of my most. And I quote the line that you left out:

As I said, the GC situation of this year's Tour was too messed up to draw any conclusions about.
Since you and Krebs seem to have problems with reading comprehension, I will expand on that. The GC situation was too messed up to draw any conclusions one way or another about whether Evans is doping based upon how he did relative to how others did. For every argument that can be made about how much better Evans did relative to another rider, an equally valid but opposite argument can be made about him doing worse compared to another rider.

For the same reason comparisons with power levels of this years climbs compared to previous years are pretty much worthless.
 
Oct 25, 2009
320
0
0
Race Radio said:
Anyone have a link to the paper saying they confused him with Rodger?

Cadel worked with Ferrari, for more then just a single test. The German media talked about it 3 years ago as well. Cadel's response was interesting, he did not mention Ferrari by name but said that he had never worked with "Controversial doctors". Given the teams and managers Cadel has worked with in his career I can see how he might not think Ferrari is contraversial.

Even Richard Virenque thinks Ferrari is controversial
Sorry, cannot find the apology which Mambo referred to as the article on the site and presumably any apology was taken down. Reference to it on German Wikipedia was also taken down. The article came from nowhere and went nowhere and with Cadel's denial most forums discussing this accepted it was a “mistake” (I take your point on the curious wording but then I gather he said he did not work with controversial doctors and nothing at all about "training plans" as Michael Rogers had specifically done not long before the article orginally came out).

Tabloid style German language media occasionally regurgitate this same non attributed wording (always sticking to the same script). I pointed out Frankfurter Rundschau in a previous post. In similar vein 20min.ch on 27/7/2011 at http://www.20min.ch/sport/radsport/story/10938709 proclaimed:-

Einziger Negativpunkt ist der Kontakt zu «Dottore EPO» Michele Ferrari. Evans beteuert, dass sich die Zusammenarbeit mit Ferrari auf das Erstellen von Trainingsplänen beschränke.
Inevitably this led some vigilante to jump in and change German Wikipedia (citing this “authority”) to include the statement:-

Es gibt Hinweise auf eine Zusammenarbeit zwischen Cadel Evans und Michele Ferrari. Laut Aussage Evans betrifft diese nur die Ausarbeitung von Trainingsplänen. Es sind keine Verdächtigungen gegen Evans auf Grund von positiven Dopingbefunden vorhanden.[4]
The English version of Wikipedia in relation to Evans does cite the Ferrari “test”(but not any rumour about training plans). [The German version cites “training plans” and not the test.]

Whilst I am sure there are other reasons for Andreas Kloeden’s antipathy towards the German language media this nonsense about Evans only tends to lend some credibility to that criticism.

That said Ferrari’s recently announced testing of Cadel at Rominger’s request will only tend to confirm “rumours” if Cadel does not come out and clarify the extent of that testing.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Nearly said:
Sorry, cannot find the apology which Mambo referred to as the article on the site and presumably any apology was taken down. Reference to it on German Wikipedia was also taken down. The article came from nowhere and went nowhere and with Cadel's denial most forums discussing this accepted it was a “mistake” (I take your point on the curious wording but then I gather he said he did not work with controversial doctors and nothing at all about "training plans" as Michael Rogers had specifically done not long before the article orginally came out).
.
Let me know if you find the apology.

Nobody in the sport took Cadel's "clarification" as anything more then smoke and mirrors. Cadel did not mention Ferrari's name for a reason, because he had indeed worked with him.....as had many of Rominger's clients.

It has been well reported that Ferrari is the focus of a large doping/finance case in Italy and Switzerland. What has not been well reported is that a high profile manager is also the focus of the probe. Given Rominger's close, decades long, ties with Ferrari I would not be surprised if he is caught up in this.
 
Jul 19, 2009
819
0
0
Damiano Machiavelli said:
Let me get this straight. You are completely making stuff up that is in direct opposition to what I wrote, attributing it to me, then responding to your made up points.

I disagree.
I said that Cadel's rivals got slower. Andy Schleck and Contador got slower. You said they were ill prepared and injured, but the fact remains for whatever reason, they DID go slower. You say that's not enough data to go on, by which I presume you mean "not enough data to make an inference about doping", but then turn around and say that Cunego and Voeckler got faster and so Cadel's doping program must not be working so well this year.

This is nonsensical. You can't have your cake and eat it too dude.

And I repeat, I am basing my opinion mainly on the data which shows that the incidence of abnormal blood profiles has decreased, and the fact that blood transfusions lead to abnormal profiles. A point which you are conveniently ignoring. The bit about Contador and Shleck going slower would be consistent with this finding if indeed those riders have been doped in the past, however this is a minor corroborating piece in the puzzle, not the primary factor, so stop cherry picking my comments to suit your obvious bias and look at the bigger picture.
 
Jul 19, 2009
819
0
0
Damiano Machiavelli said:
As I said, the GC situation of this year's Tour was too messed up to draw any conclusions about.
I'll do you the honour then of responding directly to this point.

oh look, I already did BEFORE you responded to my post in the first place....

Krebs cycle said:
The bio passport appears to be working. There are fewer incidences of abnormal blood profiles and it even looks as though it can detect autologous blood doping. So if the pro-peleton goss is that it is getting harder to obtain a performance edge via doping, this would favour strong riders that are suspected to be clean, such as Cadel Evans.
I agree with you 100% that based on performances alone, inferences cannot be made regarding doping, but I never wrote nor even remotely implied that. You are the one who completely ignored what I wrote above, but cherry picked out of context, the bit that came after. Comprehension yourself :p
 
Oct 12, 2010
51
0
0
Gimme a break!

I've got proof the 195 EPO doses are Evans'.

I've also got proof that Elvis is still alive - he's living with Ferrari and is on EPO too.

And I know who shot JFK. It was Och and Rihs. They did it because JFK was onto their program! :rolleyes:
 
Jun 19, 2009
4,841
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Well, dah - of course his insiders and people close to him predicted all this, although I don't remember their comments before the Tour.
Even Braislford had Wiggins on the podium, teams will always put the positive spin on it.

But I don't remember any mainstream comments putting Evans as a clear favorite.
Mainstream didn't seem to get far past the Conta/Schleck discussion. Really few people could have guessed the Voeckler factor anyway and that's why we had something fun to watch.
 
May 23, 2011
943
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
I said that Cadel's rivals got slower. Andy Schleck and Contador got slower. You said they were ill prepared and injured, but the fact remains for whatever reason, they DID go slower. You say that's not enough data to go on, by which I presume you mean "not enough data to make an inference about doping", but then turn around and say that Cunego and Voeckler got faster and so Cadel's doping program must not be working so well this year.

This is nonsensical. You can't have your cake and eat it too dude.
You keep ignoring that Contaador was injured. How he did relative to anyone is worth bupkis. I never asserted that Evans must be doping because his performance declined relative to Cunego. I said an argument could be made that Evans must be doping because Evans' performance to relative to Cunego declined; it is the same as a simiilar argument about Evans relative to the Schlecks. The key word there is could. The purpose was to show how your ridiculous theory about Evans and the Schlecks could easily be turned on its head by choosing other riders. As I have repeatedly said, something that you seem incapable of understanding, I do not think that any conclusion can be drawn from comparing the performance of one rider to another, not with the Schlecks, not with Cunego, not with the Laterne Rouge, not with anyone.

Krebs cycle said:
And I repeat, I am basing my opinion mainly on the data which shows that the incidence of abnormal blood profiles has decreased, and the fact that blood transfusions lead to abnormal profiles. A point which you are conveniently ignoring. The bit about Contador and Shleck going slower would be consistent with this finding if indeed those riders have been doped in the past...
The only data you have that abnormal blood profiles decreased is the less than trustworthy UCI saying so. The UCI tells us every year that the bad old days are over and the sport is cleaner. Has there ever been a year when they have said that the situation is worse than the previous one? Have they ever admitted that just a few years ago nearly every winner of anything substantial was doped? No, they keep telling us that it was just a few bad guys (who were all caught).

Sorry to clue you in on this, but when people get injured, they go slower. The injured Contador, who went slower in July, was ripping the legs off of people in May.

You cannot cherry pick the riders that you want to compare Evans with. You cannot use the Schlecks (or even more ridiculously, an injured Contador) without also taking into account riders like Voeckler and Cunego.
 
Mar 7, 2011
95
0
0
Damiano Machiavelli said:
You keep ignoring that Contaador was injured. How he did relative to anyone is worth bupkis. I never asserted that Evans must be doping because his performance declined relative to Cunego. I said an argument could be made that Evans must be doping because Evans' performance to relative to Cunego declined; it is the same as a simiilar argument about Evans relative to the Schlecks. The key word there is could. The purpose was to show how your ridiculous theory about Evans and the Schlecks could easily be turned on its head by choosing other riders. As I have repeatedly said, something that you seem incapable of understanding, I do not think that any conclusion can be drawn from comparing the performance of one rider to another, not with the Schlecks, not with Cunego, not with the Laterne Rouge, not with anyone.



]The only data you have that abnormal blood profiles decreased is the less than trustworthy UCI saying so. The UCI tells us every year that the bad old days are over and the sport is cleaner. Has there ever been a year when they have said that the situation is worse than the previous one? Have they ever admitted that just a few years ago nearly every winner of anything substantial was doped? No, they keep telling us that it was just a few bad guys (who were all caught).

Sorry to clue you in on this, but when people get injured, they go slower. The injured Contador, who went slower in July, was ripping the legs off of people in May.

You cannot cherry pick the riders that you want to compare Evans with. You cannot use the Schlecks (or even more ridiculously, an injured Contador) without also taking into account riders like Voeckler and Cunego.

So your telling someone they cant cherry pick riders but you are doing exactly that by saying who can and cant be used.
 
Jul 19, 2009
819
0
0
Damiano Machiavelli said:
The only data you have that abnormal blood profiles decreased is the less than trustworthy UCI saying so. The UCI tells us every year that the bad old days are over and the sport is cleaner. Has there ever been a year when they have said that the situation is worse than the previous one? Have they ever admitted that just a few years ago nearly every winner of anything substantial was doped? No, they keep telling us that it was just a few bad guys (who were all caught).
Oh here we go.... put on your tin foil hat folks, after 12yrs of research and development and millions of dollars spent on the bio passport, the scientists just publish false data because Damiano M doesn't like the sound of it. It's a grand scientific conspiracy (like global warming) to thwart the public into believing that something is being done to fight doping in sports.

Now you are showing your true colours. In the face of peer-reviewed published evidence you just simply deny its authenticity in order to satisfy your own conclusion. You have basically just stated that Olaf Schumacher is a fraud who publishes false data in the scientific literature. You've got no idea who Olaf Schumacher is do you? You've got no idea of the consequences of publishing false data in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a highly serious charge you've made and you just hit a very slippery slope without a leg to stand on. For starters, Olaf Schumacher is not the UCI. He is an MD and university professor who happens to sit on a UCI medical advisory board. Maybe you don't understand the difference between a board or advisory committee and an organisation itself?

You have no idea about the history of the development of the bio-passport and the battles that the researchers involved have waged not only with the UCI, but the IOC and IAAF to get it to where it is now. You have no idea that even though a very small minority of these scientists may sit on a UCI scientific advisory committee that they continually must fight with the UCI, IOC, and IAAF proper hierarchy and their teams of lawyers to get these tests sanctioned. You've got no idea that the bio passport is much bigger than cycling alone but is being adopted by numerous other international sporting organisations (FINA is recent example), so to publish false data would have serious consequences that reach far beyond pro cycling.

You are basically rubbishing 10-12yrs of work of dozens upon dozens of independent researchers from all over the world with this statement. Highly respected and well known scientists whom have dedicated either part or all of their careers to the fight against doping. Many of them have nothing to do with the UCI, so what about them, are they all under the magical power of the UCI big brother? I know a number of these scientists personally and I will defend their integrity against a baseless attack as you have made. And what about the subjects in these studies over the years? You are saying that all the subjects in those studies did it for nothing. Myself and many people I know had needles stuck in our arms and butts every 2 days for 6 wks on 2 separate occasions to advance this cause (hence the bee in my bonnet about this). The breach of ethics you are implying here is mind boggling.

There is a massive difference between Pat McQuaid making a broad statement to the media and an eminent scientist (whom for 99&#37]Sorry to clue you in on this, but when people get injured, they go slower. The injured Contador, who went slower in July, was ripping the legs off of people in May.

You cannot cherry pick the riders that you want to compare Evans with. You cannot use the Schlecks (or even more ridiculously, an injured Contador) without also taking into account riders like Voeckler and Cunego.[/QUOTE]For like the 10th time, the performance comparison was a minor point compared with the science. You are really trying very very hard to focus on this as if it was the major piece of the puzzle in my reasoning. Get over it, you are wrong. Move on.
 
Jul 28, 2009
769
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
For like the 10th time, the performance comparison was a minor point compared with the science. You are really trying very very hard to focus on this as if it was the major piece of the puzzle in my reasoning. Get over it, you are wrong. Move on.
You're wasting your time whole genome sequencing has shown 80% homology between DM and Stultus Saxum.
 
Feb 22, 2011
290
0
0
A bit off topic, but I was talking to a friend close to one of the BMC riders in the Giro and he was saying that their doctor was advising them to take pain-killers for the team time trial...A bit strange i thought, off topic, sorry
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS