For the record, I think option 2 is correct.Dear Wiggo said:Good, because I certainly did not do that, and neither did CaptainBag.
There's 2 possibilities:
1. the ABP is enough to determine dodginess, in which case we should be able to look at the data and determine its dodginess without additional explanation - so far we have "Ryder was sick" and "Everyone at the Giro tested high".
2. the ABP readings are too open to interpretation or "explanation", in which case:
a) the ABP is worse than useless and
b) releasing values is disingenuous at best
Performance is not science. Variables and data are nice, but its hard to know exactly how they all interact. I'll go further to say that often, the scientific method of isolating certain variables for better understanding can often be detrimental to an intrinsic understanding of performance.
When evaluating clean or dirty performance, variables matter more. We understand some values in terms of others, and can observe their interaction. The ABP is not useless, though, as egregious manipulation can be observed and analyzed easily. Theres proof in the obvious analytical positives we've seen.
It gets dicey when we look at subtleties. As an athlete, with anecdotal experience and evidence towards the influence and importance of subtleties in individuals biology and training, I will always give the athlete benefit of the doubt when small variations don't meet our expectations.
My answer to your question is shared by many, in that the ABP scared off arrogant/reckless doping. We are still looking for an indicator of microdosing, but the ABP is still valuable