Cav - Cycling 'cleanest sport'

The headline isnt mine. Its the title of this article

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,15264_6787812,00.html

I can guarantee that no other sport is tested anywhere near as much as cycling. If you test you are going to catch cheats in any aspect of life and that doesn't make cycling a bad sport, it makes it the cleanest sport, if anything.
I agree with him on the other sports dont get tested.

Given that he was at an event where he was promoting IL GIRO, i think Cav talked a lot of sense that day
 
The Hitch said:
The headline isnt mine. Its the title of this article

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,15264_6787812,00.html

I can guarantee that no other sport is tested anywhere near as much as cycling. If you test you are going to catch cheats in any aspect of life and that doesn't make cycling a bad sport, it makes it the cleanest sport, if anything.
I agree with him on the other sports dont get tested.

Given that he was at an event where he was promoting IL GIRO, i think Cav talked a lot of sense that day
The only rational response is, 'what is he hiding'?

Testing doesn't make anything cleaner. Catching and eliminating makes it cleaner.

Since there is very poor correlation between the supposed heightened testing and catching and elminiating doping (Passport tests actually reduced doping tests), then we have a reverse correlation.

More testing means more undetected and/or unreported doping. Which is the only conclusion that can be drawn.

Dave.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
regarding AC:

"I don't know if he has done anything. That's for the CAS to decide. You can never trust someone fully," he said.

"Alberto is racing again. The decision will go the CAS. If he has doped then he will get his term for it hopefully."


omerta talk sounds different.
 
sniper said:
regarding AC:

"I don't know if he has done anything. That's for the CAS to decide. You can never trust someone fully," he said.

"Alberto is racing again. The decision will go the CAS. If he has doped then he will get his term for it hopefully."


omerta talk sounds different.
Did WADA/UCI appealed already?
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,392
0
0
It's not the cleanest - but it (almost) certainly has the most stringent doping controls. So, maybe that's what he means. He's a man who blurts things out without much thought.

The crazy response to this is 'what is he hiding?'
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Escarabajo said:
Did WADA/UCI appealed already?
good point. apparently, the word in the peloton is that the case will go to CAS eventually. though that is not hard to predict of course.
 
May 20, 2010
801
0
0
It used to be that I couldn't bear Cavendish opening his mouth because of the state of his teeth. Since all that clever dental work his pearly whites are sight to behold, and no longer distract from the words which emanate from his mouth---it's just a shame that he's filling the airwaves with that nonsense.
 
Mambo95 said:
It's not the cleanest - but it (almost) certainly has the most stringent doping controls. So, maybe that's what he means. He's a man who blurts things out without much thought.

The crazy response to this is 'what is he hiding?'
Please define 'stringent'.

All the arm waving in the world doesn't mean anything unless:

1. You catch a reasonable portion of the offenders
2. You can demonstrate that the actual number of offenders is being reduced
3. You can demonstrate that impact on the performances and wins is being reduced

Minimally, all three are required to demonstrate 'stringent'!

I am not holding my breath.

Now, if Cav wants to come forward and provide evidence on:

1. How he is getting caught now when he didn't used to be caught
2. The amount by which he has reduced his doping from prior years
3. The races he has won recently without doping, as compared to the races he won before when he was doping

Then we would have some empirical evidence to back up his claim.

Dave.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,392
0
0
D-Queued said:
Please define 'stringent'.
The strictest. The most likely to catch a doper. How many sports have the biological passport (2, maybe 3)? If you have another sport as a candidate then please tell us (Nordic skiing maybe).
 
Mambo95 said:
The strictest. The most likely to catch a doper. How many sports have the biological passport (2, maybe 3)? If you have another sport as a candidate then please tell us (Nordic skiing maybe).
And how many dopers has the biological passport caught?

Waste. Of. Time.

Dave.
 
The Hitch said:
It still has the "most stringent" controls which is what Mambo said.
How can you honestly state that?

Serious question?

This must be measurable.

Define 'stringent'.

Just doing a lot of tests, with no result, does not make it more 'stringent'.

To be more 'stringent' it must be harder to dope.

There is NO evidence that it is harder to dope as there is NO evidence anyone has been caught doping.

Though, there is evidence that 'suspicious' profiles have been given a pass on EPO tests. Thus, the application of the vaunted regime is letting dopers get away with doping.

That is not an increase in 'stringency'. In fact, it is evidence of an increase in 'leniency'.

Dave.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,392
0
0
D-Queued said:
Now, if Cav wants to come forward and provide evidence on:

1. How he is getting caught now when he didn't used to be caught
2. The amount by which he has reduced his doping from prior years
3. The races he has won recently without doping, as compared to the races he won before when he was doping
I'll make some answers about myself to questions similar to your questions.

1. Prior to 9/11 I was never investigated for terrorism. Post 9/11 I have still not been investigated. Therefore, in your mind, there has been no change in attitude to terrorism.
2, The amount of heroin I have taken over the last 10 years is completely unchanged.
3. I have been as productive at work while going in dressed as a donkey as I have when I have not . And my productivity was down in 2010.

The simple answer, thatt you can't comprehend, because you're obsessed, is that some riders don't dope. Therefore, prior to 2010 I must have been dressed as donkey.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,392
0
0
D-Queued said:
And how many dopers has the biological passport caught?

Waste. Of. Time.

Dave.

If you have a sport with more stringent testing then name it. Otherwise, shut up.
 
D-Queued said:
How can you honestly state that?

Serious question?

This must be measurable.

Define 'stringent'.

Just doing a lot of tests, with no result, does not make it more 'stringent'.

To be more 'stringent' it must be harder to dope.

There is NO evidence that it is harder to dope as there is NO evidence anyone has been caught doping.

Though, there is evidence that 'suspicious' profiles have been given a pass on EPO tests. Thus, the application of the vaunted regime is letting dopers get away with doping.

That is not an increase in 'stringency'. In fact, it is evidence of an increase in 'leniency'.

Dave.
Dr Masserati posted statistics in a previous debate we had on this (in which i recall you participated) and the stats showed that in the US cycling beat more popular sports "number of tests per year" by ridiculous ammounts. Something like 5 times as much for cycling as for sports with more money.

It even beat Athletics even though Athletics is a umbrella term for several different sports, and one of the most popular sports in the US.
 
Mambo95 said:
The strictest. The most likely to catch a doper. How many sports have the biological passport (2, maybe 3)? If you have another sport as a candidate then please tell us (Nordic skiing maybe).
IMHO the Bio Passport is an excellent tool to catch dopers. I just don't think that is being honestly used by the UCI. That means that is not working to the fullest potential. So strictest might not be the right word to use.
 
The Hitch said:
Dr Masserati posted statistics in a previous debate we had on this (in which i recall you participated) and the stats showed that in the US cycling beat more popular sports "number of tests per year" by ridiculous ammounts. Something like 5 times as much for cycling as for sports with more money.

It even beat Athletics even though Athletics is a umbrella term for several different sports, and one of the most popular sports in the US.
Tests don't mean anything if some "whole" teams are being told of when they are going to be tested. Or make the testers wait for their test.;)
 
Mambo95 said:
If you have a sport with more stringent testing then name it. Otherwise, shut up.
Ok. :rolleyes:

Whoops, changed my mind. :p

The Hitch said:
Dr Masserati posted statistics in a previous debate we had on this (in which i recall you participated) and the stats showed that in the US cycling beat more popular sports "number of tests per year" by ridiculous ammounts. Something like 5 times as much for cycling as for sports with more money.

It even beat Athletics even though Athletics is a umbrella term for several different sports, and one of the most popular sports in the US.
If we are discussing the same dialog, then you may recall that while there has been an increase in tests with the Passport, the actual number of (anti-)doping tests has declined.

Please let me know if you would like me to provide you with those numbers again.

Again, all the number of tests prove is the degree of efficiency or inefficiency. What we need to know is how many riders dope today, and before the Passport.

If you want to categorically state that cycling has the most number of tests, then unless the rate of catching dopers has increased, cycling has moved into an even bigger lead in how inefficient the tests are. Cycling can now claim to have instituted more inefficient tests.

Inefficiency =/= stringency.

How about if we agree that Cycling does an insane number of tests?

*Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result*

This is a simple statistics discussion and relationship. Emotion and personal opinion have nothing to do with it.

To say that it is more stringent means that there is a before and an after.

The 'before' must have let more dopers get away with doping.

The 'after' must let less dopers get away with it.

Give us the number of dopers before and after... then you can say stringency has increased.

The WADA IO report from last year's Tour underscores what we can observe: Passport flagged riders were not given EPO tests when the indicators called for it. And there was NO economic or other rationale.

I don't know about you, but if you have plausible and actionable information and you 'choose' not to do anything, then that is leniency.

Dave.
 
sniper said:
good point. apparently, the word in the peloton is that the case will go to CAS eventually. though that is not hard to predict of course.
You're a message board poster. How do you know what the "word in the peloton" is? If you know a guy who's friends with a guy who sniffed Mick Rogers' chammy, ok, just say that. Otherwise, WTF does that mean?

DQ has it right. Often tested doesn't mean much if the test is worthless.

It's like saying Julliard students are tested a lot so they must be good at chemistry.

Edit: I've had a couple glasses of wine, so I don't mean to be snappy or anything.
 
D-Queued said:
If we are discussing the same dialog, then you may recall that while there has been an increase in tests with the Passport, the actual number of (anti-)doping tests has declined.

Please let me know if you would like me to provide you with those numbers again.
.
Nope, as far as this discussion goes i really couldnt care less. It has no relevance.

Actually, I dont care if the UCI is helping provide cyclists with fake ids to hide from drug testers, and has armies of flying monkeys roaming around stealing positive samples from laboratories .

It is STILL DOING MORE than other sports.

And that is the point.

If you want to contribute to this discussion stop repeating ad nauseum the "cycling is bad at doping :rolleyes:" argument which NO ONE HAS CHALLENGED and start explaining why OTHER SPORTS are cleaner than cycling.

Until then your comments about cycling being bad are just white noise to the discussion.
 
Nov 24, 2010
263
1
0
Go Cav

If you can bear with me for a moment as I waffle on. Now I believe Cav is clean. Can I prove it? Answer is no.

"Alberto is racing again. The decision will go the CAS. If he has doped then he will get his term for it hopefully."

"You can never trust someone fully," he said. http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,15264_6787812,00.html

To me, Cav opening up about doping to the press is good. How many others are doing the same! Possibly more than 10 years ago.

Hypothetically, if Mark was born 10 years earlier and was speaking like this in say 2001, just think what may have happened. Possibly a rider alongside him telling him to zip his mouth and maybe other repercussions.

I seem to remember another poster saying Cav had a run in with Ricco over doping.

Keep it up Mark. Continue to speak up and maybe more riders will follow your example. This is good. I dont care if you put your foot in it from time to time.

Maybe, just maybe one or two onion skins have already peeled from the Omerta. We live in hope.

cheers
 
The Hitch said:
...

It is STILL DOING MORE than other sports.

...
Hitch, please bear with me for a sec.

Do you understand the concept of multiply by 0?

Here is the math relationship:

Solve for 'doing more to catch dopers'

Doper catching in Sport A = # of tests * test effectivity
Doper catching in Sport B = # of tests * test effectivity

If test effectivity = 0, # of tests can be infinite and have NO bearing

How can we compare what one sport does about doping to what another one does if we cannot compare the EFFECTIVITY?

0 positives = 0 effectivity

If you do 100 million tests, and achieve 0 positives when you know that there is doping in the population, then you have wasted your time on 100 million tests. Taking that to a billion will not make any difference.

Moose McKnuckles said:
.... Often tested doesn't mean much if the test is worthless.

It's like saying Julliard students are tested a lot so they must be good at chemistry.
....
Exactly.

We cannot compare any sport until we have a known test effectivity of > 0.

Dave.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
sniper said:
regarding AC:

"I don't know if he has done anything. That's for the CAS to decide. You can never trust someone fully," he said.

"Alberto is racing again. The decision will go the CAS. If he has doped then he will get his term for it hopefully."


omerta talk sounds different.
extrapolate on the first premise about never trusting fully. I trust Cav as I trust a HIV+ guy to ride me bareback.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY