Cav - Cycling 'cleanest sport'

[Mambo95]

cav did not do his A levels.

Take a look at his interviews b4 his second year. Guy was in dire need to do formal meedya trainin.

But Bob Staples never bothered, good for us tho.

Still, struggled to string a cogent phrase together.

Talking points, and soundbites, are the armory of the Omerta, like nuclear weaponry is to the IDF. Wiesel words, and the talking points, does not, do not, make an eloquent interviewee nor an oxbridge student. Off to do your GED with Armstrong Cav!

None of this makes sense. It's rambling. You've set your switch to 'mental'. "Still, struggled to string a cogent phrase together." - that's rich looking at the rest of your babbling.

The way autobiography works is the ghost sits down and has several sessions where the subject talks - a lot. By and large the subjects actual words make it to the page, with conversation turned to prose.

Looking at your post, I would suggest a Ghost for yourself.

 

[blackcat]

your doppelganger just ghosted u dude.

zing!

 

[Mambo95]

your doppelganger just ghosted u dude.

zing!

My doppelganger is apparently Ronald De Boer - ex Dutch footballer. I don't see him posting here.

 

[blackcat]

or third option, both.

 

[D-Queued]

Those guys are on my list because in the case of Pelli and Ballan, they were suspended and lost out on important races - hence they did recieve punishment, even if not big ones, and in the case of Contador his career is tainted badly - so he too is punished.



People in other sports (the ones i mentioned) on the other hand dont have to go through 2 tests a week, and hence are far less likely to get caught for that trace of clenbuterol left from the day before or whatever.

Also bare in mind that Zomegnan, did not let Ricco in 2010. Katusha has a - if you fail, 5 times your salary policy. Landis could not get a team. Rasmussen can not get into the Tour.

Those are all examples of cycling doing something against dopers. ANd as weak as it is it is still than so many other sport. Certainatly no sport bigger than cycling comes close.

Hitch, if you want to feel good about what cycling is doing I am ok with that.

But, and here comes the but, are you serious about Contador? Unfortunately, your examples are full of holes.

Remember Operacion Puerto? Remember AC who rode for LS?

You think a few picograms of clen has tainted Bert's career? Why is he even riding? What has 'cycling' done about that?

Nothing.

And, who has two tests per week? Please count with more than one hand. Remember, the trash is full of hypos and transfusion equipment. They are tripping over the evidence - still.

If 'cycling' were serious about doping, then 'cycling' would have tested at least one of Bert's teammates at the same time that he offered up his Clenbuterol.

'Cycling' knows what to do. They have WADA observers providing suggestions. And, they don't do it. Instead, they argue with AFLD. Look at the difference between the 2008 Tour (AFLD) and the 2009 Tour (UCI). But, big Pat promised no positives. And, 'cycling' delivered.

Sorry, but how can that be stringent or worthy of praise?

As I said, if you want to feel good about 'cycling's' commitment that is fine.

Dave.

 

[The Hitch]

Out of respect to your other postings on this forum, i will try to respond in a civilised manner, though reading your last post it is difficult.

Hitch, if you want to feel good about what cycling is doing I am ok with that.

Never said that. Read my posts.

As I said, if you want to feel good about 'cycling's' commitment that is fine

Never said that. Read my posts.

If 'cycling' were serious about doping,
.

Except i never said any of these things.



I have never defended what the UCI is doing. Comprende. It will save you some space and time if you would read through my posts rather than assume im arguing that the uci "is serious about doping.


I know from my experience in political discussion that there are many who dont understand the concept of a middle ground, and you are acting like one of them.

Just because i think cycling does more than other sports doesnt mean i agree with what cycling is doing. It doesnt mean "cycling is serious about doping".

It just means its doing more than other sports.


here let me give you an analogy.

A man gives $5 to charity in his life. Call him A.

Another man gives $0 dollars to charity in his life. Call him B.

Now in this scenario it seems obvious to me and many others that man B gives less to charity than man a.

But what you are doing is arguing that Man A gives less to charity because you cant begin to fathom the idea that someone could possibly give less to charity than Man A.
Therefore without looking at any other options you have immediately determined that Man A gives the least to charity.

Exactly the same here. You look at cycling, decide that the UCI is not doing much, and hence argue and continue arguing that the Cycling must therefore be the worst. Without looking at any other examples, to you cycling is bad hence it must be the worst


And if you want to keep arguing that cycling does "absolutely nothing", you are going to have to step away from Contador and start looking at Valverde, Basso, Ricco, Vino, Rasmussen, Landis.


And pretty please with a cherry on top, dont ever again tell me that "i feel good about 'cycling's' commitment", to doping, or imply that i think cycling is serious about doping.

 

[D-Queued]

Out of respect to your other postings on this forum, i will try to respond in a civilised manner, though reading your last post it is difficult.

...

And pretty please with a cherry on top, dont ever again tell me that "i feel good about 'cycling's' commitment", to doping, or imply that i think cycling is serious about doping.

Ok.

Dave.

 

[Escarabajo]

...

Just because i think cycling does more than other sports doesnt mean i agree with what cycling is doing. It doesnt mean "cycling is serious about doping".

It just means its doing more than other sports.


....

True. End of story.

Most effective doping control system: We don't know.

 

[D-Queued]

It just means its doing more than other sports.

....

True. End of story.


Most effective doping control system: We don't know.

Not.

Just for fun, I have been going through the USADA records from 2000-2010. Only looking at the big four (Cycling, Swimming, Track, Weightlifting).

Surprisingly, Cycling is well ahead of Track and Weightllifting. But, when it comes to most tested, Cycling cannot touch Swimming. Not in terms of number of athletes tested, number of tests, or most tested athlete.

Admittedly, this is just USADA data. It would be interested to see and compare other countries as well as the International bodies. And, Hitch may not believe this, but I did not expect this result. I thought cycling would be the highest.

Swimming
6919 Tests, 3087 Athletes Tested, 2.24 tests/athlete

Cycling
4830 Tests, 2433 Athletes Tested, 1.98 tests/athlete

(sure would be nice if WADA did an audit and provided this kind of data)

I am open to cycling is the most tested sport, but that kind of claim has always left me unsure. And this data does not back that claim up.

Dave.

 

[python]

dark pussy is confused. chtis t is banned i heard for spreading crap.

 

[python]

.

Python,

thunder, chris t whoever should know that even a dark pussy can be ignorant.

 

[The Hitch]

Not.

Just for fun, I have been going through the USADA records from 2000-2010. Only looking at the big four (Cycling, Swimming, Track, Weightlifting).

Surprisingly, Cycling is well ahead of Track and Weightllifting. But, when it comes to most tested, Cycling cannot touch Swimming. Not in terms of number of athletes tested, number of tests, or most tested athlete.

Admittedly, this is just USADA data. It would be interested to see and compare other countries as well as the International bodies. And, Hitch may not believe this, but I did not expect this result. I thought cycling would be the highest.

Swimming
6919 Tests, 3087 Athletes Tested, 2.24 tests/athlete

Cycling
4830 Tests, 2433 Athletes Tested, 1.98 tests/athlete

(sure would be nice if WADA did an audit and provided this kind of data)

I am open to cycling is the most tested sport, but that kind of claim has always left me unsure. And this data does not back that claim up.

Dave.

I would propose that in America swimming is both a bigger sport and a more popular sport. While our thing is simply the basic a to b who is the fastest on a bike idea, swimming covers several different disciplines, provides half the medals at the olympics, and Americans dominate it.

So it should have more tests.

 

[The Hitch]

Also Dave i present to you Dr Maseratis statistics from a few months ago which tell a very different story

Not sure why people just didn't grab some stats to settle the matter.
All stats from 2009.

UCI. Cycling- OOC 9080, In Competition 6042. Total = 15122.
FINA Swimming- OOC 1196, In Competition 889. Total = 2085.
ITF, Tennis - OOC 154, In Competition 1972. Total = 2126.

One word of caution with the cycling stats is that it includes samples that only go towards the Biological Passport.

But getting back to the point of which sports are better/worse?
It is almost impossible to say - Cycling has used various products throughout its history, most to numb the pain.
But it wasn't until the 80's that sports started to be properly examined by physiologists who studied the sports and tailored training, this was quickly followed by the scientists. Ultimately all sports can benefit from PEDs so all will have their doping.

 

[laziali]

Yeah cleanest sport. Apart from lawn bowls. Oh and sailing. And table tennis. Oh yeah, synchro swimming too. But APART from those, cleanest sport.

Hang on, Monty Python did that skit already

 

[Semper Fidelis]

None of this makes sense. It's rambling. You've set your switch to 'mental'. "Still, struggled to string a cogent phrase together." - that's rich looking at the rest of your babbling.

The way autobiography works is the ghost sits down and has several sessions where the subject talks - a lot. By and large the subjects actual words make it to the page, with conversation turned to prose.

Looking at your post, I would suggest a Ghost for yourself.

Look it is Mambo again and again.

 

[D-Queued]

First, I need to admit a mistake in my post above.

US Track and Field did have more tests than cycling, or swimming, with 6,473 athletes tested between 2000 and 2010.

My apologies.

I would propose that in America swimming is both a bigger sport and a more popular sport. While our thing is simply the basic a to b who is the fastest on a bike idea, swimming covers several different disciplines, provides half the medals at the olympics, and Americans dominate it.

So it should have more tests.

Please recall the following statement:

It just means its doing more than other sports.

On an absolute and relative basis, that is not true in the US at least.

Maybe swimming does have more athletes and more tests. But, it still does more tests per athlete. That is doing more!

And, if it is 'volume' of tests that is the metric, then you have to credit swimming - and track and field as it turns out - here.

Of course, it is only effectiveness that means anything.

Don't you think that to claim any sport is doing more than any other, we need to have the following information:

Percentage of dopers at Time 1
Percentage of dopers at Time 2

Number of tests conducted between Time 1 and Time 2

Number of positives and banned athletes caught by Tests

If cycling is doing more than any other sport, then it should have done better (less increase, or bigger decrease) in the percentage of dopers between Time 1 and Time 2.

To take credit for the improved or relative improvement, cycling will need to demonstrate that the tests conducted actually caught dopers and that these results were upheld after adjudication.

Until then, statements that 'cycling is doing more' cannot be validated.

This is projection and not fact.

Also Dave i present to you Dr Maseratis statistics from a few months ago which tell a very different story

Thanks, I do recall these numbers. Also, please add for comparison the IAAF numbers - also lower than the UCI numbers (4,784 tests in 2009). But, with a notable exception, the IAAF does provide a total of EPO tests conducted (1,612 in 2009 - almost a third of their testing). As we know, the UCI did not pursue EPO tests during the Tour when they were advised otherwise, and where the Passport data suggested otherwise.

As Maserati noted in his original post, many of the UCI 'tests' are for blood passport. If you subtract those (which I did for you before), cycling did have more tests.

But, as noted above, what did the tests accomplish?

As noted, I would be more than happy if you could prove my assertion wrong. Seriously. This will take the above noted information, however.

In respect of you and your position, I have invested considerable time compiling the information from the USADA site into a massive Excel data file.

Here is a further comparison of top athletes:

2010 Lance Armstrong 6
2009 Lance Armstrong 6
2008 Lance Armstrong 3
2005 Lance Armstrong 3
2004 Lance Armstrong 5
2003 Lance Armstrong 1
2002 Lance Armstrong 1
2001 Lance Armstrong 2

2010 Kathryn Hoff 3
2009 Kathryn Hoff 9
2008 Kathryn Hoff 1
2007 Kathryn Hoff 5
2006 Kathryn Hoff 9
2005 Kathryn Hoff 8
2004 Kathryn Hoff 7

27 tests in 8 years versus 43 tests in 7 years. Again, swimming did more testing.

Can I ask that you please considier 'qualifying' your statement?

In my opinion (see I qualified this), any cyclist that claims cycling is doing more similarly needs to provide proof of it. Otherwise, given the widespread nature of doping in cycling, the few number of positives, and that this is a common doper's sleight-of-hand statement, it raises my suspicions (see I qualified this) about what they are trying to hide with faulty data.

Is Cav truly a credible source?

What research has he done in this area? Less than what I have done here, I suspect. Nor would I anticipate that he would follow the requirements of proof very well. How many sports has he participated in at the elite level? Can he describe the differences in culture and procedure between at least two sports?

What is he trying to hide?

Dave.

 

[The Hitch]

In respect of you and your position, I have invested considerable time compiling the information from the USADA site into a massive Excel data file.

Here is a further comparison of top athletes:

2010 Lance Armstrong 6
2009 Lance Armstrong 6
2008 Lance Armstrong 3
2005 Lance Armstrong 3
2004 Lance Armstrong 5
2003 Lance Armstrong 1
2002 Lance Armstrong 1
2001 Lance Armstrong 2

2010 Kathryn Hoff 3
2009 Kathryn Hoff 9
2008 Kathryn Hoff 1
2007 Kathryn Hoff 5
2006 Kathryn Hoff 9
2005 Kathryn Hoff 8
2004 Kathryn Hoff 7

27 tests in 8 years versus 43 tests in 7 years. Again, swimming did more testing.
.

So your Lance Armstrong vs Kathryn Hoth tests are based on what the USDA has done right?

But Lance will surely as a cyclist in europe get tested more by other agencies than the USDA.

But, as noted above, what did the tests accomplish?

Since Maseratis figures were from 2009, the following

On 11 February, the Italian National Olympic Committee matched DNA samples taken from Alejandro Valverde during a rest day in Italy of the 2008 Tour de France to blood seized in the Operación Puerto investigation.[358] At a February 2009 appearance in front of the Olympic Committee, Valverde maintained his innocence and questioned the Italians' jurisdiction over this case. In May 2009, the Italian Olympic Committee suspended him from competition in Italy for 2 years, effectively barring him from the 2009 Tour de France, which detoured briefly onto Italian soil.[359]
On April 17, it was announced Tyler Hamilton tested positive for banned steroid Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) after an out-of-competition control in early February. He faces a lifelong ban, and decided to retire with immediate effect.[360]
On April 29, it was announced former teammates Davide Rebellin and Stefan Schumacher tested positive for Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator (CERA) during the 2008 Summer Olympics.[361][362]
Christian Pfannberger tested not-negative in an out-of-competition test on March 19. He was suspended by his team Katusha several days before the Giro.[363]
Tom Boonen tested positive for cocaine in an out of competition test on 27 April. He had previously been found to have taken the same substance in May 2008.[364]
Antonio Colom tested positive for EPO in an out of competition test on 2 April. He was targeted for additional controls using information from his blood profile. Colom's positive drug test is the second within the ranks of Katusha within five weeks (see Christian Pfannberger).[365]
On July 1, it was announced that a re-test of an out-of-competition sample collected from Thomas Dekker in December 2007, while Dekker was a member of the Rabobank Team, had shown the presence of EPO. In 2008, Dekker had transferred from Rabobank to Silence-Lotto. Silence-Lotto immediately suspended Dekker.[366]
On 2 July 2009 Clément Lhotellerie was dismissed from Vacansoleil's team roster after the French 23-year old had tested on methylhexanamine on 28 April of that year. The substance, an active ingredient in nasal congestion medication, is listed on the banned lists of both the UCI and WADA. It is the second time in as many years that Lhotellerie has been dismissed by a team. Despite promising results in Paris–Nice, the Fleche Wallonne and the 4 Jours de Dunkirk, Skil-Shimano dissolved its contract with the rider last year after he failed to attend two appointments with the team.[367]
On 22 July 2009, it was announced that Danilo Di Luca had tested positive for CERA on 20 and 28 May 2009, during the Giro d'Italia. He was provisionally suspended with immediate effect by the UCI.[368]
On 31 July 2009, it was announced that Mikel Astarloza had tested positive for Recombinant Erythropoietin (EPO) on 26 June 2009 and was being provisionally suspended by the UCI.[369]
On 17 September 2009, the German Cycling Federation announced that Olaf Pollack and Markus Cronjäger had been provisionally suspended after returning positive doping controls. Pollack tested positive in an out-of-competition test on July 6 and Cronjäger tested positive after a control conducted at the Rund um den Odenwald on July 11.[370]
On 18 September 2009, it was announced that Liberty Seguros Continental team riders Nuno Ribeiro, Isidro Nozal and Hector Guerra tested positive for EPO-CERA in controls prior to the Tour of Portugal. Ribeiro went on to win the general classification.[371]
On 6 October 2009, it was announced that Gabriele Bosisio of the LPR Brakes team had tested positive on EPO during an out-of-competition test in September. Bosisio had won a stage in the 2008 Giro. Of the same team the following riders have a tainted past: Lorenzo Bernucci (Sibutramine, 2007), Di Luca (not allowed to take part in the 04 Tour; unusual low hormone levels in the 2007 Giro, suspended over his share in the Oil For Drugs, he tested positive on CERA on two occasions during the 2009 Giro) and Alessandro Petacchi (nandrolon, 2007). .[372]

Thats probably higher than the number of people caught in any other sport for 2009.

 

[D-Queued]

So your Lance Armstrong vs Kathryn Hoth tests are based on what the USDA has done right?

But Lance will surely as a cyclist in europe get tested more by other agencies than the USDA.



Since Maseratis figures were from 2009, the following



Thats probably higher than the number of people caught in any other sport for 2009.

Thank you for qualifying that statement!

As for US versus international, whether it is Lance or Kathryn,

This search includes all in- and out-of-competition tests on U.S. athletes conducted under USADA's testing program. This includes tests conducted on U.S. athletes training internationally by other testing entities at the request of USADA. The World Anti-Doping Agency and an athlete's International Federation may have performed additional tests, which are not included on this list.

(Please note that I am not answering the question on how many tests Lance had elsewhere, other than to note it is far less than you may imagine.)

But, if you want to compare 2009 numbers, in terms of OOC tests, cycling had 91 OOC tests in 2009. Yup, less than one OOC test per TdF competitor.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Resources/Statistics/WADA_Doping_Control_2009_OOCT_Stats_EN.pdf

The following sports had the same or more OOC tests in 2009:
132 Aquatics
102 Wrestling
99 Skiing
92 Rowing
91 Bobsleigh/Tobogganing

Of those, Rowing conducted more OOC EPO tests (90) than Cycling (85).

In terms of AAFs, the 2008 statistics indicate that Swimming (FINA) was well ahead of cycling, though cycling actually had more ADRVs

AAFs
118 FINA
39 IAAF
- UCI (not reported)

ADRVs
26 FINA
19 IAAF
45 UCI

Thus, there is a case that there were more ADRVs in cycling. It is still very hard - if not impossible - to state categorically, though, that cycling is doing more than any other sport.

Dave.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

cav did not do his A levels.

Take a look at his interviews b4 his second year. Guy was in dire need to do formal meedya trainin.

But Bob Staples never bothered, good for us tho.

Still, struggled to string a cogent phrase together.

Talking points, and soundbites, are the armory of the Omerta, like nuclear weaponry is to the IDF. Wiesel words, and the talking points, does not, do not, make an eloquent interviewee nor an oxbridge student. Off to do your GED with Armstrong Cav!

Yeah, but Frodo, unlike Ricco, and those other nasty dopers, is a good clean english speaker - and they never dope.

I mean its not like HGH is staffed with loads of former dopers is it...

 

[Benotti69]

Yeah, but Frodo, unlike Ricco, and those other nasty dopers, is a good clean english speaker - and they never dope.

I mean its not like HGH is staffed with loads of former dopers is it...

Freudian slip as i presume you mean HTC, but Team HGH is probably closer if you look a how big Goss's chin is.