Cav - Cycling 'cleanest sport'

[skidmark]

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.



Exactly.

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

Dave.

That would be a useful example if it were true. Note especially the part I bolded. Are you honestly saying that no cyclist has ever been caught by a dope test?

If you're not saying that (which I can't imagine you are, because it's simply untrue), what is the point you are trying to make by giving a false example and setting up a straw man argument?

 

[andy1234]

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

Thanks for making us aware that you entertain the thoughts of guys riding you bareback.

 

[Anonymous]

I trust Cav as I trust a HIV+ guy to ride me bareback.

Not really an analogy we needed. Child friendly forum remember.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

"It's an ignorant thought to just put cycling with doping," he said

Anyone displaying this level of articulacy shouldn't have their every utterance probed and dissected for hidden meaning.

 

[Walkman]

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.



Exactly.

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

Dave.

Good post!

We all heard what Kohl said about doping and testing and if we add Armstrong's comeback and his blood value during the tour and that guy from BMC (Thomas Frei?) "just drink some water and the EPO will not show in the tests" I think it's safe to say that the doping controll aren't too effective.

 

[python]

i'm willing to state that cav could be clean but he and the original poster are incorrect.

when stated so categorically, particularly implying the huge sporting universe, without first bringing evidence and any statistics to back it up, they will instantly attract critique. and for good measure indeed. throwing around ‘prove me wrong‘, after using so much black ink on oversized fonts is, yes, a strawman. most reasonable posters would expect that the onus of proof is on the orator of such strong statements.

if the categorical statement included ‘possibly‘, ‘perhaps‘, arguablly - it would be a perfectly valid (but not necessarily a true) statement.

that being said, i’ll admit some progress has been made and that cycling is one of the most tested sports. the cleanest ? show me the evidence and then we’ll talk..

the sport that is almost certainly taking doping problem more seriously than the uci is xc skiing and its fed (fis). they are likely (see the difference ?) testing as much (per athlete) if not more and have been ahead of the uci in all aspects of anti-doping including introduction of the bio passport, the novel tests (yes plasticizers too) and what’s most crucial, their no-nonsense incorrupt attitude.

have they solved their doping problem ? Hell, no. suffice is just one example below.

one national federation was told, you bugggers fix the problem, or your own skiers are out of all international competition for several years including your own winter olympics you spent billions to impress everyone.

did they fix it and how ? the accused fired 7 coaches, paid a hefty fine and replaced the president to get off the hook.

but just weeks ago one of the guys who medalled at still going wc in oslo - that guy was sidelined for astronomical haemoglobin.

and that’s fis record - the federation does not take bribes from it’s star athletes.

cleanest my behind.

 

[Benotti69]

Cav rides for htc which is run/owned(?) by Bob Stapleton, who is still involved with LA IIRC. I smell doping.

 

[El Pistolero]

I think Cav is so much better than the other sprinters, that he doesn't even need doping to win the races he wants.

If he ever starts doing well in Paris-Roubaix or Flanders, then I'll expect him to be doping. But not sooner. And some people are just being ridiculous here.

Not everyone dopes, I'm sure there are clean cyclists out there.

 

[Escarabajo]

Let's make something clear because we could be discussing several different things at the same time:

1- I think Cav is somewhat clean(ish). I don’t believe much in being 100% clean.
2- IMHO, what he said had good intentions and I applaud him for doing so, but I believe that is not accurate. Although I knew that doping was widespread in cycling long time ago, just a couple of years ago I have learned of how corrupt and manipulative the governing body is. So I don't trust the testing system.

A better measure would be dividing the numbers of riders testing positive and getting a ban versus the numbers of active riders in the Peloton. Versus the same thing against another sport. From that point of view I'd say that cycling does more than other sports (and The Hitch would be right) but that does not mean that is more effective. You just can not measure the effectiveness with these basic parameters. In order to know the effectiveness you would have to know other variables like the methods used in other sports, money invested, number of tests per athlete, etc, etc, etc.

You see, two different things.

Thanks.

 

[D-Queued]

i'm willing to state that cav could be clean but he and the original poster are incorrect.

when stated so categorically, particularly implying the huge sporting universe, without first bringing evidence and any statistics to back it up, they will instantly attract critique. and for good measure indeed. throwing around ‘prove me wrong‘, after using so much black ink on oversized fonts is, yes, a strawman. most reasonable posters would expect that the onus of proof is on the orator of such strong statements.

if the categorical statement included ‘possibly‘, ‘perhaps‘, arguablly - it would be a perfectly valid (but not necessarily a true) statement.

that being said, i’ll admit some progress has been made and that cycling is one of the most tested sports. the cleanest ? show me the evidence and then we’ll talk..

...<clipped interesting stuff on FIS>...

And, this is the point. Where is the evidence? Or, better, what does the evidence tell us?

Answering my own question:

UCI Tests 2006/2007 vs 2008/2009 (Passport announced in 2007, initiated in 2008)

Total Tests
2006: 5,570
2007: 6,968

2008: 12,758
2009: 15,699

This suggests that roughly half of the UCI tests are related to the Blood Passport. And, most of the passport tests are blood tests - meaning that the potentially most useful tests are not that useful.

And here is the report on the Passport:

The original UCI goal/plan was for 10 blood tests and 4 urine tests for a total of 804 ProTeam, Contenintal and Peloton riders in 2008 and 848 in 2009. Thus, this would be 11,872 Passport planned tests in 2008. The actual number of (Passport) tests conducted - according to the UCI - was 8404. Thus, non-passport tests would have actually decreased by one-third from 2007 to 2008.

Notably: the UCI was both UCI is the Testing and Result Management Authority for 48.6% of the in-competition and pre-competition tests (wonder why nobody got caught - they are still in charge of the testing). The UCI's involvement in the OOC tests is much smaller.

Based upon the actual number of tests conducted, either the UCI missed its goal considerably or they reduced the actual doping tests considerably - or both. Either way, based upon the number of positives that have been detected and the dopers that have been detected with CERA, Clen, etc., tests, the Passport is looking ever the more like a veil.

Finally, with only '51' in competition blood tests and '4' out of competition blood tests in 2006, it looks like the UCI was not getting much value out of that ... blood test equipment. ...

Dave.

Thus, what the data tells us is that the UCI has reduced the tests that could lead to an AAF by one-third.

Lots of tests, in and of themselves, are meaningless unless they achieve the goal. If the goal is to find cheats, then the tests are missing the goal.

There is another thread on the likelihood of success for the one Passport case being pursued.

Perhaps they should try testing for EPO instead.

Dave.

 

[The Hitch]

i'm willing to state that cav could be clean but he and the original poster are incorrect.

when stated so categorically, particularly implying the huge sporting universe, without first bringing evidence and any statistics to back it up, they will instantly attract critique. and for good measure indeed. throwing around ‘prove me wrong‘, after using so much black ink on oversized fonts is.

The reason i increased the size of my key points in that post is because 3 months ago me and 3 others had an argument with dqued on a similar topic - whether other sports are diriter than cycling.

He took the position that cycling is the dirites sport because so many cyclists have been caught and for page after page he talked about uci doping in cycling, uci epo in cycling bycicles uci lance uci aso uci aso uci cycling, bycicles, cyclists the uci and the uci.

For page after page me and the other posters told Dqued that we understand doping is bad in cycling but that he would need to actually look at other sports rather than just cycling, if he wanted to continue arguing that cycling is the worst period.

Here we revisit the same argument, so rather than watch dave go on making the same "why cycling is bad" bit which ive gotten quite tired of, i thought id try a different method.

Also note that i only said i agree with Cav that other sports dont get tested. That doesnt mean no other sports test for drugs, some like xc skiing which you have identified do. But they are very few and most, in fact all of the major sports, where people get payed 500 000 a week and become world heroes in an instant, do absolutely nothing, compared to cycling.

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.



Exactly.

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

Dave.

Your whole argument is based on the idea that the number is 0. That cycling is doing 0, absolutely 0 to combat doping. If the number is bigger, even by only 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
then your argument falls on its head.

And heres proof that x > 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

so your argument falls on its head.

 

[D-Queued]

The reason i increased the size of my key points in that post is because 3 months ago me and 3 others had an argument with dqued on a similar topic - whether other sports are diriter than cycling.

He took the position that cycling is the dirites sport because so many cyclists have been caught and for page after page he talked about uci doping in cycling, uci epo in cycling bycicles uci lance uci aso uci aso uci cycling, bycicles, cyclists the uci and the uci.

For page after page me and the other posters told Dqued that we understand doping is bad in cycling but that he would need to actually look at other sports rather than just cycling, if he wanted to continue arguing that cycling is the worst period.

Here we revisit the same argument, so rather than watch dave go on making the same "why cycling is bad" bit which ive gotten quite tired of, i thought id try a different method.

Also note that i only said i agree with Cav that other sports dont get tested. That doesnt mean no other sports test for drugs, some like xc skiing which you have identified do. But they are very few and most, in fact all of the major sports, where people get payed 500 000 a week and become world heroes in an instant, do absolutely nothing, compared to cycling.



Your whole argument is based on the idea that the number is 0. That cycling is doing 0, absolutely 0 to combat doping. If the number is bigger, even by only 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
then your argument falls on its head.

And heres proof that x > 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

so your argument falls on its head.

Good grief Hitch.

Who is the one not listening here?

Yes, I used the {null set} argument to make it really simple.

You agree with Cav and think cycling is more stringent?

Fine. Prove it.

Dave.

 

[The Hitch]

Good grief Hitch.

Who is the one not listening here?

Yes, I used the {null set} argument to make it really simple.

You agree with Cav and think cycling is more stringent?

Fine. Prove it.

Dave.

No im telling you your argument is wrong.

loads of people have got caught (including the current number 1 in the world ffs), hence the number can not be 0, hence your argument is wrong

 

[GreasyMonkey]

Cav rides for htc which is run/owned(?) by Bob Stapleton, who is still involved with LA IIRC. I smell doping.

BILL Stapelton is the LA connection, not BOB.... Two different people, just an unfortunate coincidence (for Bob) that they share a similar name.

 

[D-Queued]

Weak.

ffs?

1. Are we talking about the guy who is being let go by his federation?
2. What, if anything, did the UCI have to do with his analytical positive?

For purposes of illustration on the above illustration, reset to {zero}.

Please define "loads of people"?

Here is my assertion: The UCI is next to useless at eliminating doping in the peloton, or even reducing its incidence rate.

That is a pretty strident statement. Shouldn't be that difficult to rebut. Prove me wrong. (There is the creation of an entire anti-doping organization that sits on my side of the argument, however.)

Hint: You will need to use real numbers and not rely on the deny, deny, deny approach.

Until there is some sort of firm evidence - as in real numbers - then statements like we have from Cav ultimately are PR BS.

You can have all of the tests for green lollipops you want (Hint: for the literal minded like Hitch, this is an analogy ), but it doesn't make your anti-doping program more stringent.

Since we have no idea if the tests performed on cyclists have any realistic likelihood of identifying doping, then we will never have any way of determining if Cav is telling the truth or lying.

Moreover, so long as the UCI continues to reduce the number of AAF related tests it conducts and/or does not pursue tests against 'high risk' passport candidates, then the UCI is complicit in hiding doping in the pro peloton. And, the UCI is complicit in creating the uncertainty about whether Cav is a doper or not.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

BILL Stapelton is the LA connection, not BOB.... Two different people, just an unfortunate coincidence (for Bob) that they share a similar name.

OOOOOPPPPSSSS. Sorry Bob! my apologies.

Post deleted! again apologies.

 

[The Hitch]

Please define "loads of people"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
Your welcome.

1. Are we talking about the guy who is being let go by his federation?
2. What, if anything, did the UCI have to do with his analytical positive?

For purposes of illustration on the above illustration, reset to {zero}.

Here is my assertion: The UCI is next to useless at eliminating doping in the peloton, or even reducing its incidence rate.

That is a pretty strident statement. Shouldn't be that difficult to rebut. Prove me wrong. (There is the creation of an entire anti-doping organization that sits on my side of the argument, however.)

Hint: You will need to use real numbers and not rely on the deny, deny, deny approach.

Until there is some sort of firm evidence - as in real numbers - then statements like we have from Cav ultimately are PR BS.

You can have all of the tests for green lollipops you want (Hint: for the literal minded like Hitch, this is an analogy ), but it doesn't make your anti-doping program more stringent.

Since we have no idea if the tests performed on cyclists have any realistic likelihood of identifying doping, then we will never have any way of determining if Cav is telling the truth or lying.

Moreover, so long as the UCI continues to reduce the number of AAF related tests it conducts and/or does not pursue tests against 'high risk' passport candidates, then the UCI is complicit in hiding doping in the pro peloton. And, the UCI is complicit in creating the uncertainty about whether Cav is a doper or not.

Once again you are talking about the UCI being bad, helping dopers etc etc etc.

And i have told you, I KNOW THIS. Im not denying that.

The comment i am trying to respond to is the one where you said cycling is doing NOTHING to combat doping.

So all i need to do to disprove that is point to the fact that many cyclists get caught.

If cycling was doing nothing, Contador would not get caught.

If cycling was doing nothing Pellizoti wouldnt be suspended and lose the whole season while his team wanted to race him.

If cycling was doing nothing EVans wouldnt have lost his number 1 domestique for the Giro for 2 months.

If cycling was doing nothing Valverde wouldnt be paying for a crime commited 4 years ago.

If cycling was doing nothing, Rasmussen would be allowed in the Pro Tour.

I could go on.

And you could say that in a lot of those cases, the riders ended up well off, but if cycling was doing NOTHING - like tennis, like soccer, like rugby, like basketball etc,

cyclists would get tested twice a year not twice a week, they wouldnt get tested for as many drugs, and every single of those riders would be without suspicion, let alone any suspension.

and please dont respond once again with a essay about how the uci is reducing tests or whatever. Because that does not answer the fact that so many cyclists have faced punishment for doping.

 

[D-Queued]

... Once again you are talking abou...fortunately I cannot agree with you. Dave.

 

[The Hitch]

Hitch, who conducted the tests? Who has pursued these cases?

Who, by your definition, is "cycling"?

CONI? UCI? RFEC? WADA? AFLD? Who?

Please remove all of those from your list that were found to have doped - or committed a doping offense, or prosecuted - by someone other than the UCI.

Why has cycling lost its jurisdiction over the anti-doping movement within its sport?

What is the current status on Contador? Pellizotti? Why are they on your list? Officially they should not be.

The UCI's initial stance on Contador's positive was... ? Was that more stringent?

What is 'cycling' doing about all of them (BTW - CAS is to rule on Pellizotti by next Tuesday).

The Passport and its many thousands of 'tests' has yielded three riders. All have been cleared thus far. Is that being more stringent?

When it is 'cycling' that is more stringent, then I will agree with you and Cav. If it is other organizations stepping in to try and clean up the mess that 'cycling' has created, unfortunately I cannot agree with you.

Dave.

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.

 

[blackcat]

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.

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

check the size of his head, and his teeth movement, since 5 years ago. Head should not grow after bones fuse in the first years of your 20's. Head should not grow from 22 onwards. Cav is building a Castle Frodo with his skull.

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.

propaganda u damn fool. 'Spose u are all for Goebbels, Scotter Libby, Cheney et al.

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.

get with it dude. Frodo is bigtime, bigtime doper. No one with no results in 260km races wins San Remo clean.

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

spin, propaganda, cr2p, Public Strategies, Fabiani, Acom, Vaughters, K Street.

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.

dude, Cav is likely to be not offered anything for next year from High Road, cos he is an egotistical lier who is hard to handle.

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

Cav puts the O in omerta, and O in Frodo. dig it.

cheers

yes, let's all have a drink to this guy's gullibility.

"It's an ignorant thought to just put cycling with doping," he said

Anyone displaying this level of articulacy shouldn't have their every utterance probed and dissected for hidden meaning.

Cav, cycling IS doping and u know it son.

i'm willing to state that cav could be clean but he and the original poster are incorrect.

Python, or Italiano or RH, even Armstrong could be clean. You know that much, and that Cav is not a clean rider.

 

[Mambo95]

Two points here:

1. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you think a sport has a more stringent testing protacol than cycling, then name it. You can moan all you like about it's short-comings, but they do the best they can.

2. Cavendish. Whenever he's spoken about doping he has been the most believable, to me, of any cyclist. The chapter in his book about the subject is honest, open and is the best written illustration, that I've read, of the choices presented to a neo-pro.

 

[blackcat]

written by his ghostie u mean <eyes roll>

 

[Mambo95]

written by his ghostie u mean <eyes roll>

Do you know who ghost writing works? I know two people who do it. The words are 95% the athlete's and are just moulded into book form.

 

[blackcat]

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!

 

[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'

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.