• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Contador speaks out on doping.

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 1, 2009
28
0
0
It's a tad bit ironic that people in this thread are critiquing Contador for being too savvy with his answer, while in another thread he gets criticized for being "stupid" or "inexperienced" enough to tell an interviewer that he doesn't respect Lance as a person.

I'm not saying that what he said isn't the same type of statement we keep hearing over and over again, but with all the hubbub over his one interview it's not really a shock if he thinks it's better to run every word he says by a PR guy.
 
Jul 30, 2009
62
0
0
cromagnon said:
Why is this a problem?

It's not a problem.

Most riders say they don't dope though. Could be something lost in translation, but there was nothing saying he didn't/doesn't dope.

Almost all riders who fail a doping test have passed lots of them before...doesn't say anything about whether or not they were doping.
 
Jul 19, 2009
122
0
0
psychlist said:
I must admit I have never seen the above quote, but I certainly have heard the "never failed..." language on numerous occasions. That is definitely what AC's response sounds like to me.

So what was the question Armstrong was answering in bold above?

I don't think it really matters what the specific question was. He said the magic words. He also said them in 1999 apparently... and continued to do so for 10 years. Internet myths are perpetuated by assumptions that aren't fact-checked because people want them to be true. Those people have been proven - unequivocally - to be the kind of people who lie in order to promote their agenda.

mistahsinclair said:
Seems to be a very politically correct answer...actually, it's not an answer at all...at least not to the question being asked.

It's a yes/no question. To say you pass the controls means nothing. Everyone passes the controls...until they get caught!

"Until they get caught." So you'd rather catch a lot more people, right? Everyone would.

What's the acceptable false positive rate, though? Every tests has a certain sensitivity and specificity (wiki it if you don't know what I'm talking about). You have to protect those who are innocent from the possibility of getting screwed. They have to test with as high specificity as possible in order to have as few false positives as possible.

Is it better to have 10 dopers race? Or to have 1 innocent guy skewered?
 
Jul 30, 2009
62
0
0
dienekes88 said:
"Until they get caught." So you'd rather catch a lot more people, right? Everyone would.

What's the acceptable false positive rate, though? Every tests has a certain sensitivity and specificity (wiki it if you don't know what I'm talking about). You have to protect those who are innocent from the possibility of getting screwed. They have to test with as high specificity as possible in order to have as few false positives as possible.

Is it better to have 10 dopers race? Or to have 1 innocent guy skewered?

As far as I know the testers know who the dopers are (at least the detectable products) however, due to the sensitivity limits, they are very rarely caught...this is where the micro-dosing comes in.

The limits set mean that plenty of people who are doping get through, but the innocent guys don't get skewered.
 
Jul 19, 2009
122
0
0
mistahsinclair said:
As far as I know the testers know who the dopers are (at least the detectable products) however, due to the sensitivity limits, they are very rarely caught...this is where the micro-dosing comes in.

Actually, we're probably talking about a test set to have a high specificity to eliminate as many false positives as possible. Unfortunately to get there, you have to go to a low sensitivity on the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Having a high sensitivity test will give you a lot of false positives. However, you catch most of those who have the condition for which you're testing. Second line screening tests tend to have high specificity so that you can make sure you eliminate all those who don't have the condition.

The limits set mean that plenty of people who are doping get through, but the innocent guys don't get skewered.

That's what I was saying.

It's better to have false negatives than to have false positives.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
dienekes88 said:
I don't think it really matters what the specific question was. He said the magic words. He also said them in 1999 apparently... and continued to do so for 10 years. Internet myths are perpetuated by assumptions that aren't fact-checked because people want them to be true. Those people have been proven - unequivocally - to be the kind of people who lie in order to promote their agenda.

How do you mean a myth? It would be a myth if it was accepted that LA had never uttered those words- no-one ever said that.

In relation to your second statement - I was the one who highlighted the CNN transcript, in the interest of fairness. I think you already know where my opinions are on the LA doping debate.

As for your comment that LA was saying that in 1999 'apparently' - I do not remember that. From memory -I waited a long time for him to utter "I have never doped" - before that his comments were similarly vague like Contadors.
If you have a link to an earlier comment than after he was forced to defend himself in 2005 I would be grateful to see it.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
dienekes88 said:
"Until they get caught." So you'd rather catch a lot more people, right? Everyone would.

What's the acceptable false positive rate, though? Every tests has a certain sensitivity and specificity (wiki it if you don't know what I'm talking about). You have to protect those who are innocent from the possibility of getting screwed. They have to test with as high specificity as possible in order to have as few false positives as possible.

Is it better to have 10 dopers race? Or to have 1 innocent guy skewered?
But if 1O EPO are not caught, they would destroy the races... so the other riders have to dope too....
 
Jul 19, 2009
122
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
How do you mean a myth? It would be a myth if it was accepted that LA had never uttered those words- no-one ever said that.

Well, cruising teh intarwebz, the claim that "he always says 'I have never tested positive,' but he never says 'I have never doped" is repeated so often that it's assumed that it's true. Just wait a couple weeks. You'll see it surface a couple more times.

In relation to your second statement - I was the one who highlighted the CNN transcript, in the interest of fairness. I think you already know where my opinions are on the LA doping debate.

As for your comment that LA was saying that in 1999 'apparently' - I do not remember that. From memory -I waited a long time for him to utter "I have never doped" - before that his comments were similarly vague like Contadors.
If you have a link to an earlier comment than after he was forced to defend himself in 2005 I would be grateful to see it.

I said "apparently," because it's according to an archived news article I have to pay to see. However, it's included in the quick abstract via google as a quote from French Television.

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=armstrong+"i+am+not+doped"&cf=all

Just trying to keep everyone honest here.
 
Jul 19, 2009
122
0
0
poupou said:
But if 1O EPO are not caught, they would destroy the races... so the other riders have to dope too....

So you would rather convict innocent riders? :rolleyes:

Or do you think that no rider is innocent.
 
Jul 30, 2009
62
0
0
dienekes88 said:
So you would rather convict innocent riders? :rolleyes:

Or do you think that no rider is innocent.

It may well be a 10:1 ratio of dopers:clean, but the system has very little danger of convicting the guilty let alone the innocent.
 
Jul 19, 2009
122
0
0
mistahsinclair said:
It may well be a 10:1 ratio of dopers:clean, but the system has very little danger of convicting the guilty let alone the innocent.

As I've tried to explain, it's due to the tests being designed to protect the innocent.

You're thinking about it wrong. The "little danger of convicting the guilty" is secondary to the fact that they're trying to avoid convicting the innocent.
 
Jul 28, 2009
333
0
0
Readin the posts here the general attitude seems to be -

If someone you don't like for reasons of race or anything else wins - he must be a cheater.

If more people aren't caught it's because the cheats are a step ahead of the tests and the tests are not "good" enough (I assume this is based on a vast knowledge of physiology maybe they should work as anti-doping consultants to help these poor stupid PhD's design better tests).

If someone - anyone - is caught it just goes to show everyone is cheating.

That's why I will never click on this pointless subforum again - have fun.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
dienekes88 said:
Well, cruising teh intarwebz, the claim that "he always says 'I have never tested positive,' but he never says 'I have never doped" is repeated so often that it's assumed that it's true. Just wait a couple weeks. You'll see it surface a couple more times.

I said "apparently," because it's according to an archived news article I have to pay to see. However, it's included in the quick abstract via google as a quote from French Television.

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=armstrong+"i+am+not+doped"&cf=all

Just trying to keep everyone honest here.

Must admit I haven't seen that said, but then again I am only on this forum - and even then its only been a month.

I believe the first time I heard him say directly that he hadn't doped was 2002 2003ish - but I am relying on memory, so that isn't good, ha.

I will check around a bit on it - it would be interesting to know just on a matter of being able to give the correct accounts.
Of course it could be argued that it doesn't really matter however I personally prefer to have discussions based on fact. So, thanks for the link.
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
0
cromagnon said:
Readin the posts here the general attitude seems to be -

If someone you don't like for reasons of race or anything else wins - he must be a cheater.

If more people aren't caught it's because the cheats are a step ahead of the tests and the tests are not "good" enough (I assume this is based on a vast knowledge of physiology maybe they should work as anti-doping consultants to help these poor stupid PhD's design better tests).

If someone - anyone - is caught it just goes to show everyone is cheating.

That's why I will never click on this pointless subforum again - have fun.

:( a sad day for the clinic. you'll be sorely missed :(
 
Jul 30, 2009
62
0
0
cromagnon said:
Readin the posts here the general attitude seems to be -

If someone you don't like for reasons of race or anything else wins - he must be a cheater.

If more people aren't caught it's because the cheats are a step ahead of the tests and the tests are not "good" enough (I assume this is based on a vast knowledge of physiology maybe they should work as anti-doping consultants to help these poor stupid PhD's design better tests).

If someone - anyone - is caught it just goes to show everyone is cheating.

That's why I will never click on this pointless subforum again - have fun.

Interesting interpretation of what you read. I don't read it this way, but since you won't be reading this it doesn't make any difference.

The tests are much the same as other rules in cycling. They operate within limits (bike weight, geometry, etc) which can be pushed to the extreme. For example there are thresholds for all the doping tests which mean a rider can use or abuse whatever they choose up to that limit and there's nothing to suggest they don't.

When the riders are asked direct yes/no questions as to whether they use perfomance enhancing products, whatever they may be, the answers are seldom yes or no.

Is a rider who uses EPO, but keeps themselves below the threshold a cheat?? Nope...hasn't broken any rules. Prior to me using the word cheat here the word (or derivatives of it) have only been used 3 times in this thread...I wonder where... ^

Bye :D
 
keen_but_slow said:
He's been on the same media training course I have. Very important during Q&A that you only ever say positive things that you believe to be true. If you say anything you do not believe, then your body language will give you away and without knowing why, you will be perceived as untrustworthy.

However, if you tell yourself something for long enough, then it gets easier. The great Marc Salem (look him up, or go to one of his shows) was asked about O.J. Simpson and said that, at the initial trial, when he said "not guilty", his blink was one of the longest ever. But more recently, when interviewed, there's no hint that he's lying - he believes what he's saying.

So, regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, my semi-educated guess is that Contador (young, not very bright, not very press-savvy) is still staying on script. LAS on the other hand has seen pretty much every pretender to his throne get caught out, he believes he's acted fairly (the playing field is level) and he believes it is his meticulous preparation and unprecedented economics (a whole team built to help him win one race) that has been behind his achievements (I hate him, but I still think this statement holds) - he probably believes he's in the right and can say anything he likes with confidence.

In which regard, he will do well in politics. Alberto had better stick to riding his bike.

i mostly agree but part of "prepping" is practicing what you will say. you practice until body language becomes congruent (like someone with more experience). is it too late to get your money back for that media training course?;)

whenever asked, AC should quickly but not too vehemently deny doping allegations and should state it in the affirmative. Eg "I race cleanly".

you also don't want to be verbose or to be too enthusiastic. you don't want people to form strong opinions either way about what you said. again a grade of B-.
 
cromagnon said:
Readin the posts here the general attitude seems to be -

If someone you don't like for reasons of race or anything else wins - he must be a cheater.

If more people aren't caught it's because the cheats are a step ahead of the tests and the tests are not "good" enough (I assume this is based on a vast knowledge of physiology maybe they should work as anti-doping consultants to help these poor stupid PhD's design better tests).

If someone - anyone - is caught it just goes to show everyone is cheating.

That's why I will never click on this pointless subforum again - have fun.

But if someone you don't like reasons that everybody cheats cause that's how the game is played, you simply respond that this is why you will never click on this subforum again. Because everything is ligit, right? Who would ever try to gain an illicit advantage?

The sporting world is clean. NOBODY DOPES, IT'S JUST ALL A MYTH PRPAGATED BY THE SOCIALISTS! WHO WANT YOUR GRANDMOTHER TO DIE BECAUSE OF THEIR SOCIALISTS MEDICAL CARE CAUSE. BUT WE KNOW BETTER; OUR ATHLETES OUR CLEAN AND EVERYBODY WHO THINKS LIKE WE DO IS ACTING RIGHTIOUSLY AND FOR THE COMMON GOOD. TRUST US AND NOT THE SOCIALISTS. WHO ARE EVIL!
 
Aug 3, 2009
81
0
0
Examining the psychology of his answers indicates he is a doper, which is why he won the tour, which is why he deserves no respect. He still is owed a two year suspension for Operation Puerto.
 
Apr 17, 2009
308
0
0
Armstrongfan789 said:
After the TDF I have noticed that Contador is a fabulous rider when it comes to all round riding. He is very good on mountains and a very good rider for time trials. I do not like him that much but i guess he will have to do. Also he did not have to ride away from Klodin, his team mate on one of the mountain stages. If he kept him with him then astana would have gone 1,2,3 for the yellow jersey clasifications. He would not dop but i would keep a eye out for him.


Classic. Absolute comic genius. Keep up the good work "Norbert"..