The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
wendybnt said:Excuse my ignorance, but who is Danie Benson?
How are we to know Gesink’s power meter is producing completely accurate data? Do his and others’ computers take into account fluctuations in weight from day to day? How can we have faith in Sky’s numbers, modified from the raw data because they claim osymetric chainrings overestimate power by six per cent?
The new numbers have failed to satisfy Sallet, who has revised his calculations in a fresh report published under the banner of his Athletes for Transparency body. Having originally taken Froome to weigh 71 kilograms, the 67.5kg figure given by Sky leads him to believe Froome averaged 408 watts over the climb, compared with his original 425 estimate and Sky’s claim of 414.
Whereas he based his fist conclusions on a Maximal Aerobic Power of 7.04 w/kg – which is a different measurement to Sky’s 5.78 average power output – he now believes the figure to be 7.2 w/kg. Given that he claimed that those who posted above 7 w/kg were known dopers, with images of Lance Armstrong and Jan Ullrich appearing on the Stade 2 screen, Sky’s new data has only bolstered his assertions.
He concludes again by stating three possibilities: either Froome has a unique physiological profile, he is using performance enhancing drugs, or he is using a motor in his bike.
Sallet has echoed many in calling for Froome’s information to be released in its entirety, from power numbers and biological passport data to medication history. Team Sky principal Dave Brailsford has welcomed the idea of the introduction of a power passport, which would be a step in the right direction but, given the myriad variables touched on above, seems years away from becoming a reliable yardstick.
Sky have tried to regain control of the narrative by releasing Froome’s numbers but only full transparency would come close to quelling the innuendo. Even then, a wider, reliable, system of analysis would need to be implemented to provide concrete answers.
the delgados said:@ Fearless Greg Lemond:
Maybe a "Ask a Reporter" thread is in order.
heart_attack_man said:the delgados said:@ Fearless Greg Lemond:
Maybe a "Ask a Reporter" thread is in order.
I think that a great idea would be to have a sticky in the forum for questions we would like reporters to ask selected people. Easy resource for the lazy journo to at least try and ask the difficult questions... Though I could see something like that getting bastardised and trolled to death...
Afrank said:wendybnt said:Excuse my ignorance, but who is Danie Benson?
Owner of Cyclingnews.
Daniel Benson is the Managing Editor at Cyclingnews. Based in the UK, he coordinates the global coverage for the website. Having joined Cyclingnews in April 2008, he has covered several Tour de France, the Spring Classics, and the London Olympic Games in 2012.
*Cue Skyborgs telling us how testing has increased, yet not recognising that the best lab in the world isn't receiving samples*Benotti69 said:It is official, Cookson is worse than McQuaid for anti doping.
Lab testing
2013 (622) Châtenay-Malabry, Lausanne, Cologne
2014 (719) CM, Lausanne
2015 (656) CM, Lausanne
Cookson not sending samples to Cologne. Cant have riders testing positive can we now.
Benotti69 said:Cookson FAIL again
Pro cycling: 221 positive tests in 2014.
The amount of positives reported by the UCI: 27
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/33686397
Now think, Cookson was head of BC at the height of their track success. Think that was clean? hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Crookson is correct.
Freddythefrog said:Benotti69 said:Cookson FAIL again
Pro cycling: 221 positive tests in 2014.
The amount of positives reported by the UCI: 27
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/33686397
Now think, Cookson was head of BC at the height of their track success. Think that was clean? hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Crookson is correct.
So are we able to get official figures for adverse analytical findings for cyclists that were then dismissed when the case came for hearing ? Now that by Nation would be great info.
Benotti69 said:Cookson FAIL again
Pro cycling: 221 positive tests in 2014.
The amount of positives reported by the UCI: 27
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/33686397
Now think, Cookson was head of BC at the height of their track success. Think that was clean? hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
wendybnt said:Benotti69 said:Cookson FAIL again
Pro cycling: 221 positive tests in 2014.
The amount of positives reported by the UCI: 27
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/33686397
Now think, Cookson was head of BC at the height of their track success. Think that was clean? hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
That's interesting.
Can you provide a link to your source of doping cases reported by UCI please?
Benotti69 said:wendybnt said:Benotti69 said:Cookson FAIL again
Pro cycling: 221 positive tests in 2014.
The amount of positives reported by the UCI: 27
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/33686397
Now think, Cookson was head of BC at the height of their track success. Think that was clean? hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
That's interesting.
Can you provide a link to your source of doping cases reported by UCI please?
UCI website
Benotti69 said:Pro cycling: 221 positive tests in 2014.
The amount of positives reported by the UCI: 27
Sport Samples collected Adverse findings
"Cycling 22,471 221 (1%)
Outcomes of AAFs are classified under five categories:
TUE:
The athlete had a valid TUE that justified the presence of the prohibited substance in the athlete’s
sample.
No Case to Answer: Cases closed at results management level, excluding TUE cases. Such cases include for example:
authorized route of administration for glucocorticosteroids; departure from International
Standards; medically justified AAF (low-level athletes as per the definition of athlete in the Code*);
cases outside WADA’s jurisdiction (including non-Code signatories); and, other particular cases (for
example, THC cases that were closed based on the principle of lex mitior upon increase of the threshold in 2013 for this substance).
No Sanction: The athlete was exonerated or deemed to have no fault or negligence following a full disciplinary
process. For example, all meat contamination cases where the athlete was exonerated are
included in this category.
Pending: WADA has not received all the documentation required to validate the case decision. This may
include information such as a reasoned decision, TUE, the athlete’s name, etc.
ADRV: A decision was rendered and an ADRV was recorded against the athlete following a full disciplinary
process. The sanction was either a reprimand or a period of ineligibility.
Table 2- AAF Outcomes by Sport Category - ASOIF Sports/Disciplines* (continued)
Sport Total Samples** Total AAFs TUE No Case to Answer No Sanction Pending ADRV
Cycling..........22252............278 ...... 27.............52 .................15 ........ 31.....153