Dan Martin - "Now I know you can win clean"

[Zinoviev Letter]

Of course it does, it shows that a talented rider doping can still have success over other talented riders doping. Maybe since then better talent has emerged who don't need to dope to reach the same level.

A moderately amusing use of irony is not a substitute for an argument.

The line of argument you are sneering at rather than actually trying to engage with assumes that there is still doping going on, and that such doping can give a benefit. Just that it is less common and has to be done in significantly reduced ways, unless a rider has a suicidal urge to go full-Gabrovski. This in turn means that a talented clean rider can win more often and in bigger races than was open to a Bassons or a Moncoutie.

It in no way implies that there are no dopers or that dopers have suddenly stopped winning races. Which doesn't stop people from harping on about how dopers still exist and still win races as if it was a counter-argument in a manner so continually obtuse that I'm beginning to suspect active disingenuity.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Edit: What I mean to say is that no clean riders achieved anything meaningful 2008-2010 so either something happened around 2010/2011 to make people reduce their doping or new riders emerged who were clean yet able to match the dopers (or both).

That's actually quite interesting, but I think that you are setting up a false binary here to explain a situation that could have a number of different partial explanations.

One core issue is that we (and here I mean all of us) tend to assume that riders who were industrial scale dopers at an earlier stage were still industrial scale dopers after the widespread drop in suspicious blood values. Some of them may not have been. Another is that it may have taken a couple of years for a new hierarchy of talent to start to impose itself within team tactics and assumptions and within the peloton as a whole.

The more crucial question than the timing of the change in personnel amongst the winners is the timing of the decline in general prowess. When did the climbing times cease being plainly, obviously, on their face superhuman? And following on from that, how universal has that decline been? And has there been a trend towards a "rebound" towards the extra-terrestrial? These are the sort of questions I'd really like "sceptics" to look into ruthlessly.

 

[Ferminal]

Yes, so what happened 2010/2011? Or is it just that names like Quintana, Sagan, Rolland, Martin managed to emerge free of doping influences and into a peloton where the previous generation who did dope have now passed their prime. I have no idea if these guys are clean or not (which is quite different to my attitude towards "the others").

 

[leon7766]

Well done Dan Martin another big plus for clean cycling .Yet again its the British leading the way ,it makes me so proud.The only way it could be better were if he was riding for the home of clean cycling SKY

 

[Basecase]

Well done Dan Martin another big plus for clean cycling .Yet again its the British leading the way ,it makes me so proud.The only way it could be better were if he was riding for the home of clean cycling SKY

Dan is Irish!!!

 

[RownhamHill]

Of course it does, it shows that a talented rider doping can still have success over other talented riders doping. Maybe since then better talent has emerged who don't need to dope to reach the same level.

Edit: What I mean to say is that no clean riders achieved anything meaningful 2008-2010 so either something happened around 2010/2011 to make people reduce their doping or new riders emerged who were clean yet able to match the dopers (or both).

Isn't the problem here with your definition of clean riders though?

Off the top of my head Andy Schleck won the Tour in 2010, and podiumed the tour and the Giro in previous years. Is he a clean rider or not?

Carlos Sastre won the tour in 2008 - is he a clean rider or not?

Brad Wiggins podiumed the tour in 2009 - is he (or was he then if you prefer) a clean rider or not?

These are questions which we don't honestly know the answers to. All have links to greater or lesser extents with dopers (Frank Schleck, Riis, Leinders) so of course they might be dirty, but to assume that they definitely were, and then extrapolate from that no one clean did anything meaningful is a bit of a stretch. In my opinion.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I saw a lot of comments about how much work Ryder did - but did anybody notice that Garmin had a two-pronged attack going with Ryder up the road? Good tactics. If the lead group don't respond, Ryder wins. If the lead group did respond, they've got Dan in there to see how his legs are. And, if they do respond, that response makes a selection right there. Good tactics, looked like to me.

Yeah, I always liked how that Spanish team of Kelme used to send up domestistiques too. Or Saxo. Or, pick a name.

Seems that also works in the clean era.

 

[leon7766]

Dan is Irish!!!

Im pretty sure he was born less than sixty miles away from me and Im right in the centre of England .

 

[RownhamHill]

Yes, so what happened 2010/2011? Or is it just that names like Quintana, Sagan, Rolland, Martin managed to emerge free of doping influences and into a peloton where the previous generation who did dope have now passed their prime. I have no idea if these guys are clean or not (which is quite different to my attitude towards "the others").

Contador got popped? Lance got popped? Riders starting get FBI dudes tapping them on the shoulder? Ferrari got his phone tapped by the Italians, and the results started appearing in the media?

I honestly don't even know if there has been any reduction in doping - I hope so, but I don't claim to know - so don't take the above as some kind of evangelism for cleanER cycling. But there's certainly a case to be discussed that the introduction of the Blood Passport in 2008, and the prevailing anti-doping enforcement/environment (certainly in the States and Italy) might have had some kind of impact on individual rider behaviour/perceptions of risk? Compared to, say, 1999 - when there wasn't even an effective test for the most effective doping product?

But as Zinoviev Letter is pointing out, very few people want to engage in that conversation, let alone refute the argument.

 

[RownhamHill]

Im pretty sure he was born less than sixty miles away from me and Im right in the centre of England .

He's as Irish as Brad Wiggins is Australian, or Chris Froome is British isn't he? (no value judgement implied on any of them there by the way)

 

[JV1973]

This is getting tedious at this point. In this very thread you've had the argument outlined to you in some detail, yet instead of actually trying to poke holes in it you've simply ignored it.

See the graph posted earlier. See the correlation in suspicious blood values with first the EPO/blood bag switch (ie a switch we know from Hamilton etc did actually happen), then with the later decline in climbing times. That's your "where, when and how" and as theories go it has the merit of in no way relying on changes in personnel, merely on different factors altering the immediate interests of that personnel. There's no moral revolution involved.

I'm not necessarily wedded to the "Vaughters thesis", but its critics almost never try to engage with it head on. They either ignore it, like you, or they concentrate on irrelevant sniping about how dopers are still about. That last part is irrelevant, by the way, precisely because the argument assumes that there's still doping going on, just less of it and less effectively.

It's also worth pointing out that the argument doesn't necessarily assume a continued progression towards cleaner and cleaner cycling. If the testing regime doesn't get bigger and better, more and more exploits will be found over time and we will get a reversion to the 90s/00s mean.

BINGO. Just because I believe things are going well right now, doesn't mean i think it's going to stick, if we don't see some big improvements in the structure of anti-doping and the resources at its disposal. Big improvements.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

BINGO. Just because I believe things are going well right now, doesn't mean i think it's going to stick, if we don't see some big improvements in the structure of anti-doping and the resources at its disposal. Big improvements.

You mean, the mediocre testing? The testees being warned that they are on to GW50934584858or_whats in a name? The TUE's for cortisones that are just revoked? MPCC meatings with dodgy doctors/directeur sportives?

Yeah, it is cleaning up.

 

[Basecase]

Im pretty sure he was born less than sixty miles away from me and Im right in the centre of England .

But he declared for Ireland hence he now Irish, not British. Sorry.

Or perhaps you think Brad W is Belgian too but he ain't.

 

[leon7766]

But he declared for Ireland hence he now Irish, not British. Sorry.

Or perhaps you think Brad W is Belgian too but he ain't.

Ok he was born in the British Isles so hes British and clean

 

[Basecase]

Ok he was born in the British Isles so hes British and clean

Please read this and educate yourself to prevent further insult and arrogance

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute

If you really want to confuse yourself look at Rory McILroy http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72884127

Dan's case is actually simpler in that he's happily declared for Ireland.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It in no way implies that there are no dopers or that dopers have suddenly stopped winning races. Which doesn't stop people from harping on about how dopers still exist and still win races as if it was a counter-argument in a manner so continually obtuse that I'm beginning to suspect active disingenuity.

On the matter of active disingenuity, I don't agree. I think there's still a great deal legitimately wrong that can be summarized and discarded as your active disingenuity. Maybe setting up an either-or decision will clarify the matter.

Is the objective is to have a peloton where clean(er) riders winning elite events and ignore the obvious anti-doping administration problems?

Is the objective to resolve the obvious problems with anti-doping administration THEN, we'll see clean(er) fields from which a winner will come?

My preference is for the latter. I believe the former is much more common though.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

On the Dan Martin nationality issue, there's no need to troll each other. The guy rides for Ireland and is half Irish, but he's also half English and was born there. That's hardly a rare sort of situation in sports, least of all cycling. Loads of the more prominent British or Irish riders have some sort of "binational" origin (Wiggins, Martin, Froome, Roche etc).

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

On the matter of active disingenuity, I don't agree. I think there's still a great deal legitimately wrong that can be summarized and discarded as your active disingenuity. Maybe setting up an either-or decision will clarify the matter.

Is the objective is to have a peloton where clean(er) riders winning elite events and ignore the obvious anti-doping administration problems?

Is the objective to resolve the obvious problems with anti-doping administration THEN, we'll see clean(er) fields from which a winner will come?

My preference is for the latter. I believe the former is much more common though.

I think that the problem is precisely with people assuming an "either or decision", where the two approaches are not really in opposition.

Cycling's testing regime has improved over the years largely because of developments outside the control of cycling administrators or essentially forced on them by scandal. I don't think that cycling is unusual in that - in so far as things have improved in other sports (and that's an even more limited improvement) there have been similar forces at work.

But there has been an improvement. The EPO test, the passport, the fear of the cops, etc. These are not irrelevant or meaningless.

Saying that - and valuing the consequences of that, like the improved career opportunities for clean riders - does not imply that therefore everything is great, that nothing more needs to be done, that whatever improvements we have see are automatically a permanent state of affairs or that we should all hail the UCI regime. It does mean not making the perfect the enemy of the good.

I doubt if you will find too many people in the "cleaner cycling" camp who think that as there has been an improvement it's time for the sport to rest on its laurels, forget about doping and just get on with enjoying the races. That's certainly not what Vaughters is arguing, at least. Perhaps that is what a more naive younger clean rider or two thinks mind you.

Personally, I'm in favour of (a) getting rid of anyone who was important in the UCI during the wild west years and, much more importantly, (b) getting dope testing centralised under an independent body with no responsibility for promoting the sport. Finance that body with a set levy on the UCI, race organisers and teams. And I wouldn't stop there either.

 

[Benotti69]

I think that the problem is precisely with people assuming an "either or decision", where the two approaches are not really in opposition.

Cycling's testing regime has improved over the years largely because of developments outside the control of cycling administrators or essentially forced on them by scandal. I don't think that cycling is unusual in that - in so far as things have improved in other sports (and that's an even more limited improvement) there have been similar forces at work.

But there has been an improvement. The EPO test, the passport, the fear of the cops, etc. These are not irrelevant or meaningless.

Saying that - and valuing the consequences of that, like the improved career opportunities for clean riders - does not imply that therefore everything is great, that nothing more needs to be done, that whatever improvements we have see are automatically a permanent state of affairs or that we should all hail the UCI regime. It does mean not making the perfect the enemy of the good.

I doubt if you will find too many people in the "cleaner cycling" camp who think that as there has been an improvement it's time for the sport to rest on its laurels, forget about doping and just get on with enjoying the races. That's certainly not what Vaughters is arguing, at least. Perhaps that is what a more naive younger clean rider or two thinks mind you.

Personally, I'm in favour of (a) getting rid of anyone who was important in the UCI during the wild west years and, much more importantly, (b) getting dope testing centralised under an independent body with no responsibility for promoting the sport. Finance that body with a set levy on the UCI, race organisers and teams. And I wouldn't stop there either.

But there has been an improvement. The EPO test, the passport, the fear of the cops, etc. These are not irrelevant or meaningless.

Armstrong seemed really scared. Contador must have been bricking eating that steak? Frank Schleck didn't get busted by French Gernadarmes for his positive at the TdF? What police?

Di Luca busted 3 times still riding. Scarponi done how many times? These guys dont stop doping.

Ashenden left the Passport committee. So that is a joke. EPO test can be beaten easily at this stage. Thoma Frei told us how to do that. Only the stupid get caught or those Hein wants to test positive.

 

[martinvickers]

What derogatory BS, 'poor fan', 'embarrasment', 'gullible chump', got anymore abuse to post?

That, my friends, is the gentle twang of a nerve being hit. Tell me, Benotti, which rider was it broke your heart?

Garmins' raison d'etre is to win raises and entertain while promoting their sponsors. Vaughters knows that pro cycling is business. Raison d'etres change like the wind in business

Dont believe the hype.

And, again, brace.

 

[martinvickers]

Dan is Irish!!!

agus a hAon (+1 as Gaeilge ;-)

 

[martinvickers]

Im pretty sure he was born less than sixty miles away from me and Im right in the centre of England .

"“Being born in a stable does not make one a horse.”

- Arthur Wellsley, Duke of Wellington.

 

[Benotti69]

That, my friends, is the gentle twang of a nerve being hit. Tell me, Benotti, which rider was it broke your heart?

I am sad to inform you the only nerve being torn here is your love for Sky and their obvious doping being called out in this 'echo chamber'.

I never had heros, not human ones. Maybe Froome and half Sky could be heroes as they are hardly human these days

Duke of Wellington a hero of yours?

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Armstrong seemed really scared. Contador must have been bricking eating that steak? Frank Schleck didn't get busted by French Gernadarmes for his positive at the TdF? What police?

Di Luca busted 3 times still riding. Scarponi done how many times? These guys dont stop doping.

I'd be tempted to say that it takes a special kind of obtuseness to present a list of four guys who have been banned (well three and one awaiting the end of his process) as evidence of the complete ineffectuality of the anti-doping regime. But really, even that is put in the shade by your complete dedication to responding to posts which repeatedly point out that the "cleaner cycling" argument does not for a second imply that there is no doping by pointing out the existence of dopers.

Sometimes I wonder how Vaughters manages to engage here without getting an aneuryism.

Only the stupid get caught or those Hein wants to test positive.

The whole point is that differing circumstances change the definition of "stupidity". In 1998, you practically had to be stupid enough to inject your eyeballs with EPO while waiting to take a slash beside a test chaperone. Stupidity now encompasses a whole range of what used to be perfectly sensible doping practices. It is certainly still possible to dope, and there are certainly many still doing it, but it has to be done much more carefully, in much smaller amounts, with much more discipline, at much more risk. Make things more complex and riskier, and the available advantages smaller, and you change the risk/reward calculation - which is more important than hoping for a moral revolution.

 

[pmcg76]

I'd be tempted to say that it takes a special kind of obtuseness to present a list of four guys who have been banned (well three and one awaiting the end of his process) as evidence of the complete ineffectuality of the anti-doping regime. But really, even that is put in the shade by your complete dedication to responding to posts which repeatedly point out that the "cleaner cycling" argument does not for a second imply that there is no doping by pointing out the existence of dopers.

Sometimes I wonder how Vaughters manages to engage here without getting an aneuryism.



The whole point is that differing circumstances change the definition of "stupidity". In 1998, you practically had to be stupid enough to inject your eyeballs with EPO while waiting to take a slash beside a test chaperone. Stupidity now encompasses a whole range of what used to be perfectly sensible doping practices. It is certainly still possible to dope, and there are certainly many still doing it, but it has to be done much more carefully, in much smaller amounts, with much more discipline, at much more risk. Make things more complex and riskier, and the available advantages smaller, and you change the risk/reward calculation - which is more important than hoping for a moral revolution.

Be thankful then that sniper is still banned or else you would have a double dose of their flawless logic!!