Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Okay, that was not real friendly of me but you is talking a bit of ********.
You begin with:
''And as such the suggestion, based on observation of climbing data, test data etc, that there was a reduction in the efficacy and uptake of doping after the Blood Passport is fundamentally flawed''
to continue with:
''No, I haven't looked at the data recently (sorry most of the stuff I say is based on stuff I've read in the past (mostly on this forum it has to be said), but I haven't closely studied any of it). My vague impression was that the climbing data in the 2009 tour wasn't too extreme''
You want to have a discussion but you contradict yourself at the same time. That is vague, to me at least.
You say you believe climbing speeds are down, you are told so, and, in some way that is correct. No more 6.4w/k on Alpe d'Huez like in 1995. No it is 5.9w/k, same as Saunier Duval in 2008, strange, isnt it?
Strange, the clean peloton is matching them dopers.
And, on that 2009 Tour. You did read on those transfusion kits found?
First of all thanks for at least acknowledging you may have come in a bit strong. As you've jumped in halfway I'll clarify where we've got to.
A few pages ago Benotti makes a claim that JV or no other advocate of 'cycling got cleaner' can explain how or why that is meant to have happened.
Zinioviev Letter then explains that there is a fairly well established hypothesis as to how that happened - basically the EPO test in 2001 curtails the very worst doping of the 90s, and the BP in 2008 then curtails some of the use and efficacy of blood bags, so much so that
while doping is of course still taking place it is less dramatic in its effect, and it allows more space for cleaner riders to compete. To support the hypothesis he presents some graph from somewhere about the number and extremity of suspect blood tests, and also cites the reduction in climbing speed/power figures in recent years as further evidence to suggest performance is down - indicative, one might claim, of a cleaner peloton. He then expresses frustration that people who don't believe this hypothesis never engage with it properly or present any proper evidence against it - they just dismiss it with vague, dismissive sneers. (NB I have no idea if ZL believes the hypothesis himself as he doesn't express that opinion, and it's not material)
Ferminal then engages - quite reasonably I thought - in a discussion of that hypothesis, one of his points being that in 2008-2010 there wasn't anyone performing well who wasn't still doping.
I then engaged in that conversation, pointing out that I thought he was overstating the case, and we had a bit of discussion about it. It turns out we disagree about how sure you can be that you had to be doping in 2008-10 to get a meaningful result.
In that discussion he mentions specifically the climbing data for 2009 as supporting evidence for enhanced performance that year. (Climbing data, that if you've been paying attention, was introduced, in a very general sense by Zinoviev Letter).
And, as I haven't seen any data on that recently (if at all, as I said I have a vague impression of seeing something, but I don't live and breath this s**t), I'm more than happy to admit that - indeed I asked if anyone knew where I might find it to save me searching around.
So to the points you've just raised:
I want to have a discussion? Yes.
I contradict myself? No. It was Zinoviev Letter's hypothesis, and Ferminal's response I was engaging with. I never claimed that climbing data supports ZL's argument - I wouldn't have done that as I haven't looked at it recently. So no contradiction on my part.
I say I believe climbing speeds are down? Not really, I said I had a
vague impression that with the exception of one climb (which may or may not have been a genuine statistical outlier) that climbing times in 2009 weren't too extreme. This is not a belief on my part. I'd love to see some data on this as it turns out.
I am told so Yes, JV and others have told 'me' (us) that on this forum among other places.
In some way that is correct. H'mmm. So, wait a minute.
No, you've lost me. So which is it. Have speeds and power on climbs decreased? Has it stayed the same? Has it increased? And how does that fit with the suggestion that a reduction in climbing speed is indicative of a cleaner peloton? You seem to suggest that climbing power is down, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Would be lovely if you could really engage with this constructively, rather than calling people ********s.
Finally, why exactly would it be strange that a clean peloton is matching dopers, if the dopers have had the efficacy of their doping curtailed to such an extent that they can no longer produce extraordinary climbing figures? More to the point, isn't that exactly what you'd expect to happen if that hypothesis was true?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram