Everyone is doping? A Fallacy?

[The Hitch]

7 out of 17 posts orbiting around Wiggins - maybe start another thread?

So this one can stay focused on the % of dopers in the Pro peloton.

Minority or Majority?

Thanks.

I say majority (of the top guys ) are doping because of the sports science report which did tests and showed that the gains from epo are HUGE. And thats just one drug.

Its hard for me to believe that Frei is getting this huge advantage, while the people who are beating him.

 

[Ferminal]

Wiggins and Millar are "top echelon", and theres no reason to believe they are not clean.
The sport was ,arguably, dirtier 10 years ago and there were a few clean riders winning top echelon events then. Hopefully the same is true now.

Really? Millar has one or two big TT performances a year, on the road he's a glorified domestique. Wiggins as far as I know has never won anything on the road, let alone shown that he's part of the elite.

 

[TexPat]

I've been told two very conflicting things:

1. "Everybody does it." (by a rider who ia an authority on these things)
2. "Every team has a couple of clean riders." (by a writer who is an authority on these things)

My opinion:
1. The top guys do, especially those with the money.
2. Quite a few don't. Remember Christophe Bassons?

 

[Bilirubin]

I think the "everybody is doing it" claim refers to GC. It doesn't literally mean every single rider.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I think the "everybody is doing it" claim refers to GC. It doesn't literally mean every single rider.

Exactly. The top GC guys at the GTs are obviously suspect.

Another reason I love the classics...

 

[roundabout]

And to start Kohl was a much better climber. So if his gain from good climber to GC podium and KOM took CERA to achieve, what did Bradley's gain involve?

Kohl was doping since he was 19. There's little way of telling what his real level was

 

[Dettol]

I've been told two very conflicting things:

1. "Everybody does it." (by a rider who ia an authority on these things)
2. "Every team has a couple of clean riders." (by a writer who is an authority on these things)

My opinion:
1. The top guys do, especially those with the money.
2. Quite a few don't. Remember Christophe Bassons?

By a couple I'd presume he means 1 or 2 riders.

 

[TexPat]

Yes, two clean riders who line up first for Controle while the others are getting prepped.

 

[Dettol]

They were probably needed in the olden days to provide clean urine samples.

For the record I'd say 70% dope (this includes heterogeneous blood transfusions). Using Pareto's principles.

 

[jimmypop]

Exactly. The top GC guys at the GTs are obviously suspect.

Another reason I love the classics...

Yes, where clean guys like Hincapie, Museeuw and others!

 

[Nick777]

I've been told two very conflicting things:

1. "Everybody does it." (by a rider who ia an authority on these things)
2. "Every team has a couple of clean riders." (by a writer who is an authority on these things)

My opinion:
1. The top guys do, especially those with the money.
2. Quite a few don't. Remember Christophe Bassons?

I have a feeling I know who that authority is...

 

[Dettol]

Classics riders only use coke!

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Yes, where clean guys like Hincapie, Museeuw and others!

All I'm saying is that clean rider may have a better kick at the can in a one-day race.

A clean rider has ZERO chance in a GT.

 

[TexPat]

Funny how Museeuw was a Classics specialist.

 

[bicycles_rule]

I once heard some lab guy say that from the samples he got, he estimated about 50% doped. but this was a few years ago. I do not know how the figure has changed since then.

 

[TubularBills]

They were probably needed in the olden days to provide clean urine samples.

For the record I'd say 70% dope (this includes heterogeneous blood transfusions). Using Pareto's principles.

Not sure I follow since the Pareto Principle is also known as the 80/20 Rule.
(So 70% ?)

It's also an economic theory, so perhaps wouldn't apply?

But benefit of the doubt, found some quotes applying Pareto and these seem the most applicable:

"In health care in the United States, it has been found that 20% of patients use 80% of health care resources."

"Several criminology studies have found that 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of criminals."

So, applying Pareto to the Peloton - it is not unlikely that a minimum of 20% Dope and 80% Don't.

This would support the seeming Clinic consensus that ALL of the top GT riders Dope - i.e. All of the top 10 and if we throw in their key lieutenants we fill the quota.

So, let's say the average start list for a GT is 160 riders.

So at least in a Grand Tour it would seem a reasonable guess that 20% of the riders (32 out of 160) Are Doped and 80% (128 of the 160) aren't.

Say the average annual program costs 100k, That's $3,200,000 US in Systemic Doping Fees from just one Grand Tour.

Sound reasonable?

Not the Science of Sport, but not really much to go on.

 

[andy1234]

Really? Millar has one or two big TT performances a year, on the road he's a glorified domestique. Wiggins as far as I know has never won anything on the road, let alone shown that he's part of the elite.

You obviously set very high standards.

I count riders who finish on the podium of a world championship or lead a grand tour as part of the elite.

 

[JPM London]

Not sure I follow since the Pareto Principle is also known as the 80/20 Rule.
(So 70% ?)

It's also an economic theory, so perhaps wouldn't apply?

But benefit of the doubt, found some quotes applying Pareto and these seem the most applicable:

"In health care in the United States, it has been found that 20% of patients use 80% of health care resources."

"Several criminology studies have found that 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of criminals."

So, applying Pareto to the Peloton - it is not unlikely that a minimum of 20% Dope and 80% Don't.

I think you're both muddling things up a bit here, although you're are indeed trying to clarify Tubes.

Taking a look at your two examples of 80/20 shows what it's about - a simply idea that the majority of effect comes from a minority of input (basically "20" could be anything <50% and "80" could be anything >50%, the figures vary and are more often not as important as the principle in itself).

Then looking at your own statement - this has got nothing to do with 80/20. It's simply saying that if a portion does something, the rest doesn't...

80/20 applied to the peloton would imply that 80% of doping is done by 20% of the riders. However, applying 80/20 to the peloton doesn't make much sense with just general numbers because we could also then say "80% of training is done by 20% of the riders".

If you were to say "80% of effect comes from 20% of the dope" I'd be more willing to go along. "20% of dopers get 80% of the total gain" is another interesting statement. Both of these are implied in most discussions on here stating that EPO is a game changer, coke is not (the first statement) or the whole debate of one-day types turning into GC contenders (the second).

 

[Ferminal]

You obviously set very high standards.

I count riders who finish on the podium of a world championship or lead a grand tour as part of the elite.

Podium in a time trial (oh he did that dirty too )... there are 10-20 time trial specialists in the Pro Tour, hardly a big competition.

Likewise, Wiggins has only ever won time trials.

Millar would maybe fit somewhere from 40-50 if you were generous, Wiggins would not be in the top150. One race in 2009 is an outlier and cannot be considered.

Pinotti would be a better example (I wouldn't call him part of the elite, but close to), but I guess he's not Anglo.

 

[Dettol]

Yep I'm wrong on both accounts regarding Pareto. I was trying to be clever.
I guess the best way to put it is that 20% of the cyclists get 80% of the results. Of which they all dope.

 

[andy1234]

Podium in a time trial (oh he did that dirty too )... there are 10-20 time trial specialists in the Pro Tour, hardly a big competition.

Likewise, Wiggins has only ever won time trials.

Millar would maybe fit somewhere from 40-50 if you were generous, Wiggins would not be in the top150. One race in 2009 is an outlier and cannot be considered.

Pinotti would be a better example (I wouldn't call him part of the elite, but close to), but I guess he's not Anglo.

"Wiggins would not be in the top150"

The UCI world rankings for last year would beg to differ.

Im not a Wiggins fan in particular and definately not a Millar fan, but getting back to the original topic...
I beleive these two riders are riding clean and although the don't meet up to your exacting standards, they are competetive at the highest level of the sport.


sooooo.... It would lead me to believe that elite level performances and victories are being achieved clean. What percentage.. who knows???

 

[Ferminal]

"Wiggins would not be in the top150"

The UCI world rankings for last year would beg to differ.

Im not a Wiggins fan in particular and definately not a Millar fan, but getting back to the original topic...
I beleive these two riders are riding clean and although the don't meet up to your exacting standards, they are competetive at the highest level of the sport.


sooooo.... It would lead me to believe that elite level performances and victories are being achieved clean. What percentage.. who knows???

Again, neither have ever won or even come close to winning anything significant on the road, so it's hard to judge. Again, if you're looking for winners who might be clean, look at someone like Voeckler, he wins on the road, ahead of dopers.

I originally said that they were not top echelon - to clarify, I wouldn't consider the top echelon to be those that don't win races (except those that consistently place highly in classics/stage races).

 

[Benotti69]

Not sure I follow since the Pareto Principle is also known as the 80/20 Rule.
(So 70% ?)

It's also an economic theory, so perhaps wouldn't apply?

But benefit of the doubt, found some quotes applying Pareto and these seem the most applicable:

"In health care in the United States, it has been found that 20% of patients use 80% of health care resources."

"Several criminology studies have found that 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of criminals."

So, applying Pareto to the Peloton - it is not unlikely that a minimum of 20% Dope and 80% Don't.

how about 20% of the riders use 80% of the dope which does not mean 20% dope, just that they use more

edit: just seen JPMLondon has posted something similar above.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Weight loss can have a huge impact on climbing when everyone is on the limit. Losing over 5 kg in Wiggins case would have a significant effect if his power remained intact.

Another thing to consider is that many riders are capable of finishing within 10 mins of the winner of a tour mountain stage. There is little benefit in doing so, so they ride within themselves and aim for the time limit.

Going from the back of the field to the front is unbelivable, but in truth Wiggins was probably capable of much higher finishes, even without the weightloss and endurance focus.

There is a big if in there. I honestly don't believe that all the top riders dope. I think it is impossible to put a number on how many dope. God only knows! Some of you are just pulling numbers out of your arses trying to make some sort of mathematical sense, but failing.

 

[Kerbdog]

This kind of comes back to the fact that we can suggest, opine & draw whatever conclusions we so wish, however you can never prove anyone is clean. At present we can only find out if they arent. And thats a damn pity. I know its been mentioned in the Clinic before buts its a huge valid point.