Gee I think it's awful that a DOPER won LBL

[karlboss]

I wouldn't be surprised if everyone in the top 10 dopes. Wouldn't be surprised if someone up there isn't. Was looking at the Verbier climb, lets assume Contador was/is doping. From when he broke away if you Kloden was pretty much in the wind the whole way also, and finished 89 seconds back. This relates to Contador being 10% better than Kloden. Sounds like the number for doping right? I am not saying Kloden is clean, just that if Contador is doping and someone is outside 10-15% of him, then in theory that person could be equally talented and clean. Heaven forbidden more talented.

Note: that was short analysis was for Kloden who was in the wind, guys who weren't in the wind would use less power.

 

[Contralamontre]

travesty

Liege Bastogne Liege was ruined by the convicted dope cheat Vinoukerov.

I wonder what day the positive dope test will be announced?

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Incentives to break omerta

I also agree that sanctions shouldn't be life sanctions and there should be incentives to break omerta. In fact there is currently an "incentive to come forward" in place, but I don't think it works.

AFAIK the current WADA/UCI ban structure goes something like this:
-2 years is standard for first offense.
-4 years in aggravating circumstances such as multiple positives or being part of a doping ring.
-4 years reduced back to 2 if the athlete makes a timely admission, even in aggravating circumstances (essentially a standardized plea bargain).
-Up to 3/4 reduction in ban for providing substantive info about enablers or other dopers.

It's the bold part that seems to be the problem. Anyone with a few aggravating skeletons in their closet would be best to accept a 2 year ban without a fight. Otherwise risk a 4 year ban, with only a slim chance of a reduction down to one year by breaking omerta.... and therefore making it harder to get another contract. (Ricco only got 4 months off for naming names.)

"Protecting supplier or enabler" should be added to the list of aggravating circumstances. A timely admission should have to include providing details of who supplied or enabled the doping. Basically, say where you got it or take a 4 year holiday.

 

[Cerberus]

I wouldn't be surprised if everyone in the top 10 dopes. Wouldn't be surprised if someone up there isn't. Was looking at the Verbier climb, lets assume Contador was/is doping. From when he broke away if you Kloden was pretty much in the wind the whole way also, and finished 89 seconds back. This relates to Contador being 10% better than Kloden. Sounds like the number for doping right? I am not saying Kloden is clean, just that if Contador is doping and someone is outside 10-15% of him, then in theory that person could be equally talented and clean. Heaven forbidden more talented.

Note: that was short analysis was for Kloden who was in the wind, guys who weren't in the wind would use less power.

Actually the difference would probably be less than 10% even if there's a 10% difference in power on the final climb. A guy who is 10% stronger either due to talent or doping would have been going at say 70% effort the entire day and all the days before when the weaker guy would have been going at 77%. He would therefore be much fresher those 3-7 times during a Tour where real selections happen among the favourites and be able to deliver substantially more than 10% more power at those times. So 10% difference in power on the final climbs = significantly less than 10% difference in power overall.

 

[karlboss]

Actually the difference would probably be less than 10% even if there's a 10% difference in power on the final climb. A guy who is 10% stronger either due to talent or doping would have been going at say 70% effort the entire day and all the days before when the weaker guy would have been going at 77%. He would therefore be much fresher those 3-7 times during a Tour where real selections happen among the favourites and be able to deliver substantially more than 10% more power at those times. So 10% difference in power on the final climbs = significantly less than 10% difference in power overall.

Care to quantify significantly less?
I'll try to find some theory to back it up, but i have a feeling as long cyclists stay below their aerobic threshold and don't accumulate lactic acid, performance in the closing stages don't suffer.

EDIT Perhaps as evidenced by the very small differences in Carlos Sastres times up alpe d'huez, 3 times under 40 minutes and one of them was an ITT.

Something else to back me up. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.html.

Key point..."For example, when the Tour did the time-trial on Alpe d'Huez in 2004, the climbing times of all the main riders was only just marginally faster than when the same climb was done at the end of a 200km stage (all the other times in that list above)"

.really surprised more effort hasn't gone into working out ideal pace in the lead up to making the selection in cycling races.

 

[craig1985]

I also agree that sanctions shouldn't be life sanctions and there should be incentives to break omerta. In fact there is currently an "incentive to come forward" in place, but I don't think it works.

AFAIK the current WADA/UCI ban structure goes something like this:
-2 years is standard for first offense.
-4 years in aggravating circumstances such as multiple positives or being part of a doping ring.
-4 years reduced back to 2 if the athlete makes a timely admission, even in aggravating circumstances (essentially a standardized plea bargain).
-Up to 3/4 reduction in ban for providing substantive info about enablers or other dopers.

It's the bold part that seems to be the problem. Anyone with a few aggravating skeletons in their closet would be best to accept a 2 year ban without a fight. Otherwise risk a 4 year ban, with only a slim chance of a reduction down to one year by breaking omerta.... and therefore making it harder to get another contract. (Ricco only got 4 months off for naming names.)

"Protecting supplier or enabler" should be added to the list of aggravating circumstances. A timely admission should have to include providing details of who supplied or enabled the doping. Basically, say where you got it or take a 4 year holiday.

The way I look at it is that if a rider breaks omerta and is looking at coming back, then the UCI should make sure he gets a spot on a PT team.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

How?......

 

[Ferminal]

Liege Bastogne Liege was ruined by the convicted dope cheat Vinoukerov.

I wonder what day the positive dope test will be announced?

What makes you think Reiner Honig will return a positive test?

 

[wattage]

Peloton seems to be as jacked as it ever was. I'm hoping for some police raids at the Tour. It's clear that UCI wont do anything.

 

[L'arriviste]

The way I look at it is that if a rider breaks omerta and is looking at coming back, then the UCI should make sure he gets a spot on a PT team.

I think that's big-hearted, and I genuinely mean that.

I just realised yesterday that I had been mentally dividing all those Italian races with Ricco and Vino and Scarponi et al. So the minute that Vino steps into the "northern Europe" (i.e. main) sector of my cycling conscious, I realise that I don't like it.

Probably because I loved cycling as a kid, I wanted to maintain a qualified naiveté about it. For me, whether or not Vino was clean today and whether or not his win calls out the hypocrites, I'm not sufficiently wise, or grown-up, or realistic, or cynical enough a person to see past a lifetime ban as the only way I could accept things.

It would never work, of course, but at least I might not have felt so much like I'd wasted three hours watching this LBL.

 

[craig1985]

How?......

I think that's big-hearted, and I genuinely mean that.

I just realised yesterday that I had been mentally dividing all those Italian races with Ricco and Vino and Scarponi et al. So the minute that Vino steps into the "northern Europe" (i.e. main) sector of my cycling conscious, I realise that I don't like it.

Probably because I loved cycling as a kid, I wanted to maintain a qualified naiveté about it. For me, whether or not Vino was clean today and whether or not his win calls out the hypocrites, I'm not sufficiently wise, or grown-up, or realistic, or cynical enough a person to see past a lifetime ban as the only way I could accept things.

It would never work, of course, but at least I might not have felt so much like I'd wasted three hours watching this LBL.

It's probably a perfect world scenario, which won't happen. I personally believe politicians should never be allowed to accept donations whether it is from $1 to $25,000,0000, but it will never happen. Turkeys don't get to vote for Christmas after all.

Vino is probably back on the program (read almost certain), I hope not, but would be foolish of me not to, just like how Cancellara dominated RVV and P-R, but IMO, if you are going to get super high and mighty over it, you're best of following tiddlywinks.

 

[L'arriviste]

Vino is probably back on the program (read almost certain), I hope not, but would be foolish of me not to, just like how Cancellara dominated RVV and P-R, but IMO, if you are going to get super high and mighty over it, you're best of following tiddlywinks.

Yes, exactly. And why not, after all? If he was sure he had a job on his return, then after that he's 36, with a family and a Monaco mortgage. What difference does it make, if you also don't care about long term health issues?

On the one hand, his case appeals to pragmatism and on the other, people love and need a 'bad guy'. This is a man for whom high-minded arguments are mere unrealistic, sentimental foolishness. Now I look at him that way, I actually like him more, a tiny bit more.

Perhaps old Vino is a hero of the Dostoyevsky mould. A fifth Karamazov.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Doesn't vino contradict himself here by saying he didn't dope and then he did?

"Of course I'm clean now. To win without doping you have to work, I've always done it this way. I want to show the young riders that it is possible this way," he said.

"I'm winning now because I've got the class to do it. I served my time. I've been suspended for two years but I've turned that dark page. I don't want to talk about that subject once again, it's behind me now. Now there's a Vino without doping"

 

[Jonathan]

Doesn't vino contradict himself here by saying he didn't dope and then he did?

Looks like he admits he doped and lied about it earlier. Which is not that remarkable.

 

[craig1985]

I'm more worried that he refers to himself in 3rd person.

 

[Jonathan]

I'm more worried that he refers to himself in 3rd person.

What do Ricardo Ricco, Matty Reed and Alexandre Vinokourov have in common?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I'm more worried that he refers to himself in 3rd person.

That is actually common in many European cultures. It doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Susan

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Do you guys really think the dopers are juiced up in every race? Of course they are not. I bet a guy like Contador has been competing with his natural blood values so far this year.

...so the past is the past argument works when you're talking about the finishes of riders you like, but when it comes to Vino???

...and to extrapolate from the question asked at the end...

There are two logical ways to look at things at present.

1. The Passport program is working, and only those who are doping are caught.

2. The Passport program is failing and only those who can't figure out how to beat the tests are caught.

Either way, for now, Vino is as clean as Gilbert, Cancellara, Evans et al, and to single him while venerating riders like Gilbert, Evans and (insert your favorite rider who you're just certain has never doped's name here) is ridiculous.

The bio-passport may not catch cheats, but it may limit the extent of blood boosting since you need to stay within certain parameters.

Who cares if the rider who places 143rd or 50th or 20th in a GT is clean? The race is made by those in the top ten. I don't think all riders are doping. I think all the important riders are doping. If 95% of the riders are clean but the 5% who are doping win everything is that really any different than all the riders being doped? The end result is the same.

Where is the evidence that the passport has restricted the ability to dope?

Riders stopped dying in their sleep when the Italian doctors got into the act.

Where is the evidence that cyclists are boosting their O2 carriers to what should be a mid 50's crit but making it look like the low-mid 40's?

 

[pedaling squares]

I'm more worried that he refers to himself in 3rd person.

What do Ricardo Ricco, Matty Reed and Alexandre Vinokourov have in common?

Hey, at least he doesn't call himself "Big Vino" and claim that he's only getting training plans and motor-pacing on Tenerife, not coaching or anything.

 

[sportzchick]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/04/news/vinokourov-‘my-victory-was-clean’_113088

Vino says he's clean!

he said that last time....

 

[Not Riding Enough]

I also agree that sanctions shouldn't be life sanctions and there should be incentives to break omerta. In fact there is currently an "incentive to come forward" in place, but I don't think it works.

AFAIK the current WADA/UCI ban structure goes something like this:
-2 years is standard for first offense.
-4 years in aggravating circumstances such as multiple positives or being part of a doping ring.
-4 years reduced back to 2 if the athlete makes a timely admission, even in aggravating circumstances (essentially a standardized plea bargain).
-Up to 3/4 reduction in ban for providing substantive info about enablers or other dopers.

It's the bold part that seems to be the problem. Anyone with a few aggravating skeletons in their closet would be best to accept a 2 year ban without a fight. Otherwise risk a 4 year ban, with only a slim chance of a reduction down to one year by breaking omerta.... and therefore making it harder to get another contract. (Ricco only got 4 months off for naming names.)

"Protecting supplier or enabler" should be added to the list of aggravating circumstances. A timely admission should have to include providing details of who supplied or enabled the doping. Basically, say where you got it or take a 4 year holiday.

I like the idea and it might help a bit. If everyone caught did it perhaps the people caught would be more likely to get a ride on their return after spilling the beans.

Not enough people are being caught though and as many have said the enablers have to be able to be sanctioned too. May also lead to false information being given.

 

[la.margna]

Vino, please stop lying to us like Pharmstrong has been lying to us about being clean. Just don't talk about the subject and let us enjoy cycling and forget about the dark and sad system behind. And Vino-haters stop pointing the fingers at him. He got punished and banned, so let's enjoy his attacks and aggressive riding style and hope he won't get caught again.

To be a winner, one needs hard work, talent, technique, tactics, form, etc. But all this is useless and does not give one the slightest chance to win, if one doesn't have state-of-the-art medical support. So doping is just necessary to have a chance to win, but it will never make the difference or make a winner out of a loser.

The chances of pro dopers in the peloton to get caught are approximately 1:200 if not even lower. So only guys who don't calculate, don't dose carefully and do not strictly and precisely follow the masking protocol will be caught. It is so ridicolous to think that anybody in a Pro Tour race who has the slightest chance of winning is clean. It's just math, nothing else. Sad, but reality. Not only in cycling.

 

[VeloCity]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/vinos-victory-overshadowed-by-questions-about-his-past

I was in Tenerife with a group of about twenty-five riders, including riders from Liquigas. The hotels were full. Who knows, maybe next year some French riders might even join us…

Is it me, or does that "maybe next year some French riders might even join us" sound like it's basically an admission of why he was in the Canaries?

 

[buckwheat]

Do you guys really think the dopers are juiced up in every race? Of course they are not. I bet a guy like Contador has been competing with his natural blood values so far this year.

Once you go down that road, not only is it necessary physically, it's necessary psychologically.

You can't be jacked and know how effective it is, then lay off and wonder whether your competition is cheating.

The sport you describe is more like poker than an athletic competition.

Any fan should have realized how pathetic these guys are when Beltran tried to evade the controls. That was a prelude to all of Pharmstrong and Astana'snonsense last year.

Cycling has less credibility than Bodybuilding.

 

[Oldman]

Vino, please stop lying to us like Pharmstrong has been lying to us about being clean. Just don't talk about the subject and let us enjoy cycling and forget about the dark and sad system behind. And Vino-haters stop pointing the fingers at him. He got punished and banned, so let's enjoy his attacks and aggressive riding style and hope he won't get caught again.

To be a winner, one needs hard work, talent, technique, tactics, form, etc. But all this is useless and does not give one the slightest chance to win, if one doesn't have state-of-the-art medical support. So doping is just necessary to have a chance to win, but it will never make the difference or make a winner out of a loser.

The chances of pro dopers in the peloton to get caught are approximately 1:200 if not even lower. So only guys who don't calculate, don't dose carefully and do not strictly and precisely follow the masking protocol will be caught. It is so ridicolous to think that anybody in a Pro Tour race who has the slightest chance of winning is clean. It's just math, nothing else. Sad, but reality. Not only in cycling.

Nice post. Unfortunately the debate will rage here and elsewhere and the whining about someone else's favorite rider being more enhanced will rage on.