Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

I'm saying 75% of Tour de France winners have been exposed for winning it through doping in 10 years on average.

Which is false. A) riis and lance were exposed after 10 years. B) landis, ullrich, Pantani and contador represent less than 10% of all tdf winners, definitely not 75%.

It's based on Tour de France wins between 1986 (LeMond being beginning of a more modern era of EPO abuse) and 2010 (Team Sky launched). Of those winners over 24 years, 75% of the wins have been from a rider exposed for doping. Sure, maybe not in Tour de France, but their career surrounding the win, so we assume doping. i.e. you assume Pantani doped for Tour de France even though not exposed during it. I think that is what OP was using to calculate 25% never get exposed, hence 75% over 24 years have been.

 

[samhocking]

Off the top of my head, the only riders you could argue over that 24 years who maybe won clean are Sastre (2008) and Induain (91,92,93,94,95) So of the 24 years, only 6 years could be argued to have been won by a rider not subsequently exposed. Clearly Indurain is doubtful, but it's based on the events. (6/24) * 100 = 25% won without being exposed, therefore 75% got exposed.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Uh no. Or rather. Indurain!? lolnope. Try again.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Otra Pregunta.

However, taking it on number of Tour winners based on "individuals who have won the Tour" rather than "winners of each individual Tour" would completely change the scope, since of course Indurain won 5x and Armstrong won 7x.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

In regards to Landis being busted, the details of that still dont add up. Landis admits to doping but not with the Testosterone that he got busted for and the levels were huge.

Contadors bust only came to light due to a leak at Cologne Lab (not being used for TdF, surprise surprise) as UCI were trying to hide it.

but the multiple tests using the isotope ration showed he tested positive multiple times.

we really need to ask Freddy Viaene if he was rubbing a testo cream with his massage oil. Or if there were testo metabolites in his blood bag

 

[samhocking]

Well, I think most would agree of the riders that won Le Tour, they doped in all of them, hence using a years won, rather than rider only calculation.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re:

Off the top of my head, the only riders you could argue over that 24 years who maybe won clean are Sastre (2008) and Induain (91,92,93,94,95) So of the 24 years, only 6 years could be argued to have been won by a rider not subsequently exposed. Clearly Indurain is doubtful, but it's based on the events. (6/24) * 100 = 25% won without being exposed, therefore 75% got exposed.

Pereiro, Lemond (3), Roche are all at least equally arguable as Indurain, which leads me to 46% not being exposed
This makes 5/12 individuals which is about 42%
So based on this small sample you might deduce that there is a 60% chance of being exposed for doping within +- 10 years after winning a Tour de France
...
How long has it been since Sky/BC won a Tour de France?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Off the top of my head, the only riders you could argue over that 24 years who maybe won clean are Sastre (2008) and Induain (91,92,93,94,95) So of the 24 years, only 6 years could be argued to have been won by a rider not subsequently exposed. Clearly Indurain is doubtful, but it's based on the events. (6/24) * 100 = 25% won without being exposed, therefore 75% got exposed.

Pereiro, Lemond (3), Roche are all at least equally arguable as Indurain, which leads me to 46% not being exposed
This makes 5/12 individuals which is about 42%
So based on this small sample you might deduce that there is a 60% chance of being exposed for doping within +- 10 years after winning a Tour de France
...
How long has it been since Sky/BC won a Tour de France?

Y'all are doing this the hard way: http://dopeology.org/podium/

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

Off the top of my head.

Should have stopped there sam.

 

[samhocking]

Pereiros year is accounted for hy Contador (edit, I mean Landis's) win, Lemond is not inside the 24 years. Roche, maybe, but a fair amount of revealing his past probably involved doping.

 

[samhocking]

Of course if you prefer to make it 50%-60% of riders, then 2 Sky wins means at least one rider will be exposed.

 

[Franklin]

Re:

Riis confessed in 2007, Lance made a comeback in 2009 - how can Lance's comeback trigger Riis' confession?

Look at other Telekom riders confessing in the days before Riis, I think that has more to with his confession than the future comeback of Armstrong...

You are right, I failed here on the timeline.

Still doesn't change that as long as Sky keeps it internal and do not go crazy with financial shehanigans it will be ironclad.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Y'all are doing this the hard way: http://dopeology.org/podium/

Doesn't help much, i'm talking Tour de France only here because this is the only GT where both Wiggins & Froome have won and Thomas, will probably now attempt too at some point in very near future now.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Still doesn't change that as long as Sky keeps it internal and do not go crazy with financial shehanigans it will be ironclad.

Is keeping it internal and not going crazy with financial shehanigans all that's required to do what Sky are doing then and evade any riders being exposed within 10 years? Seems if it was that simple, all the teams, most of whome lived, breathed and got stung during the whole EPO era would have worked it out by now, rather than new kids Sky rock up and within 2 years do what no other team could? Surely it's not that simple?

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re:

Of course if you prefer to make it 50%-60% of riders, then 2 Sky wins means at least one rider will be exposed.

It means there's a 75% chance one of them will be exposed in years to come

 

[samhocking]

Apparently Sky and its riders are immune from getting caught anyway, so use of historical statistics is pointless. You can use historical doping, compare times up climbs and assume probability they are doping, but give some simple statistics from that same history to say when they would be exposed if doping is not welcome here lol!

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Of course if you prefer to make it 50%-60% of riders, then 2 Sky wins means at least one rider will be exposed.

It means there's a 75% chance one of them will be exposed in years to come

they are not independent variables. if one goes, it is more likely the other will follow in his slipstream. and all the cycling knighthoods will be revoked, Yippeee!

 

[samhocking]

Which brings me back to Sky's 'system' is the same as British Cycling's 15-20 year old 'system' of which not a single Gold medalist or World Champion has become a 75% statistic like on the road for the last 3 Olmypic cycles. So, either the system on the Track is clean, or Sky have worked out what every other Nation and Pro Team couldn't and can indefinitely avoid becoming a member of the 75% club on the road and on the track!
If Track is so different, why did Sky begin and continues with much of the same BC 'system' unchanged and it's first Tour winner from the last 3 olympic cycles? Thomas also, from that 3 Olympic cycle on the track of course.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

Apparently Sky and its riders are immune from getting caught anyway, so use of historical statistics is pointless. You can use historical doping, compare times up climbs and assume probability they are doping, but give some simple statistics from that same history to say when they would be exposed if doping is not welcome here lol!

It's more that people believe your statistics to be naïvely over-optimistic based on a few things.

1) counting each Tour individually, so Armstrong being counted amounts to 7 busts.
2) the large number of other riders known to have slipped the net.
3) that a few of the riders mentioned are only tipped off because they confessed, and your 10-year timeframe is too restrictive because Riis and Armstrong were outside of it, notwithstanding that you treat BC's history in track cycling as the same as a 10-year timeframe in road cycling, with much more exposure, much more money, a much deeper field and much more doping cases.
4) that only Landis' positive was intentional, as the UCI attempted to suppress Contador's and successfully suppressed Armstrong's. Pereiro got a rushed TUE, which makes him no different to Froome.
5) in the eyes of the general public Indurain is clean despite a borderline confession. Ditto Cunego if we include other races. Including marginal cases like Indurain affects the outcome of the data quite considerably, especially when you count each Tour individually as you have done.
6) the wilfully restricted dataset (Tour de France winners only) reduces the value of the conclusions drawn from them. Add in other podium riders at the Tour, other GTs and races and the number of suspected dopers who have not faced any sanction increases greatly. I mean, Rominger? Jaskuła? Escartín? Andy Schleck?
7) Pierre Bordry is not working for AFLD anymore.
8) We aren't dealing with Lance Armstrong, and the past has given us lessons to learn from. The likelihood of the kind of massive scale team-wide doping of the 90s and early 00s is small; smaller, more tightly controlled pockets are seemingly the order of the day, laut CIRC. Easier to circle those wagons.
9) Sky are tied to a media empire that will enable them to control the story in the public eye the majority of the time and will make it easier to suppress any bad news.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

Which brings me back to Sky's 'system' is the same as British Cycling's 15-20 year old 'system' of which not a single Gold medalist or World Champion has become a 75% statistic like on the road for the last 3 Olmypic cycles. So, either the system on the Track is clean, or Sky have worked out what every other Nation and Pro Team couldn't and can indefinitely avoid becoming a member of the 75% club on the road and on the track!
If Track is so different, why did Sky begin and continues with much of the same BC 'system' unchanged and it's first Tour winner from the last 3 olympic cycles? Thomas also, from that 3 Olympic cycle on the track of course.

Testing is very different for Track to Road, because the Road is where the majority of the money is, and Road cycling is mainly contested by commercial ventures rather than national teams.

Also, Sky began with much of the same BC system from the track... and struggled mightily on the road in their first season, if you remember rightly. They had to pick up more road nous before they progressed in road cycling. They also got their first Tour winner from those Olympic cycles, though he had already transformed into a different type of rider by the time Team Sky was set up; also he was an established pro with a high profile in the UK. Saying there have been no positives in the track program (other than being false, there's Rob Hayles of course) is almost totally irrelevant when compared to the road discussion.

There's also a great deal of road cyclists who've been busted for doping who never really became part of that 75% (Basso? Klöden? Scarponi? Valverde? Rasmussen? Not a failed test between them - and Ras would have been part of that 75% too). If there are no positives to lead to confessions (hello Sinkewitz, hello Simeoni, hello Sella) then the chances of investigations are fewer. And also of course, in sports where national authorities run each team rather than commercial teams, it's easier to abuse the national testing system.

 

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

We can now safely say Barloworld was one of the most talented teams out there. Let's ask Corti on his views regarding Thomas.

Augstyn and Cummings went to Sky...
Augustyn is a year younger than G, so would he be a GT contender next year if he'd stayed with Sky?

But for his hip issues, maybe.

He was the most promising African rider at Sky in 2010.

And Cummings finished better than Wiggo the year Wiggo won a stage of l'Avenir.

And who just won a stage of leTour on the weekend...
Seems of the two I mentioned, the other one may come good

 

[Benotti69]

Geraint Thomas showing the Sky Hypocrisy (which is another gain it appears) taking a shot at Michael Rasmussen for being a journalist at the TdF.

Why? Is he not riding for Servais Knaven, did he not work with Leinders, Yates, Jullich, De Jong, Mick Barry.............

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

Geraint Thomas showing the Sky Hypocrisy (which is another gain it appears) taking a shot at Michael Rasmussen for being a journalist at the TdF.

Why? Is he not riding for Servais Knaven, did he not work with Leinders, Yates, Jullich, De Jong, Mick Barry.............

Dude, Leinders only like sometimes weighed Thomas in the morning and treated him for saddle sores. Leinders is the best cream spreader in the biz.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Such a fan of Lance the legend back in 2011: http://www.geraintthomas.com/brushing-shoulders-in-lance-armstrong-finale-is-such-a-thrill/

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Geraint Thomas showing the Sky Hypocrisy (which is another gain it appears) taking a shot at Michael Rasmussen for being a journalist at the TdF.

Why? Is he not riding for Servais Knaven, did he not work with Leinders, Yates, Jullich, De Jong, Mick Barry.............

Dude, Leinders only like sometimes weighed Thomas in the morning and treated him for saddle sores. Leinders is the best cream spreader in the biz.

That damn Leinders wouldn't tell anyone else in the team the riders weights, no wonder Brailsford doesn't know! No wonder they got rid of him!