How to prove a negative?

[Netserk]

Do we want a scandal free sport or a dope free sport?

The anwser is somewhere inbetween for the UCI.

Good post Hog.

 

[coinneach]

Good topic Hog!

Trouble is; whatever list of things/disclosures that are created, even if they are done, the clinic 12 (or should that be 11?) won't believe it, and will shift to a new set of demands.

That's been my experience,occasionally following the Sky thread.
When action is demanded about Rogers/Leinders etc. Action follows, but it's never enough

Someone posts "if only Walsh would call it"
Walsh calls it clean
Still not enough

What about Race Radio? Hero for many for a long time, but wait, he calls it cleaner: now he's like Judas around here

Trouble is, its the only place where the obvious can be "called" and the rest debated.

But lets not pretend that by coming with a manifesto of disclosure of information, its going to move the discussion on.

Minds are made up, and unless there is some hard evidence coming out (unlike the Sky thread so far) opinions are not going to change.

IMHO

 

[blackcat]

Do we want a scandal free sport or a dope free sport?

The anwser is somewhere inbetween for the UCI.

they know the sport they administer. being dope free is not a barrier to entry. the inverse is true. accepting dope realism is indeed THE barrier to entry

 

[blackcat]

Good topic Hog!

Trouble is; whatever list of things/disclosures that are created, even if they are done, the clinic 12 (or should that be 11?) won't believe it, and will shift to a new set of demands.

That's been my experience,occasionally following the Sky thread.
When action is demanded about Rogers/Leinders etc. Action follows, but it's never enough

Someone posts "if only Walsh would call it"
Walsh calls it clean
Still not enough

What about Race Radio? Hero for many for a long time, but wait, he calls it cleaner: now he's like Judas around here

Trouble is, its the only place where the obvious can be "called" and the rest debated.

But lets not pretend that by coming with a manifesto of disclosure of information, its going to move the discussion on.

Minds are made up, and unless there is some hard evidence coming out (unlike the Sky thread so far) opinions are not going to change.

IMHO

Was the Clinic 11.

i do not need JV doing a thing for me. i dont think i am an interested party to the behaviour of the peloton.

my opinion on doping is my opinion, and i have found it fruitless to influence anyone.

 

[pmcg76]

Good topic Hog!

Trouble is; whatever list of things/disclosures that are created, even if they are done, the clinic 12 (or should that be 11?) won't believe it, and will shift to a new set of demands.

That's been my experience,occasionally following the Sky thread.
When action is demanded about Rogers/Leinders etc. Action follows, but it's never enough

Someone posts "if only Walsh would call it"
Walsh calls it clean
Still not enough

What about Race Radio? Hero for many for a long time, but wait, he calls it cleaner: now he's like Judas around here

Trouble is, its the only place where the obvious can be "called" and the rest debated.

But lets not pretend that by coming with a manifesto of disclosure of information, its going to move the discussion on.

Minds are made up, and unless there is some hard evidence coming out (unlike the Sky thread so far) opinions are not going to change.

IMHO

Don't forget the other clinic hero Kimmage, if he calls out someone or criticizes them he is bang on as always.

However if he dares suggest's someone is clean or cycling is cleaner, then of course he is probably wrong because he was wrong about Bernard Kohl.

Or LeMond, the times for the Alpe d'huez stage in 91 were very fast so definitive proof that this was the start of the EPO era, LeMond also rode his fastest time for the Alpe in 91 but he was definitely not using EPO or even doping.

 

[blackcat]

just one premise is always wrong here.

that someone may know individuals they see in the peloton. do not know them. do not know their ethics or values and what motivates them.

but i will wait and see if the peloton rises up in a putsch to oust Chris Froome or Alberto Contador if they are indeed perpetuating the fraud on their fellow competitors.

because they are stealing rewards, prizes, salaries.

[unsaid]

 

[gooner]

Don't forget the other clinic hero Kimmage, if he calls out someone or criticizes them he is bang on as always.

However if he dares suggest's someone is clean or cycling is cleaner, then of course he is probably wrong because he was wrong about Bernard Kohl.

Or LeMond, the times for the Alpe d'huez stage in 91 were very fast so definitive proof that this was the start of the EPO era, LeMond also rode his fastest time for the Alpe in 91 but he was definitely not using EPO or even doping.

Just look at the way people were up in arms about Kimmage being refused to follow Sky for the entire 2010 Tour and yet the same people around here weren't happy when Walsh was with them for the Giro and went as far as to accuse him of being a fanboy and sellout.

 

[blackcat]

Pentagon uses embeds, embedded journalists as well honed craft of their propaganda. not saying this is how it would be with walsh/kimmage. but the independence of the individual needs to be rigorous and steadfast, and being INSIDE the tent, aint necessarily the way to go about it.

As Race Radio said, trash bags of medical waste, that is about the only proof positive that could satiate some.

 

[jw1979]

As said in slightly different words by the OP, one can't prove the existence of something that is non-existent, unfortunately.

Power data combined with the bio-passport seems like the most reasonable solution. The issue I see with that, more than anything, is that it could make certain frame and tire manufacturers hesitant to sponsor teams as it would reveal how bad they suck....or how they don't matter at all

 

[the sceptic]

How about banning teams from employing doctors?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

How about banning teams from employing doctors?

Worse option.

Athletes need medics. They do. So, instead of a recognizable and moniter-able (in some sense) doc, athletes will independently contract out on a whole-sport scale. Much harder for fans to keep track of, and make it easier for the top athletes to seek out the fields "best"

 

[Samson777]

Damsgaard is maybe the answer. Didn't he prove Bruynells Astana team to be clean? If he can do that, chances are he can prove that the whole peloton is clean

 

[the sceptic]

Worse option.

Athletes need medics. They do. So, instead of a recognizable and moniter-able (in some sense) doc, athletes will independently contract out on a whole-sport scale. Much harder for fans to keep track of, and make it easier for the top athletes to seek out the fields "best"

Race organizers can provide doctors

What do the riders need doctors for anyway? (except for doping)

 

[Samson777]

Race organizers can provide doctors

What do the riders need doctors for anyway? (except for doping)

Thinking Ullrich and Boonen, perhaps party drugs is the answer?

 

[blackcat]

Damsgaard is maybe the answer. Didn't he prove Bruynells Astana team to be clean? If he can do that, chances are he can prove that the whole peloton is clean

what bikes are Garmin now riding. i know they are no longer on Felt.

So can they send Damsgaard a bike up front, a show of good faith?

 

[Mr. McQ]

Hear it a lot.

No way to prove a negative.

But there appears many things teams/cyclists could to demonstrate a level of cleanness.

JV says that we wouldn't' understand.

But what could be done to show that a team or individual cyclists are clean? (other than saying it).

Why are you such a bigoted POS troll with your posts like these???

You could just write this trash in the SKY thread, where it could be lost with all of the other garbage

 

[Big Doopie]

How about banning teams from employing doctors?

Bingo.

Sceptic, we agree!

 

[Big Doopie]

Worse option.

Athletes need medics. They do. So, instead of a recognizable and moniter-able (in some sense) doc, athletes will independently contract out on a whole-sport scale. Much harder for fans to keep track of, and make it easier for the top athletes to seek out the fields "best"

Hmm. Why didn't they need doctors per-epo?

 

[Big Doopie]

Race organizers can provide doctors

What do the riders need doctors for anyway? (except for doping)

Wow. Bingo again. You had already answered what I then repeated. Should really read the whole thread before posting. Sorry.

A tip of the hat to you sceptic.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

SRMs need to be standised also. If the UCI can mandate seat angle parameters then they can issue standard SRM units.

This is one of those pub chat ideas that really doesn't stand up to practical implementation when you actually think it through.

e.g. the very same control over the data recording the rider needs to ensure accurate data (e.g. periodically checking and setting of zero offset) is also the very same control that can readily make a mockery of the data if a rider so chose. Heck, plenty screw it up without trying/realising.

And what of other power meter manufacturers, do we rule them out of sponsoring / supplying the sport? Or a sponsor whose kit is not compatible with an SRM option? e.g. Garmin, who might not appreciate being forced to use an SRM Powercontrol instead of the very product their team is set up to promote (Garmins are susceptible to creating errors in SRM data).

Besides, I'm sure there would be better ways to use the $5-6 million required to fit all bikes in the pro peloton + the costs of the global data integrity and forensic analysis body that will be needed + scrutineers to ensure calibration is correct for every bike in every race.

If such additional budget was available, would power meters + the necessary infrastructure to ensure data integrity be the best use of the resource for anti-doping? What would an existing ADA do with the budget if it had such resources? Better/more testing? Increased OOC controls? Increased investigative resources? Target the level below pro-tour with greater vigour? Education? R&D?

Then there is the bigger problem, it's still not going to help us find those "back of the pack" pros who are doping but still affect race outcomes and screw others out of race and contract opportunities.

 

[ebandit]

really?

E-B ... you are trolling this thread pretty heavily.

oh dear............my bad for pointing out how this pointless stooopid thread
is so full of holes

i read 'teams should be banned from having doctors'

riders will always visit their doctors....................surely it is better to have

identified personnel employing documented procedures?

Mark L

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I don't know about you but I certainly did not wait 11 years. I went full gas on this topic over a decade ago.

I form my opinions by talking to dozens of people close to the sport. Current and former Pro's, staff, administrators, testers, etc. Add to this physical evidence. Then add in Watts, VAM, W/kg. There are still many questions, a toxic culture, and many elements that need to be out of the sport.....but the top level of the sport is cleaner then ever. Significantly cleaner then even 5 years ago. The amateur side is a mess, but that is a different story

I didnt say that RR, it took the mainstream media - where 99% gets his info from - how long?
Excuse if I wasnt clear on that.

To the bold, the amateur side has always been a mess, I really cant see change there.

 

[Benotti69]

Good topic Hog!

Trouble is; whatever list of things/disclosures that are created, even if they are done, the clinic 12 (or should that be 11?) won't believe it, and will shift to a new set of demands.

That's been my experience,occasionally following the Sky thread.
When action is demanded about Rogers/Leinders etc. Action follows, but it's never enough

Boll!x.

Sky got caught with their pants down on Leinders and then their excuses for hiring him was the death of a Sky Soigneur. What BS!

Never enough! Sky claimed they wee going to be different and fully transparent. Again Boll!x. When asked about ignoring their ZTP they claimed they couldn't find a good doc in the real world!

All Sky have ever done is lie.

Why trust their performances then?

Someone posts "if only Walsh would call it"
Walsh calls it clean
Still not enough

Not enough for some, Kimmage for example. Also Walsh has not given any great insight into how Sky are able to beat the dopers. He went to a few things and saw nothing dodgy. Big deal!

What about Race Radio? Hero for many for a long time, but wait, he calls it cleaner: now he's like Judas around here

No one is saying the sport in not cleanER! But that is a far away land from clean.

Trouble is, its the only place where the obvious can be "called" and the rest debated.

But lets not pretend that by coming with a manifesto of disclosure of information, its going to move the discussion on.

Minds are made up, and unless there is some hard evidence coming out (unlike the Sky thread so far) opinions are not going to change.

IMHO

Those who come into the clinic and moan about the talk of doping in a sport where the UCI are completely corrupt, teams are run and managed by ex dopers while hiring doping docs, riders still come from nowhere without real world explanations and the excuses given are the other teams dont train hard enough.

Please go do one!

 

[coinneach]

Boll!x.




Those who come into the clinic and moan about the talk of doping in a sport where the UCI are completely corrupt, teams are run and managed by ex dopers while hiring doping docs, riders still come from nowhere without real world explanations and the excuses given are the other teams dont train hard enough.

Please go do one!

I think I can agree with most of your last point, Benotti, which is better than nothing.
I don't think Sky base their success on other teams not training hard enough, more on them doing things differently, without some the traditional cycling methods.
Lance, on the other hand, did say he trained harder than others. He may have been telling a partial truth, without explaining HOW he could train harder.
But you are right about the Clinic: it does serve a function as a place where ideas can be explored.
What do you think of my main point: about how goalposts get moved?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Hmm. Why didn't they need doctors per-epo?

(just quoting this one to address the few posts)

Not being on a professional cycling team, I'm not exactly sure what their job description is. In my head though, the doc would take care of treating the sick, injured, and those coming back from injury. the doc could also be the lead post-race rehab and massage person.

Now, Ferrari isn't a physio doctor (not even close), but that above description is the kind of doctor a team should have. A race-supplied doctor isn't going to have the familiarity or follow up to nurse a crashed-out rider back to health for a later event.

A better solution that is equally unrealistic is to make TUE's public. Ensures a little bit that a team doctor isn't a team's doping doctor. (but likely will not happen)

Why didn't they need doctors pre-epo? Same reason they didn't need helmets? Aero bars? Because there was less understanding of the sport.