Is cycling getting cleaner ?

[sniper]

Indeed and the rational mind can see the 5-10% decrease in average times to go up the major climbs. And can therefore deduce less doping as a plausible explanation.

Provide us with some other rational explanations...

(...)

Good post. But:

Rational explanations for the decrease in average times uphill could be:
1. quick climbers dropping out of the tdf in the first week
2. contador not at his best (due to participation in Giro, rather than to being clean)
3. racers are forced to microdose, so no more big quantities of CERA, EPO.
4. racers are afraid of the plasticizer test, making it much more difficult to transfuse blood (which unfortunately doesn't mean that they're not on other stuff, anabolics, steroids, etc.)
5. for obvious reasons, racers and teams may not have been capable this year (or simply more afraid than in other years) of getting their equipment into france.

Then again, I think (and I stated this before) that we must differentiate between a cleaner TDF and a cleaner peloton.
Sure, there may have been less doping in the 2011 TDF, but does that make the peloton cleaner? Reason says no way.
I've seen no indications whatsoever that there is a changing mindset in the peloton regarding doping.

Check also Polish's post on the first page of this thread for additional arguments as to why it's rather naive to believe that "it's getting better".

 

[LukeSchmid]

less dirty than it was in terms of quantities of drugs being used, but no less dirty in the percentage of riders taking them.

I think this is the most likely situation. They may have been a very small reduction of the number taking drugs, but I am not convinced of this.

 

[rata de sentina]

See? You are able to think clear and argue irresistably.

Don't get excited, it's a momentary aberration, an island of lucidity soon to be swamped in a tsunami of incomprehensible dribble.

 

[rata de sentina]

But this post by Bigboat (which i took from another thread) gives a different picture all together.

Obviously you're not familiar with BigBoat's modus operandi which is usually big on entertainment but not so hot on the factual content.

 

[rata de sentina]

56% thinks it's getting better?
I'm stunned.

56% fooled by the pro-cycling community.

nothing wrong with wishful thinking of course.
but this is a poll, which is where you should let rationality speak.

I actually voted for that option and my opinion is based solely on my own interpretation of the scientific evidence and not on the statements of some UCI spokesthing who, as a general rule, I despise. Unlike some I don't take umbrage at being characterised as irrational by you and you can draw your own conclusions about that.....

 

[rata de sentina]

1. quick climbers dropping out of the tdf in the first week

Well the previously quickest were still there so that doesn't follow.

2. contador not at his best (due to participation in Giro, rather than to being clean)

That makes no sense, this isn't just about AC.

3. racers are forced to microdose, so no more big quantities of CERA, EPO.

=less doping

4. racers are afraid of the plasticizer test, making it much more difficult to transfuse blood (which unfortunately doesn't mean that they're not on other stuff, anabolics, steroids, etc.)

I actually don't believe this since the test is overhyped and easily circumvented but still = less doping

5. for obvious reasons, racers and teams may not have been capable this year (or simply more afraid than in other years) of getting their equipment into france.

Once again =less doping

So at least 3 of your contrary arguments actually support less doping as a rational explanation.

 

[sniper]

I actually voted for that option and my opinion is based solely on my own interpretation of the scientific evidence and not on the statements of some UCI spokesthing who, as a general rule, I despise. Unlike some I don't take umbrage at being characterised as irrational by you and you can draw your own conclusions about that.....

fair enough, but don't you think this is somehow a transitional year?

With respect to previous years, doctors, teammanagers and riders all were forced this year to adapt to the following:
1. plasticizer test (i.e. how to store your blood now?)
2. intensive criminal investigations into doping-related cash flows

My pessimism tells me that 2011 was a transitional year, and new techniques are worked on as we speak.

I believe in science like you do, but science doesn't tell me whether there has been a change in mindset regarding doping in the peloton.
While the omerta is clearly still being upheld massively, I don't see how this generation of riders, doctors, and DSs has gone from dirty to less dirty.
It's still the same generation.

 

[sniper]

Well the previously quickest were still there so that doesn't follow.


That makes no sense, this isn't just about AC.


=less doping

I actually don't believe this since the test is overhyped and easily circumvented but still = less doping


Once again =less doping

So at least 3 of your contrary arguments actually support less doping as a rational explanation.

you conveniently chose to ignore the final part of my post.

How does microdoping allow for the conclusion that "it's getting better"?
Also, I stressed we should distinguish between a cleaner tour 2011 and a cleaner pro-cycling.

I would have chosen the "it's getting better" option if we'd see a change in mindset, which could for instance be measured by the way whistleblowers are dealt with.

For reasons explained above, the "it's only temporary" option is much more plausible and, indeed, rational.

 

[Benotti69]

a possible test would be to compare races and not just the Giro and Tdf where authorities there have taken an hardline approach. San Sebastian in Spain might be a good barometer.

 

[patterson_hood]

Certainly cleaner now since the malignant regrowth has gone into remission for a second time!

(Apologies for a near plagiarisation of Paul Kimmage)

Whatever your opinions of Lance are (and I'm on the doping side) referring to a cancer survivor in such terms is disgusting. I have no respect for Paul Kimmage because of what he said and I hope you and he are ashamed of yourselves.

 

[poupou]

Sure, it's a lot cleaner because Armstrong was not there and Bruyneel didn't want to be chased by french police like in Italy!

 

[python]

Sure, it's a lot cleaner because Armstrong was not there and Bruyneel didn't want to be chased by french police like in Italy!

c'mon pou

didn't you know that bruyneel was shadowed by the police and oclaesp as ever ? they even administered him a breathalyzer test in the middle of one of the stages - the only ds i am told to get the honour

 

[Paco_P]

Probably they don't do as much EPO as they used too, but it seems likely that still most of the professionals take something.

I'd say pro cycling is cleaner than other bigger money professional sports. It has a more serious and more extensive testing regimen than professional football, basketball, etc... In any sporting authority the higher ups who are former professionals themselves, who will always be a significant chunk, will never be too serious about policing doping because they all used to dope themselves. That's a problem in cycling just like it is in football.

There seems to be some evidence that the top climbers are going up the big mountains a bit more slowly than they did some years ago. Some want to conclude that this indicates less doping. It may only indicate different, less effective doping - the point being that the most effective thing - EPO - is too easy to catch. Nonetheless, if this is the case, then it is a sort of improvement because it means the advantage for the dopers is less pronounced.

It's a mistake to focus too much on particular cyclists. The real key isn't what's going on at the front of the big tours - it's what is going on at lower levels among those ambitious to advance - that's harder to see.

 

[maltiv]

I think the most interesting part is that Horner, with the same watt output as he had in ToC, would've won the TDF by about 20 minutes. So that tells me that cycling is not getting that much cleaner, but the TDF certainly is. Looks like many of them are too afraid to dope there (perhaps only with micro doses at least), but ancient Americans protected by american authorities in California can still dope themselves into flying pigs

 

[mtb Dad]

I think the most interesting part is that Horner, with the same watt output as he had in ToC, would've won the TDF by about 20 minutes. So that tells me that cycling is not getting that much cleaner, but the TDF certainly is. Looks like many of them are too afraid to dope there (perhaps only with micro doses at least), but ancient Americans protected by american authorities in California can still dope themselves into flying pigs

That is interesting. I suppose I could go looking for Horner's outputs, but can you save me step and post a reference? This might be a huge argument for the effectiveness of enforcement.

 

[Polish]

I'm sorry for the cynics and skeptics who don't believe in cycling.
I’m sorry that you can’t dream big.

Pro Cycling is a great sport, and you should stand around and believe it.
You should believe in these athletes.

The Tour de France in particular is a hard sporting event.
And there are no secrets - HARD WORK WINS IT.
That and sleeping in a tent, reconning courses, lazerlike focus,
and and and and and and and etc

So Vive le Tour forever!

 

[Velodude]

I'm sorry for the cynics and skeptics who don't believe in cycling.
I’m sorry that you can’t dream big.

Pro Cycling is a great sport, and you should stand around and believe it.
You should believe in these athletes.

The Tour de France in particular is a hard sporting event.
And there are no secrets - HARD WORK WINS IT.
That and sleeping in a tent, reconning courses, lazerlike focus,
and and and and and and and etc

So Vive le Tour forever!

Plagiariser/plagiarizer

 

[Krebs cycle]

Is cycling getting cleaner? Hard to tell, but a more pertinent question is the following.... are performance enhancements resulting from unnatural physiology secondary to doping becoming harder to achieve? The answer to this latter question is probably yes, because the biological passport appears to be doing its job. Whilst it remains difficult to detect actual doping, the outcome of doping ie: abnormal hematology, IS being detected. If you don't have improbable Hb and %retic values then it makes it far more difficult to obtain a performance enhancement due to increased O2 transport capacity.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Wow, nice graph Krebs.

One thing it seems safe to conclude is that riders' doping practices are heavily influenced by the detection methods.

Makes me wonder if some determined retrospective testing would act as an effective deterrent.

 

[Franklin]

Seems Mrs Gripper claims about the passport weren't so flippant after all.

 

[sniper]

Come on guys, wake up call...

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html

And once again a huge thank you to Prof Yorck Olaf Schumacher, Prof Mario Zorzoli and also to Torben Potgiesser for their input. I don't know if any of you realized, but some of the comments in the discussion to the previous post were from them, and that is a rare privilege, to hear straight from those at the "front line" of the issue at hand. I am especially indebted to Prof Schumacher for steering me to publications on this topic.

hardly an independent investigation.
Zorzoli and Schumacher are members of UCI's medical board.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Come on guys, wake up call...





hardly an independent investigation.
Zorzoli and Schumacher are members of UCI's medical board.

Settle down sniper, its an internet forum, not a manuscript submission to a peer-reviewed journal. The graph can be found at sportscientist.com if you don't want to pay for the original article pdf from Drug Testing and Analysis. Try commenting on the content instead of nitpicking about the referencing.

Another recent study of interest re biological passport is the following....

Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping
Michael Ashenden, Clare E. Gough, Andrew Garnham, Christopher J. Gore and Ken Sharpe
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n533v42874675567/

Ashenden, Gore and Sharpe were some of the founding members of the EPO on/off test method and biological passport concept (along with and especially Robin Parisotto). Is that good enough referencing for you?

 

[sniper]

Settle down sniper, its an internet forum, not a manuscript submission to a peer-reviewed journal. The graph can be found at sportscientist.com if you don't want to pay for the original article pdf from Drug Testing and Analysis. Try commenting on the content instead of nitpicking about the referencing.

Another recent study of interest re biological passport is the following....

Ashenden, Gore and Sharpe were some of the founding members of the EPO on/off test method and biological passport concept (along with and especially Robin Parisotto). Is that good enough referencing for you?

I wasn't responding directly to your post (I just used your link to quote from it), but to Franklin's and IWCiJ's posts, so settle down there, stay calm, and call 911 in case of an emergency.

I was just pointing out that one has to remain skeptical of the veracity of such studies, especially when members of the UCI medical board are involved in the data analysis.
I think that's a reasonable caveat to make. But feel free to disagree.

 

[sniper]

Settle down sniper, its an internet forum, not a manuscript submission to a peer-reviewed journal. The graph can be found at sportscientist.com if you don't want to pay for the original article pdf from Drug Testing and Analysis. Try commenting on the content instead of nitpicking about the referencing.

Another recent study of interest re biological passport is the following....

Ashenden, Gore and Sharpe were some of the founding members of the EPO on/off test method and biological passport concept (along with and especially Robin Parisotto). Is that good enough referencing for you?

I wasn't responding directly to your post (I just used your link to quote from it), but to Franklin's and IWCiJ's posts.

Of course, I don't disagree that the data look compelling.
I was just pointing out that one has to remain skeptical of the veracity of such studies, especially when members of the UCI medical board are involved in the data analysis.
I think that's a reasonable caveat to make.
Probably I should have said "caveat" in the first place, rather than "wake up call".

Anyway, thanks for the additional link. I'll look into it.

 

[The Ripper]

Hey, why can't I add to the pole? Has it closed already

Yes cycling is getting cleaner, significantly so. And it is much cleaner than many other pro sports.