Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

[c&cfan]

hrotha is wrong.

 

[hrotha]

The dark clouds could not be there and he would still be a discussion point.

1. He wins the AGR and FW.
2. Then he crushes the competition in the doping classic; LBL
3. And the guy just keeps on winning. So far he hasn't lost a race he participated in.

Not only does he put Rebellin, Vino and Allesandro to shame.... he didn't seem to have peaked as he's still going strong. Indeed, we have to go back to Merckx for this kind of domination. But this time we know the competition has bloodvector doping.

I would say that in itself is enough to say it's a valid clinic topic.

Of course he would still be a discussion point, but in that case we wouldn't have any solid data to go by. Hypothetically, if cycling was completely clean and one guy was dominating like Gilbert, your criteria would still apply and we would be discussing why he's dirty, but we'd be wrong. We can only have a meaningful discussion if it doesn't turn into "everyone dopes", because even if that's the truth (and it might well be) it would be an empty discussion.

 

[Franklin]

Of course he would still be a discussion point, but in that case we wouldn't have any solid data to go by.

But we do have solid data:

1. Chances of winning LBL clean are slim.
2. Crushing the times of known dopers is "eyecatching".

Hypothetically, if cycling was completely clean and one guy was dominating like Gilbert, your criteria would still apply and we would be discussing why he's dirty, but we'd be wrong.

Considering we know cycling is dirty there is absolutely no need to hypothesize. We look at Gilbert in his current environment and compare him with prior competitors (prior in a very near-past).

We can only have a meaningful discussion if it doesn't turn into "everyone dopes", because even if that's the truth (and it might well be) it would be an empty discussion.

Nonsense. We can compare Gilbert with set data points (facts). In this he comes out favorably (as in performing better and maintaining this for a much longer period).

 

[hrotha]

But we do have solid data:

1. Chances of winning LBL clean are slim.
2. Crushing the times of known dopers is "eyecatching".

That reasoning relies on doping remaining static and rules out the possibility of reducing its impact so much that clean riders can win the top races. No, I don't think we're there yet, and I'm not sure we'll ever be, but to not take that possibility into account is bad, uh, "science".

Considering we know cycling is dirty there is absolutely no need to hypothesize. We look at Gilbert in his current environment and compare him with prior competitors (prior in a very near-past).

That paragraph wasn't about Gilbert himself, it was there to present a plausible scenario where your reasoning would be clearly wrong and unfair.

Nonsense. We can compare Gilbert with set data points (facts). In this he comes out favorably (as in performing better and maintaining this for a much longer period).

My point is that if every discussion is going to end with "Of course he dopes; he's winning", there's not much of a point for the Clinic existing. It'll be just a forum for us to share our preconceived, immutable opinions and pat ourselves on the back. The premise rules out meaningful discussion because you take your hypothesis for granted.

 

[roundabout]

Uh, 1 down, 3 (4?) stages to go.

Somehow I miss Piti. If only for comparison purposes.

 

[Franklin]

That reasoning relies on doping remaining static and rules out the possibility of reducing its impact so much that clean riders can win the top races. No, I don't think we're there yet, and I'm not sure we'll ever be, but to not take that possibility into account is bad, uh, "science".

Somewhere along the line you forgot the times which are clocked... I'd say that in itself should be enough to make anyone pause.

Also, you ignore pointedly that we are not talking about a far away past, but a very recent one... in a sport that is clearly (considering the doping cases) still riddled with "issues"

My point is that if every discussion is going to end with "Of course he dopes; he's winning", there's not much of a point for the Clinic existing.

That is a rather nasty twisting of what I'm saying. I'm pointing out the races which he wins and the timeframe, combined with the times he clocks.

The premise rules out meaningful discussion because you take your hypothesis for granted.

I'm not hypothesizing at all. I'm using cold solid facts to compare Gilbert with his predecessors. I even refrained from speaking out the obvious conclusion.

In fact it is so obvious that it seems you actually read that in my posts.. now that tells you something, doesn't it?

This is very much clinic material, your reaction only strengthens this.

 

[sniper]

nice exchange of arguments.

I like hrotha's reasoning alot, in as far as, for the discussion on doping to remain meaningful, the option of clean riders winning races (as unlikely as it is) cannot be discarded.

I also dig Franklin's point though, that it actually is empirically verifiable whether the winner is doping based on the time he clocks and that compared to what other winners - and known dopers - have achieved in the past.
After all, there are limits to what is physically possible, and if those limits are exceeded, we are probably not dealing with a miracle, but with plain old juicing.

 

[Franklin]

nice exchange of arguments.

I like hrotha's reasoning alot, in as far as, for the discussion on doping to remain meaningful, the option of clean riders winning races (as unlikely as it is) cannot be discarded.

I do not discard this (I don't draw any conclusions, I just point out the facts) and this certainly is not Hrotha's stance.

Hrotha claims something more contentious: Cycling might have been cleaned up so much that performance like this can be possible.

The problem with this stance is manyfold:

1. Even in the pre-epo era this series is extraordinary. Not even Kelly managed this. Hinault Idem Ditto.
2. It's crystal clear that cycling is still dirty.

So not only does PG's performance stand out in a cleaner era we certainly do not live in that cleaner era.

This is nothing to hypothesize about as this is indeed staved by facts.

And to make it even easier: without taking the current state of affairs into consideration we can simply compare times. In this it seems that Philippe would be king of the hill even in the rocket-fuel era.

I also dig Franklin's point though, that it actually is empirically verifiable whether the winner is doping based on the time he clocks and that compared to what other winners - and known dopers - have achieved in the past.

I'm not going that far as I'm certainly not qualified to make such a claim. I prefer just to point out the facts. My personal conviction is obvious but quite frankly, anyone looking at those facts will have a hard time coming to a different conclusion.

After all, there are limits to what is physically possible, and if those limits are exceeded, we are probably not dealing with a miracle, but with plain old juicing.

Again, more knowledgeable people than me should sort that out.

Maybe Philippe is such a freak of nature that indeed he is still clean. It would be beyond extraordinary, but it's still possible I guess.

 

[hrotha]

Hrotha claims something more contentious: Cycling might have been cleaned up so much that performance like this can be possible.

What? No, I'm not claiming that. I quote: "No, I don't think we're there yet, and I'm not sure we'll ever be". My beef with your posts is the methodology of the whole thing. You mentioned the times he clocks - fine, I already included that in my list of "acceptable data" when I mentioned his Mur de Huy record. The other stuff I don't find compelling enough to have a meaningful discussion.

 

[Franklin]

What? No, I'm not claiming that. I quote: "No, I don't think we're there yet, and I'm not sure we'll ever be". .

Hence I used the word "might".

Because if you don't think it's remotely possible, why hypothesize about it other than to muddle the waters?

The other stuff I don't find compelling enough to have a meaningful discussion.

Dismissing the statistical data of prior years is ludicrous.

 

[hrotha]

Dismissing the statistical data of prior years is ludicrous.

What statistical data?

 

[Franklin]

What statistical data?

LMAO

Ok, you asked for it:

2011 · Philippe Gilbert
2010 · Aleksandr Vinokoerov
2009 · Andy Schleck
2008 · Alejandro Valverde
2007 · Danilo Di Luca
2006 · Alejandro Valverde
2005 · Aleksandr Vinokoerov
2004 · Davide Rebellin
2003 · Tyler Hamilton
2002 · Paolo Bettini
2001 · Oscar Camenzind
2000 · Paolo Bettini
1999 · Frank Vandenbroucke
1998 · Michele Bartoli
1997 · Michele Bartoli
1996 · Pascal Richard
1995 · Mauro Gianetti
1994 · Jevgeni Berzin
1993 · Rolf Sørensen
1992 · Dirk De Wolf
1991 · Moreno Argentin

And we could also drill down and look at the top ten's of all those years.

More statistics: In the pre-epo era this performance is also unheard of. You want to dismiss this fact as well?

Do I really have to do this same exercise for FW and AGR?

 

[hrotha]

Hence I used the word "might".

Because if you don't think it's remotely possible, why hypothesize about it other than to muddle the waters?

Because it's good science. Again, it's a matter of methodology.

That's exactly why the list of past winners isn't compelling. I thought you were talking about watts/kg or something. Anyway, you either don't understand what I mean, or our positions are so different there's no point discussing it further. I hope my point was clear enough for the rest of the forum though.

 

[roundabout]

At 29 Gilbert is arguably at the peak of his powers but there did seem to be an arguably sufficiently big improvement between 2010 and 2011 to cast doubt even without the recent developments.

I don't subscribe to the notion that winning LBL = doper even if that was the case for the last 2 decades or so but I find myself in agreement with Franklin. It's quite possible that the 'clean' Gilbert of 2011 would have been competitive against Piti/Tintin and all your other favorite dopers 4-5 years ago.

 

[Franklin]

Because it's good science. Again, it's a matter of methodology.

Pray tell, what's your scientific pedigree? I'm a historian. I also have a degree in business economics wich includes a dash of statistical education (business intelligence)

That's exactly why the list of past winners isn't compelling.

I'm sorry, somewhere along your posts I missed the argument for dismissal.

I thought you were talking about watts/kg or something. Anyway, you either don't understand what I mean, or our positions are so different there's no point discussing it further. I hope my point was clear enough for the rest of the forum though.

I see exactly what your confusion is about. You want to treat this as a lab case on the line of a draw of the dice.

If we look at dice: Prior results should not influence current results.

But this is where you miss the (scientific) train. This is not throwing dice. Using that methodology is false. Scientific methods are dependent on the approach and subject.

In this case it's fine to look at past winners: Not only is the subject the same (LBL), it is close in years, the wattage is also close and the participants are partly the same.

Now why Hrotha's emphasis on hypothesis is wrong: this isn't a lab environment which needs to be and can be reset at will. We know the peloton is dirty. It's impossible to set up a clean situation, nor can we simulate this and get reliable results. In this situation it's wrong to hypothesize about a situation that is a. Not in place and b. we do not know the parameters of.

 

[Duartista]

WRT to the Mur de Huy record, it is perhaps worth bearing in mind that this year's Fleche was the slowest since 2000, overall. Plus, Gilbert ambled up it at the back of the peloton the first time they went up it. Just comparing times as if each year was a tt up the Mur seems misleading to me.

http://bikeraceinfo.com/classics/Fleche%20Wallonne/flecheindex.html

 

[GreasyMonkey]

WRT to the Mur de Huy record, it is perhaps worth bearing in mind that this year's Fleche was the slowest since 2000, overall. Plus, Gilbert ambled up it at the back of the peloton the first time they went up it. Just comparing times as if each year was a tt up the Mur seems misleading to me.

http://bikeraceinfo.com/classics/Fleche%20Wallonne/flecheindex.html

Thanks for bringing some sanity and useful information back into the thread - it was getting tot be like a kindy cat-fight.

 

[roundabout]

WRT to the Mur de Huy record, it is perhaps worth bearing in mind that this year's Fleche was the slowest since 2000, overall. Plus, Gilbert ambled up it at the back of the peloton the first time they went up it. Just comparing times as if each year was a tt up the Mur seems misleading to me.

http://bikeraceinfo.com/classics/Fleche%20Wallonne/flecheindex.html

Uh, why? Think of the 2004 Alpe d'Huez TT. Ullrich/Klöden/Sastre had slower ascent times there than in road stages.

 

[Duartista]

Uh, why? Think of the 2004 Alpe d'Huez TT. Ullrich/Klöden/Sastre had slower ascent times there than in road stages.

So you don't think that the overall toughness of the race has any effect on how quickly riders are able to do the final climb?

The Alpe d'Huez TT is not a good comparison, as it took place in the third week of a GT.

 

[c&cfan]

That reasoning relies on doping remaining static and rules out the possibility of reducing its impact so much that clean riders can win the top races. No, I don't think we're there yet, and I'm not sure we'll ever be, but to not take that possibility into account is bad, uh, "science".

That paragraph wasn't about Gilbert himself, it was there to present a plausible scenario where your reasoning would be clearly wrong and unfair.

My point is that if every discussion is going to end with "Of course he dopes; he's winning", there's not much of a point for the Clinic existing. It'll be just a forum for us to share our preconceived, immutable opinions and pat ourselves on the back. The premise rules out meaningful discussion because you take your hypothesis for granted.

hrotha is right afterall.

 

[roundabout]

So you don't think that the overall toughness of the race has any effect on how quickly riders are able to do the final climb?

The Alpe d'Huez TT is not a good comparison, as it took place in the third week of a GT.

I think that 5 seconds is a lot for a climb that's slightly over 3 minutes to be explained by the previous 199 km.

Also measuring the toughness of the race using average speed seems, ahem, misleading to me.

 

[Duartista]

I think that 5 seconds is a lot for a climb that's slightly over 3 minutes to be explained by the previous 199 km.

Also measuring the toughness of the race using average speed seems, ahem, misleading to me.

Of course its not the only explanation, but it should surely be taken into account.

Average speed on its own does not provide a measurement of the toughness of the race, but it is an indicator.

 

[ferrellm]

gilbert's edge

i would suspect that gilbert's domination, if one has to speculate, is more along the characteristics of what was found on vansevenant (localized muscle enhancement) and less due to the bloodvector use.

a horse indeed.

Indeed. The stuff that Gilbert's buddy was found with, fresh from the vets in Australia, used to improve thoroughbred horse speeds, (pure speculation follows) may be just the wonder drug to be the EPO of the new century. Do you think a drug (it is an analog of a hormone that speeds tissue recovery after an injury) that increases blood and muscle mass quickly and is a strong anti-inflammatory to boot could be of use during the Tour?

No tests for it? Aw shucks.

 

[Dark_knight]

He is not Gilbert's buddy.
Vansevenant used to be Peter Van Petegem's buddy.

A lot of BS in the clinic...

You guys should choose an other sport...
Really...

 

[The Hitch]

You guys should choose an other sport...
Really...

Presumably one with less doping. Any suggestions?