Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

[S2Sturges]

Re:

if it's doping i dont care, i love the way Gilbert rides. it's especially refreshing after (an also doped) Sky have murdered almost every race they've tried in the past few years. after sitting through that sh*t time and time again i feel like i'm entitled to enjoy Gilbert no matter what he may be taking.

100% agree, seeing one guy ride with panache than the dull procession of 4-5 Sky riders singe file riding tempo with 50km left to go is one of the most depressing sights on pro cycling...

 

[therealthing]

Even a kidney tear could not stop him yesterday:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gilbert-out-of-remaining-ardennes-with-kidney-injury/

 

[wheresmybrakes]

It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

 

[The Hegelian]

just to be clear - Gilbert's AGR win does not classify as clinic material, correct?

Correct.

However, Gilbert's AGR win + his Flanders-Landis win + his 3 days de Panne + his other cobbled podiums 2017 + his legless years at BMC + his crazy 2011 which now looks a lot like 2017 = clinic material. That abyss between between average and being Merckx is pretty hard to reconcile without recourse to clinic logic. In fact it's hard to find a more textbook clinic case. One year contract. Motivation. Seen it a million times before.

 

[Robert5091]

Re:

Even a kidney tear could not stop him yesterday:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gilbert-out-of-remaining-ardennes-with-kidney-injury/

Aah , that's why he didn't win from 50 k out ...

 

[ToreBear]

It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

Winning a race was a great way to catch dopers 15-20 years ago. Since this was so easy that everyone could spot a doper, this method has remained popular. The problem is it's accuracy has gone from 90% to 2% in the time since. The clinic alas seems still stuck in the days of Lance Armstrong and Tyler Hamilton.

 

[frisenfruitig]

It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

Winning a race was a great way to catch dopers 15-20 years ago. Since this was so easy that everyone could spot a doper, this method has remained popular. The problem is it's accuracy has gone from 90% to 2% in the time since. The clinic alas seems still stuck in the days of Lance Armstrong and Tyler Hamilton.

What does that even mean?

 

[Ricco']

Re:

Even a kidney tear could not stop him yesterday:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gilbert-out-of-remaining-ardennes-with-kidney-injury/

Glowing too much?

 

[ToreBear]

It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

Winning a race was a great way to catch dopers 15-20 years ago. Since this was so easy that everyone could spot a doper, this method has remained popular. The problem is it's accuracy has gone from 90% to 2% in the time since. The clinic alas seems still stuck in the days of Lance Armstrong and Tyler Hamilton.

What does that even mean?

It means that winning before was a good indicator of doping. Now it's a bad indicator. Some in the clinic seem to still think it's a good indicator. It hasn't been a good indicator since the 2000-2005 period.

 

[hrotha]

When did we go from 90% of all winners being dopers to like 2%? Could you provide a believable timeline?

 

[roundabout]

Why 2005? I think all 3 GT winners in 2006 tested postive/were eventually banned

 

[Netserk]

Same for 2007. And 2009.

 

[ToreBear]

Re:

When did we go from 90% of all winners being dopers to like 2%? Could you provide a believable timeline?

1999-2006 - Operacion Puerto, The peloton realises this has got to stop. The mood changes in the Peloton.
2009 - Biopass. Microdosing becomes riskier.
2009 - 2014 Bans with only the biopass as evidence happen.
2015-> Samples can be stored for 10 years. If you dope now, you might get away with it for a time. How much time? You can't sleep easy until it's been 10 yers.

Memory error =+-3 years

 

[frisenfruitig]

It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

Winning a race was a great way to catch dopers 15-20 years ago. Since this was so easy that everyone could spot a doper, this method has remained popular. The problem is it's accuracy has gone from 90% to 2% in the time since. The clinic alas seems still stuck in the days of Lance Armstrong and Tyler Hamilton.

What does that even mean?

It means that winning before was a good indicator of doping. Now it's a bad indicator. Some in the clinic seem to still think it's a good indicator. It hasn't been a good indicator since the 2000-2005 period.

And you know this... How exactly?

 

[ToreBear]

Re:

Why 2005? I think all 3 GT winners in 2006 tested postive/were eventually banned

Changes happens continuously. It's a question of degrees. There are many more races than GTs.

 

[ToreBear]

It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

Winning a race was a great way to catch dopers 15-20 years ago. Since this was so easy that everyone could spot a doper, this method has remained popular. The problem is it's accuracy has gone from 90% to 2% in the time since. The clinic alas seems still stuck in the days of Lance Armstrong and Tyler Hamilton.

What does that even mean?

It means that winning before was a good indicator of doping. Now it's a bad indicator. Some in the clinic seem to still think it's a good indicator. It hasn't been a good indicator since the 2000-2005 period.

And you know this... How exactly?

It's acquired knowledge. It's the sum of my understanding of all the information I have from multiple sources. From sociological factors, psychological factors, development of testing. Antidoping improvments such as whereabouts and bio passport.

 

[frisenfruitig]

Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.

 

[therealthing]

It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

Usually I let most wins pass without questioning them. However, sometimes a performance comes along that is so alien, so unbelievable, and so monstrous that that rider's legitimacy must be questioned. Be it completely random riders who suddenly come along from nowhere and smash up established competitors with a superhuman win (Zakarin + that Gazprom guy at last year's Giro,) or people like Gilbert who have a monster season at one team (2011,) before fading into obscurity at another team for a few years, before changing teams again and suddenly launching insane solo breakaways to win a monument.

 

[veganrob]

It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

Can we assume that you have never been in a race or even ride a bike?

 

[ToreBear]

Re:

Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.

It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.

 

[frisenfruitig]

Re: Re:

Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.

It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.

It might just be that they have stopped doping riders? Are you for real dude? There are thousands of doctors to choose from yet these teams go for the fishy types but not for doping?

Also just look up Valverde's palmares after his return, it's insane. He's still performing at a ridiculously high level despite his age. You'd almost think he never needed dope to begin with going by your logic.

I would love it if cycling were clean now but I just don't see any indications this is true. It's you that is seeing what he wants to see.

We're still seeing ridiculous performances; people beating Armstrong's/Pantani's times on climbs etc. I'm not one to fall for fairy tales personally.

 

[Irondan]

It seems no one is allowed to win a race in cycling without being accused of doping.

I would assume no one on this forum has ever won a race. :lol:

Can we assume that you have never been in a race or even ride a bike?

Please stop the petty insults, both of you.

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.

It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.

It might just be that they have stopped doping riders? Are you for real dude? There are thousands of doctors to choose from yet these teams go for the fishy types but not for doping?

Also just look up Valverde's palmares after his return, it's insane. He's still performing at a ridiculously high level despite his age. You'd almost think he never needed dope to begin with going by your logic.

I would love it if cycling were clean now but I just don't see any indications this is true. It's you that is seeing what he wants to see.

We're still seeing ridiculous performances; people beating Armstrong's/Pantani's times on climbs etc. I'm not one to fall for fairy tales personally.

What is a fishy doctor? One mans fish may be another mans dolphin.

Did Valverde dope in the period up to his ban? I doubt it since that would leave him in hot water with his Puerto case still ongoing. Or could it be that it was dirty when he was banned, then everyone including him got clean, and we are only now seeing their real capabilities?

When you use performance relating to his previous self, or previous others/current others, the variables become to complex. Hence performance is not a good measure of doping.

I'm not really that into "seeing" since what I see that I find outside the norm can have many different explanations unrelated to doping.

I can't say ive noticed many "ridiculous performances". There are just too many variables to count that could explain why a time is so good: Wind strength/direction, drafting or not. Day climb occurs in tour. When climb is on the stage. What the stage was like the previous day. I'm sure there are more.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Ah yes, how very compelling indeed. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. It's pretty common knowledge that the bio passport is easy to circumvent.

Fishy doctors are still involved in pro cycling, the average speeds haven't dropped at all and known dopers like Valverde can just return to cycling and crush everyone without other teams/riders making so much as a peep. Doesn't look to me like much has changed.

It's not easy to circumvent unless A: the testing authority is corrupt or incompetent or B: You take such small amounts that any improvement in performance can be attributed to placebo. Or C: you have found another method to dope with a substance as yet unknown, and without any inserted biomarker(some omg super Chinese stuff!).

Yes, but those doctors are fewer and it might just be that they have stopped doping riders.

Speeds is difficult to compare. Should we use the average we include everyone. If higher speed = more doping. What if the lantern rouges of the past were much worse than the current Lantern rouges? That would affect your average. Or you could use median to remove the best and worst racers. But then the best would be the ones most likely to have doped.

Valverde returned to competition in 2012. Thats 5 years ago. He has for example not won a GT since 2009. And I wouldn't say he has crushed everyone.

It might be that what you see is not reality but what you want to see.

I would say that this year Valverde has done precisely that, crushed everyone. Not as much in the previous four years but still he's been a man among boys on occasion.

The biggest indicator for Valverde (doping) has to be that he defies physiology by getting stronger and more capable of producing otherworldly performances the older he gets when the laws of human physiology say he should be losing some of his capabilities. Perhaps it's because he's always been a freak of human nature along with less doping of others in the peloton, which would allow his attributes to really shine, or something else. It may be years before we know for sure or we may never know.

He's fun to watch all the same.

It seems that Phillipe Gilbert suffers from the same condition as Valverde in that he's getting better as he gets past the so-called cutoff of pro cyclists "prime" years. PG and AV seem to be extending this "prime" past the age of 33 to an age that we don't quite know yet.

Both are freaks of nature.

 

[meat puppet]

The Bio passport is indeed not foolproof. Ashenden et al got this published in a peer reviewed journal. Ten percent boost to haemoglobin mass is not peanuts.

Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping.

The Athlete Blood Passport is the most recent tool adopted by anti-doping authorities to detect athletes using performance-enhancing drugs such as recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). This strategy relies on detecting abnormal variations in haematological variables caused by doping, against a background of biological and analytical variability. Ten subjects were given twice weekly intravenous injections of rhEPO for up to 12 weeks. Full blood counts were measured using a Sysmex XE-2100 automated haematology analyser, and total haemoglobin mass via a carbon monoxide rebreathing test. The sensitivity of the passport to flag abnormal deviations in blood values was evaluated using dedicated Athlete Blood Passport software.Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. We conclude that it is possible for athletes to use rhEPO without eliciting abnormal changes in the blood variables currently monitored by the Athlete Blood Passport.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951