Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

[Semper Fidelis]

Lance got busted at cali tour because of a bio passport?

Don't remember that.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

...never mind...

 

[spetsa]

@torebear
In Norway, it may be considered poor sportsmanship to accuse someone of doping, but in the rest of the world it is an insult to one's intelligence to obfuscate so blatantly. You are either 10 years old or think we all are.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

@netserk
But there is no indication that anyone has found any better way to fool the passport. But according to you there must be because? because someone always know better? because the dopers are always ahead? because you feels it?

There's no must. I'm merely pointing out how one-sided your argument is when it really is a double-edged sword. There will always be progress, but at different rates.

Given the climbing speeds this year and how they have increased since the introduction of the passport, do you really think it's impossible that is (also) down to riders'/teams' better understanding and technique for manipulation of the passport and/or increasingly better doping products?

Or is it just because of a lot of tailwinds lately

 

[ToreBear]

@Spetsa
They do, it's just that you have to click on the other links, read them and understand. It takes a bit of effort and open mindedness.

As for obfuscation, I'we been quite concise. My initial arguments were that there are very few dopers now compared to 20 years ago.

I think I provided sufficient evidence to back that up over a number of posts since my initial post on 17th of april.
viewtopic.php?p=2096535#p2096535

As for age. I have to admit that thought has crossed my mind many times in the clinic with some of the posters.

@Netserk
I have not seen the increase in speed you talk about. But I also doubt it's relevance. But I really don't want to get into any argument about wind/courses, average/median etc. Of course there might have been some new information the last couple of years that I ignored since I'we already written it's relevance off. But if there are some out there performances in the Tour were everyone tries to bring their A game, I might have to reevaluate my position.

 

[meat puppet]

Agree with netserk, broadly speaking. From memory aggregate climbing speeds for gc contenders momentarily dropped (mainly tdf) in 2008. 2009 tdf was alien, 2010 was quite bad but less alien, 2011 was slower again. Then Sky came along and speeds went up. Within the aggregates there are of course individual variations. Please correct if the above is wrong.

Tore:

You agreed to disagree with me on one of the key issues. That is perfectly fine, and I ditto that sentiment.

But that is hardly a triumph in backing up your position, which I find hopelessly optimistic overall. But i am sure you genuinely think so.

Performances in, say, climbs should trend clearly downwards towards the pre epo/ blood doping baseline if the sport was really cleaning up. Add a percentage point or two for legit advances in training, nutrition, and equipment etc but that's it.

I am not seeing this change. And that 80s baseline still leaves lo octane doping in the picture, as i think it was prevalent Back then.

 

[Dan2016]

Re:

@Dan2016
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/may/31/epo-cycling-generation-doping-cheats
It's technically not a marker. It's a process where pharmaceutical companies identify drugs with potential for doping abuse and cooperate with Wada/AD bodies to develop signatures. As in identify aspects of the product that can be used for later identification.
My memory has registered this as a marker. Though it's a lot more complex than that, I think marker is a good shortand.
Here is more information:
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/pharmaceutical-industry

Credit for replying to everyone...

But but but...it's not that it's technically not a marker. It's that it's not a marker AT ALL. And ''marker'' is not a good shorthand for anything other than... ''marker''. Remember, you were referring to big pharma ''inserting markers in drugs'' for anti-doping. They don't. Abandon the ''marker'' thing man (or woman).

(The Guardian article is typical lazy journalistic fact checking. The marker in CERA story was already categorically refuted by big pharma, as per my previous link).

WADA collaborating with big pharma is interesting and something I didn't know, so your other link is welcome thanks (but it's not a marker).

As to your general argument, as others have said and I agree, it's wishful thinking. That's not to say you're definitively wrong, but you haven't presented anything to prove your case. The bio-passport is easily fooled - as has been pointed out - and doping positives have remained at around 1% of riders total per year for many years now. At a consistent yearly average of 1% there is no way of proving the sport is cleaner - it is simply speculation.

There doesn't seem to be the will to really tackle doping, all that matters is creating the appearance of it and hope people buy the story that the bio-passport was a game-changer. The reality is different. As illustration, look at scenarios where new advanced epo tests are developed but budgets for carrying out the tests are subsequently cut - big doping crack-downs are de facto not wanted, bad for business.

And you have new advanced epo tests that can't gain any funding at all. And advanced steroid tests already proven that are not used because they are ''too expensive''. Sport is swimming in money but a tiny portion goes to anti-doping. Why? (rhetorical)

You're entitled to believe it's cleaner of course, but there isn't the evidence to support that position. And focusing solely on the anti-doping improvements side of the equation misses the bigger picture, the politics, the money etc. There is both a conflicting and complimentary dynamic between anti-doping and the sport itself.

Anyway, you might be interested in this link - the potential for really cracking down on epo doping, but the apparent lack of will for it:

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/2042/the-future-of-drug-testing-in-cycling

Unlike blood and urine tests that measure the short-term markers of doping, Pitsiladis’s ‘breakthrough’ delves much deeper, isolating the genetic fingerprint.

So why isn’t this test supporting the blood passport? Simple – cost. Pitsiladis and his like around the world are in constant search of funding.

‘I’m solely reliant on BioTech firms at the moment as I haven’t received a dollar of funding from WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] and the IOC for the past two years. That’s not how it should be.’

This link both supports and refutes your argument I think: Tests are getting better, but budgets for the tests are cut.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/afld-to-reduce-doping-controls-in-france-due-to-budget-cuts/

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Paul Kimmage in today's Sindo leaves little doubt where he stands on the PhilGil question. Link later.

That Kimmage article is here

Valverde will celebrate his 37th birthday on Tuesday; Gilbert will be 35 in July. Twelve years after their debut in the Tour, they have been the two outstanding riders in the season so far. But who should we cheer? The guy who never wavered in his stance on doping or the guy who can't make up his mind?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Anyway, you might be interested in this link - the potential for really cracking down on epo doping, but the apparent lack of will for it:

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/2042/the-future-of-drug-testing-in-cycling

Unlike blood and urine tests that measure the short-term markers of doping, Pitsiladis’s ‘breakthrough’ delves much deeper, isolating the genetic fingerprint.

So why isn’t this test supporting the blood passport? Simple – cost. Pitsiladis and his like around the world are in constant search of funding.

‘I’m solely reliant on BioTech firms at the moment as I haven’t received a dollar of funding from WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] and the IOC for the past two years. That’s not how it should be.’

About the only thing Pitsiladis seems to have achieved is every few months getting credulous hacks who know little about doping to talk to him about his long-gestating miracle cure for sport's doping problem. 2014 is the earliest I can find a version of that story - funny, in my memory it feels so much older already.

 

[Dan2016]

Re: Re:

Anyway, you might be interested in this link - the potential for really cracking down on epo doping, but the apparent lack of will for it:

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/2042/the-future-of-drug-testing-in-cycling

Unlike blood and urine tests that measure the short-term markers of doping, Pitsiladis’s ‘breakthrough’ delves much deeper, isolating the genetic fingerprint.

So why isn’t this test supporting the blood passport? Simple – cost. Pitsiladis and his like around the world are in constant search of funding.

‘I’m solely reliant on BioTech firms at the moment as I haven’t received a dollar of funding from WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] and the IOC for the past two years. That’s not how it should be.’

About the only thing Pitsiladis seems to have achieved is every few months getting credulous hacks who know little about doping to talk to him about his long-gestating miracle cure for sport's doping problem. 2014 is the earliest I can find a version of that story - funny, in my memory it feels so much older already.

Yeah, I never heard of him before. I don't really keep up with what's going on in anti-doping - I take it for granted that it's not much - it was just a quick google search that gave me that. Sounding interesting, but old news from what you're saying.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Yeah, I never heard of him before. I don't really keep up with what's going on in anti-doping - I take it for granted that it's not much - it was just a quick google search that gave me that. Sounding interesting, but old news from what you're saying.

Old news isn't the problem. It's who believes him. The fact that he talks to so many naïfs makes him look like a snake oil salesman (the system could be failing to fund him for a very good reason - lack of funding is not proof of a system not seriously seeking solutions). I have yet to see anyone with any real knowledge of the subject suggest that his miracle test is anywhere near as miraculous as he convinces the credulous it is. Until then ... be careful with using him as a poster boy for the problems within the system.

 

[Dan2016]

Re: Re:

Yeah, I never heard of him before. I don't really keep up with what's going on in anti-doping - I take it for granted that it's not much - it was just a quick google search that gave me that. Sounding interesting, but old news from what you're saying.

Old news isn't the problem. It's who believes him. The fact that he talks to so many naïfs makes him look like a snake oil salesman (the system could be failing to fund him for a very good reason - lack of funding is not proof of a system not seriously seeking solutions). I have yet to see anyone with any real knowledge of the subject suggest that his miracle test is anywhere near as miraculous as he convinces the credulous it is. Until then ... be careful with using him as a poster boy for the problems within the system.

Fair points indeed. Strike him as a reliable example of the problems in the system. No doubt there are better examples.

I would think the general point stands though doesn't it?...not enough money is put into anti-doping testing and R&D to really crack down on doping.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Fair points indeed. Strike him as a reliable example of the problems in the system. No doubt there are better examples.

Well if you're going to say that why seek examples: let's just accept it as fact, the system is not seeking solutions and we don't need no stinking evidence to know that. Evidence only confuses the issue by frequently being wrong.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I would think the general point stands though doesn't it?...not enough money is put into anti-doping testing and R&D to really crack down on doping.

The really, really funny thing about that is that that is the argument being put forth by the system itself.

See the Carsten Kraushaar & Verner Møller article here. I think Ask Vest Christianse has also done some recent research on this issue.

Do you even know how much is being spent on anti-doping? I mean, you know it's not enough, so presumably you know what it actually is, yes?

 

[Dan2016]

Re: Re:

Fair points indeed. Strike him as a reliable example of the problems in the system. No doubt there are better examples.

Well if you're going to say that why seek examples: let's just accept it as fact, the system is not seeking solutions and we don't need no stinking evidence to know that. Evidence only confuses the issue by frequently being wrong.

The evidence was offered to ToreBear specifically. Most of us cynics (realists IMO) don't need examples and accept it as fact...but some people are optimists. And evidence is often quite useful for discussions actually...

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

The evidence was offered to ToreBear specifically. Most of us cynics (realists IMO) don't need examples and accept it as fact...but some people are optimists. And evidence is often quite useful for discussions actually...

Colour me amused. You skim the net for 'evidence', you don't try to check it before posting it (both while mocking the "typical lazy journalistic fact checking" standards of others), when challenged on it you dismiss evidence as being irrelevant and still you think you're better that people like ToreBear...

I'm afraid realists do need examples. So let me ask you again about spending. You say more is needed. Question one: if the current spend isn't enough, what is it and what should it be? Question two: I presented to you evidence that suggests first, we don't know enough about what is currently being spent, and second there is a lack of evidence linking increased spending with better results - do you dismiss this too or do you now accept that simply accepting as fact the 'evidence' supporting WADA's demand for more money is pretty silly?

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

@Dan2016
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/may/31/epo-cycling-generation-doping-cheats
It's technically not a marker. It's a process where pharmaceutical companies identify drugs with potential for doping abuse and cooperate with Wada/AD bodies to develop signatures. As in identify aspects of the product that can be used for later identification.
My memory has registered this as a marker. Though it's a lot more complex than that, I think marker is a good shortand.
Here is more information:
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/pharmaceutical-industry

Credit for replying to everyone...

But but but...it's not that it's technically not a marker. It's that it's not a marker AT ALL. And ''marker'' is not a good shorthand for anything other than... ''marker''. Remember, you were referring to big pharma ''inserting markers in drugs'' for anti-doping. They don't. Abandon the ''marker'' thing man (or woman).

(The Guardian article is typical lazy journalistic fact checking. The marker in CERA story was already categorically refuted by big pharma, as per my previous link).

WADA collaborating with big pharma is interesting and something I didn't know, so your other link is welcome thanks (but it's not a marker).

As to your general argument, as others have said and I agree, it's wishful thinking. That's not to say you're definitively wrong, but you haven't presented anything to prove your case. The bio-passport is easily fooled - as has been pointed out - and doping positives have remained at around 1% of riders total per year for many years now. At a consistent yearly average of 1% there is no way of proving the sport is cleaner - it is simply speculation.

There doesn't seem to be the will to really tackle doping, all that matters is creating the appearance of it and hope people buy the story that the bio-passport was a game-changer. The reality is different. As illustration, look at scenarios where new advanced epo tests are developed but budgets for carrying out the tests are subsequently cut - big doping crack-downs are de facto not wanted, bad for business.

And you have new advanced epo tests that can't gain any funding at all. And advanced steroid tests already proven that are not used because they are ''too expensive''. Sport is swimming in money but a tiny portion goes to anti-doping. Why? (rhetorical)

You're entitled to believe it's cleaner of course, but there isn't the evidence to support that position. And focusing solely on the anti-doping improvements side of the equation misses the bigger picture, the politics, the money etc. There is both a conflicting and complimentary dynamic between anti-doping and the sport itself.

Anyway, you might be interested in this link - the potential for really cracking down on epo doping, but the apparent lack of will for it:

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/2042/the-future-of-drug-testing-in-cycling

Unlike blood and urine tests that measure the short-term markers of doping, Pitsiladis’s ‘breakthrough’ delves much deeper, isolating the genetic fingerprint.

So why isn’t this test supporting the blood passport? Simple – cost. Pitsiladis and his like around the world are in constant search of funding.

‘I’m solely reliant on BioTech firms at the moment as I haven’t received a dollar of funding from WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] and the IOC for the past two years. That’s not how it should be.’

This link both supports and refutes your argument I think: Tests are getting better, but budgets for the tests are cut.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/afld-to-reduce-doping-controls-in-france-due-to-budget-cuts/

Thanks for the link. Yes you could say I was wrong, about markers and that would be correct. What actually seems to be happening is:

Any new medicines found to have performance-enhancing characteristics will be highlighted to WADA and confidential scientific data relating to them will be transferred by GSK so they can begin work on detection methods.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2011-07/wada-signs-historic-agreement-with-glaxosmithkline

Me mixing up that and markers is my mistake.
And thanks for the cyclingnews link, it supports my theory of the epo test improving.

 

[Soggy Chamois]

Re: Re:

Thanks for the link. Yes you could say I was wrong, about markers and that would be correct. What actually seems to be happening is:

Any new medicines found to have performance-enhancing characteristics will be highlighted to WADA and confidential scientific data relating to them will be transferred by GSK so they can begin work on detection methods.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2011-07/wada-signs-historic-agreement-with-glaxosmithkline

Me mixing up that and markers is my mistake.
And thanks for the cyclingnews link, it supports my theory of the epo test improving.

Perhaps not immediately applicable to the Gilbert discussion, but interesting the different areas of the sport that GSK is involved in: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froomes-physiological-test-data-released/

 

[therealthing]

Nice to see him back so quickly after his horrific kidney tear:
http://www.velonews.com/2017/04/news/gilbert-make-return-weekend_436532

 

[Dan2016]

Re: Re:

The evidence was offered to ToreBear specifically. Most of us cynics (realists IMO) don't need examples and accept it as fact...but some people are optimists. And evidence is often quite useful for discussions actually...

Colour me amused. You skim the net for 'evidence', you don't try to check it before posting it (both while mocking the "typical lazy journalistic fact checking" standards of others), when challenged on it you dismiss evidence as being irrelevant and still you think you're better that people like ToreBear...

I'm afraid realists do need examples. So let me ask you again about spending. You say more is needed. Question one: if the current spend isn't enough, what is it and what should it be? Question two: I presented to you evidence that suggests first, we don't know enough about what is currently being spent, and second there is a lack of evidence linking increased spending with better results - do you dismiss this too or do you now accept that simply accepting as fact the 'evidence' supporting WADA's demand for more money is pretty silly?

Tilting at windmills I'm afraid. Building straw men. It's silly to suggest I think I'm better than ToreBear. I'm glad they at least took my post in the spirit intended (which was a friendly one).

I offered an opinion to ToreBear as to why I think they haven't proven their argument, whilst acknowledging I couldn't prove they are definitively wrong. Ultimately it comes down to opinion. However, in agreement with others here, I think what strongly strengthens the opinion that most riders are doping is the past, the ex-riders testimony, the speeds, power data, the corruption and so on (others here have covered these things). It's mine and others inductive & abductive reasoning vs ToreBears deductive reasoning. ToreBears theory (premise) that the bio-passport has caused a big drop in doping numbers is, in my opinion, incorrect - 'wishful thinking'. I think the premise is incorrect and using deduction itself is incorrect. That's it. Full stop. I then offered some links I thought they would find interesting, as points of discussion etc., not foolproof evidence for a definitive case I'm not even making (read: personal opinion, points of discussion etc)

The economics? Interesting. Do I know how to use Google? Yes.

The reasoning method above answers your blather and straw man about me dismissing evidence, blindly accepting WADA's call for more money etc., etc...

 

[Dan2016]

Re: Re:

Thanks for the link. Yes you could say I was wrong, about markers and that would be correct. What actually seems to be happening is:

Any new medicines found to have performance-enhancing characteristics will be highlighted to WADA and confidential scientific data relating to them will be transferred by GSK so they can begin work on detection methods.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2011-07/wada-signs-historic-agreement-with-glaxosmithkline

Me mixing up that and markers is my mistake.
And thanks for the cyclingnews link, it supports my theory of the epo test improving.

Yeah indeed it's certainly very interesting that WADA and big pharma are working together, as per your link and quote. Maybe they will get ahead of the doping... but I'm skeptical, with the history we know about in the sport etc.

Glad my link was useful. That new improved epo test is interesting, it's apparent ability to detect micro-dosing... why it's not being used more, not being better funded, obviously raises questions though.

Cheers.

 

[HSNHSN]

Re:

Nice to see him back so quickly after his horrific kidney tear:
http://www.velonews.com/2017/04/news/gilbert-make-return-weekend_436532

That's surprising news. I wonder how long it would usually take to recover, if a kidney laceration is bad enough to cause one to pee blood.

The only facts we seem to have, are that Gilbert peed blood (somewhere upthread), that we're told it's a result of a kidney tear and that apparently he's able to race again within two weeks after the injury. I'd love to hear from someone with a medical background. All I seem to be able to find about it, is that the average recovery time from kidney laceration is six weeks. This does not take into account the severity of the injury, though, and in this particular case we actually do know a little about the severity.

 

[Huapango]

Re: Re:

Nice to see him back so quickly after his horrific kidney tear:
http://www.velonews.com/2017/04/news/gilbert-make-return-weekend_436532

That's surprising news. I wonder how long it would usually take to recover, if a kidney laceration is bad enough to cause one to pee blood.

The only facts we seem to have, are that Gilbert peed blood (somewhere upthread), that we're told it's a result of a kidney tear and that apparently he's able to race again within two weeks after the injury. I'd love to hear from someone with a medical background. All I seem to be able to find about it, is that the average recovery time from kidney laceration is six weeks. This does not take into account the severity of the injury, though, and in this particular case we actually do know a little about the severity.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Gilbert peeing blood a fact. One should probably use the word "alleged" when referencing any professional cycling related incident. My theory: Cookson just probably told his team to sideline the rider after glowing at Amstel (and Flanders, hence missing Paris-Roubaix despite stellar form).

 

[Dan2016]

The conspiracy theory seems a bit of a stretch IMO, but I did a quick google out of curiosity. The original story seemed to be ''kidney injury'', not ''tear'' or ''laceration''. Apparently minor injury is often impact induced bruising, as in, impact from a fall. Blood in urine on its own does not indicate severity; it often happens with just minor bruising. A couple of weeks recovery doesn't sound unusual:

(other websites just say bed rest, not staying in hospital as below)

For Mild cases of kidney bruising, the patient is only needed to take lots of bed rest until bleeding has receded – usually for 1 to 2 weeks – while under the observation of a medical professional (in a hospital of course) who monitors the patient closely for any signs of kidney failure.

Careful observation and control of fluid intakes also forms part of the treatment for a bruised kidney. It is usually just a matter of a short time – usually about a week – before such cases of kidney bruises heal on their own.

http://www.treatcurefast.com/bruises/heal-bruises/bruised-kidney-symptoms-treatment-pain-fall/

 

[HelmutRoole]

Re: Re:

My theory: Cookson just probably told his team to sideline the rider after glowing at Amstel (and Flanders, hence missing Paris-Roubaix despite stellar form).

My theory also. I mean, you scorch Flanders and take a pass on Roubaix? Makes no sense. If he dismantles the field at Flanders he'll be in the mix at Roubaix bare minimum.