Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Benotti69]

Hey the IRA never went away either but things are most definitely differently nowadays.

no the media has lost interest in the story but the 'troubles' still exist.

No the 99 Tour was named the Tour of Redemption optimistically by the ASO beforehand. There was cautious optimism that things had improved(which was correct), it didn't last.

I never heard anyone declare cycling to be cleaner 05 or 06, this is another myth created in the clinic. Perhaps you could provide some evidence to back up your claims.

Hincapie, VdV, DZ, Levi all stopped in '06.

What pros moved across the border after the French made doping illegal?? As has been pointed out a million times, the Postal boys were already based in Girona pre 98. It was only really Armstrong who moved along with Hamilton who had moved from Girona to Nice. You make it sound like there was a whole rush of riders.

Monaco I think is easy to explain? Tax haven.

So taking your logic about the French cleaning up due to criminal laws, we now have the French performing better in recent years which logically would suggest things are cleaning up overall but that is not how you see it. If the French are indeed doping up again, what have foreign riders to be scared of nowadays by living in France?, if I am not mistaken, doping is now a criminal offence in Spain as well.

One could explain the French deciding to catch up with others.

The Spanish criminalising doping really showed at La Vuelta.

 

[sniper]

One of the central premises of walsh vaugbters and many sky defenders is that when antidoping efforts increase or improve, the degree of doping is likely to go down correspondingly.
Imo this premise is massively naive and flawed.
there really is nothing to suggest that, if antidoping efforts are improved or increased, doping methods arent improved and increased simultaneously, and in fact at a much higher rate.

while antidoping officers might be doing a respectible job, doping docs and facilitators are more numerous, have more money, and are always going to be steps ahead of the testers.

Much much more funding needed for antidoping, and higher punishments for dopers and the facilitators. And of course unconditional independence of the testing agencies.

Since none of that has happened yet, it really beggars belief that a guy like walsh (or anybody with a brain really) can genuinely believe cycling has made a 180 in the space of two years time, that is from contador the doper in yellow in 2010 till wiggo and froome the clean guys in yellow in 2012 and 13.

 

[martinvickers]

no the media has lost interest in the story but the 'troubles' still exist.

Benotti, don't even try this. There is NO comparison.

 

[roundabout]

Jalabert moved to Switzerland in 1999, I think. May have been someone else as well, but it's been nearly 15 years so this could be my memory failing.

Edit: could be Virenque. He may have moved to CH around 1998.

 

[gooner]

Jalabert moved to Switzerland in 1999, I think. May have been someone else as well, but it's been nearly 15 years so this could be my memory failing.

Edit: could be Virenque. He may have moved to CH around 1998.

I remember reading it somewhere(maybe procycling mag) that Jalabert did live in Switzerland but I don't know for how long though.

 

[frenchfry]

Jalabert moved to Switzerland in 1999, I think. May have been someone else as well, but it's been nearly 15 years so this could be my memory failing.

Edit: could be Virenque. He may have moved to CH around 1998.

Jalabert and Virenque have been living in Switzerland for a long time, as do virtually all the top French tennis players and most other well paid French athletes, actors and many rich business men and women. The main reason is to avoid paying onerous French taxes - although perhaps doping is a motivating factor as well. I think Monaco doesn't provide the same tax advantages for French citizens, otherwise many would be living there.

 

[hrotha]

One of the central premises of walsh vaugbters and many sky defenders is that when antidoping efforts increase or improve, the degree of doping is likely to go down correspondingly.
Imo this premise is massively naive and flawed.

No. Vaughters has said many times the current "clean era" is just a window of opportunity produced by concurrent medical, technological and cultural factors, and that if nothing is done to solidify it, it will end as new doping products and methods come to the fore.

 

[Von Mises]

One of the central premises of walsh vaugbters and many sky defenders is that when antidoping efforts increase or improve, the degree of doping is likely to go down correspondingly.
Imo this premise is massively naive and flawed.

Nobody has said that. Dont invent.

there really is nothing to suggest that, if antidoping efforts are improved or increased, doping methods arent improved and increased simultaneously, and in fact at a much higher rate.

If thats true what is the point of your suggestion "Much much more funding needed for antidoping, and higher punishments for dopers and the facilitators." If your logic is true, then whatever antidoping advencement are made, more money or better tests are invented, it is futile because dopers advvance in much higher rate.

 

[Parker]

One of the central premises of walsh vaugbters and many sky defenders is that when antidoping efforts increase or improve, the degree of doping is likely to go down correspondingly.
Imo this premise is massively naive and flawed.
there really is nothing to suggest that, if antidoping efforts are improved or increased, doping methods arent improved and increased simultaneously, and in fact at a much higher rate.

But there is plenty to suggest that doping methods have decreased. Back in the mid 90s riders would take EPO as much as they like, boosting their HCT to 60%, safe in the knowledge their was no test for it and no police attention either. It was a free for all.
You can't do that now. We are told that a switch was made to the older method of transfusions and then on to micro-dosing as better testing.
The doping didn't increase or improve. The effectiveness of the doping went down as the methods of evading detection improved, through necessity. What any rider can do now does not give the boost that 90s doping did.

People always say that new and better drugs will always keep them ahead. But the doping of choice is still EPO which has been around for 25 years and transfusions which have been around for 40 years (at least). Testosterone and cortisone - also old drugs.

Another thing to consider. Posters on here are frequently saying how other sports are doping massively too - and may be they are right. If so, why would a doping doctor stay in cycling? Other sports have less testing, less police and media attention and more money and more protection. Just as the riders were supposed to have moved out of France, I would have expected the doctors to move out of cycling.

 

[the sceptic]

Yeah the cycling doctors are the only doping doctors in the world.

 

[roundabout]

Jalabert and Virenque have been living in Switzerland for a long time, as do virtually all the top French tennis players and most other well paid French athletes, actors and many rich business men and women. The main reason is to avoid paying onerous French taxes - although perhaps doping is a motivating factor as well. I think Monaco doesn't provide the same tax advantages for French citizens, otherwise many would be living there.

IIRC Jalabert specifically used the police raids in the 98 Tour as a reason to move to CH. But it's true that he could have been a vulgar tax dodger.

Virenque I think moved back to France around the time he served all his bans? He is now living in Belgium though if I remember correctly.

 

[sniper]

No. Vaughters has said many times the current "clean era" is just a window of opportunity produced by concurrent medical, technological and cultural factors, and that if nothing is done to solidify it, it will end as new doping products and methods come to the fore.

What cultural factors? More brits in the sport?

Anyway, you are right that he has sometimes spoken about this more nuancedly, but he has just as many times spoken about it less nuancedly, suggesting some miraculous 180 culture change from within cycling had occurred.
he has also very vocally supported the BP, sometimes ignoring the likelyhood that dopers have adapted from the getgo and found multiple ways to evade it.

but fair enough, i,ll quit him from the equation (and he,s offtopic anyway)

 

[red_flanders]

But there is plenty to suggest that doping methods have decreased. Back in the mid 90s riders would take EPO as much as they like, boosting their HCT to 60%, safe in the knowledge their was no test for it and no police attention either. It was a free for all.
You can't do that now.

They haven't been able to do that since the advent of the 50% rule. I think that was in 1997 though I'm not sure the implementation date. We've literally had an entire generation of riders...well more than a generation...since then, and clear, proven rampant doping. Saying "you can't do that now" is true, but with regard to HCT "now" has been 16 years.

We are told that a switch was made to the older method of transfusions and then on to micro-dosing as better testing.

The doping didn't increase or improve. The effectiveness of the doping went down as the methods of evading detection improved, through necessity. What any rider can do now does not give the boost that 90s doping did.

Blood doping has been extremely effective. I don't understand how "The effectiveness of doping went down as the methods of evading detection improved". I think this is just an error and not what you really mean?

I would agree that the effectiveness of doping was reduced by the 50% limit, as were cyclist deaths from EPO abuse. Beyond that I think we're in conjecture land.

People always say that new and better drugs will always keep them ahead. But the doping of choice is still EPO which has been around for 25 years and transfusions which have been around for 40 years (at least). Testosterone and cortisone - also old drugs.

Another thing to consider. Posters on here are frequently saying how other sports are doping massively too - and may be they are right. If so, why would a doping doctor stay in cycling? Other sports have less testing, less police and media attention and more money and more protection. Just as the riders were supposed to have moved out of France, I would have expected the doctors to move out of cycling.

People do what they know and seek employment where they have expertise and connections. I would guess (I have no idea really) that your point has merit and some people have moved around from sport to sport. Certainly we saw that in the 90s as hematologists became part of cycling culture. Now we see swim coaches in the sport. I'd imagine people move around to some extent, but you're not going to see them all depart from where they know people and know the sport.

 

[pmcg76]

no the media has lost interest in the story but the 'troubles' still exist.



Hincapie, VdV, DZ, Levi all stopped in '06.



One could explain the French deciding to catch up with others.

The Spanish criminalising doping really showed at La Vuelta.

Yeah, the media are just ignoring the fact that people are being killed by the paramilitaries on a regular basis in NI.

What have Hincapie et al got to do with anything.

I thought the French were scared to catch up because of the authorities, I thought that was why there was a huge exodous of riders to Spain, your logic not mine.

You mean like the Tour was such a clean race after the French criminalised doping.

 

[pmcg76]

Jalabert moved to Switzerland in 1999, I think. May have been someone else as well, but it's been nearly 15 years so this could be my memory failing.

Edit: could be Virenque. He may have moved to CH around 1998.

You are right Jalabert did move to Switzerland to avoid the new controls brought in by the French authorities. Strange then that as he came from Mazamet in southern France that he didn't just hop across the border to the doping haven of Spain.

 

[thehog]

One of the central premises of walsh vaugbters and many sky defenders is that when antidoping efforts increase or improve, the degree of doping is likely to go down correspondingly.
Imo this premise is massively naive and flawed.
there really is nothing to suggest that, if antidoping efforts are improved or increased, doping methods arent improved and increased simultaneously, and in fact at a much higher rate.

while antidoping officers might be doing a respectible job, doping docs and facilitators are more numerous, have more money, and are always going to be steps ahead of the testers.

Much much more funding needed for antidoping, and higher punishments for dopers and the facilitators. And of course unconditional independence of the testing agencies.

Since none of that has happened yet, it really beggars belief that a guy like walsh (or anybody with a brain really) can genuinely believe cycling has made a 180 in the space of two years time, that is from contador the doper in yellow in 2010 till wiggo and froome the clean guys in yellow in 2012 and 13.

There was a wonderful thread on this very topic.

What was the change?

I’m not seeing what actually occurred between say 2009 and 2012 whereby everyone just lay down their weapons and competed cleanly.

Its certainly not the passport looking at Wiggins and Armstrong’s released profiles.

 

[sniper]

Nobody has said that.

But walsh has said it. Froome is lucky to ride in an era where antidoping efforts have increased and improved, according to Walsh.

 

[pmcg76]

One of the central premises of walsh vaugbters and many sky defenders is that when antidoping efforts increase or improve, the degree of doping is likely to go down correspondingly.
Imo this premise is massively naive and flawed.
there really is nothing to suggest that, if antidoping efforts are improved or increased, doping methods arent improved and increased simultaneously, and in fact at a much higher rate.

while antidoping officers might be doing a respectible job, doping docs and facilitators are more numerous, have more money, and are always going to be steps ahead of the testers.

Much much more funding needed for antidoping, and higher punishments for dopers and the facilitators. And of course unconditional independence of the testing agencies.

Since none of that has happened yet, it really beggars belief that a guy like walsh (or anybody with a brain really) can genuinely believe cycling has made a 180 in the space of two years time, that is from contador the doper in yellow in 2010 till wiggo and froome the clean guys in yellow in 2012 and 13.

Well there is the fact that at the moment that there seems to be limited new drugs out there, there is AICAR and TBH 500 or something. I don't think either of those have had the same impact as when EPO arrived on the scene. Not saying they haven't had an impact, just that they don't seem to be as widespread as EPO was.

EPO was being talked about as epidemic long before there was ever a test or even before Festina, I remember a cycling magazine in 96 running an article on the usage of EPO and another on the search for a test. Just shows how it was common knowledge long anything happened.

There is one thing about JV and his statements, if you are trying to keep your guys clean, of course you are going to tell them things are getting better. It is a form of positive reinforcement. If all the young guys just coming into the sport think things are getting better then maybe they will be less inclined to jump straight to doping.

Imagine if JV took your approach and was saying everybody doped all the time, how on earth could he then try to convince his guys not to dope, negative reinforcement.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

If people believe things are improving, I am sure a lot of will try and see how far their own talent will get them before resorting to doping. Maybe it might not get them to Tour winner level but I am sure a lot would be happy with GT stage winner, Classic winner level etc or just even earning their next contract.

You seem to have this misconception that every young rider comes to the sport primed to dope from the off when this is not the reality of the situation. Even at the likes of Festina, ONCE, US Postal, this was not the case.

 

[sniper]

If thats true what is the point of your suggestion "Much much more funding needed for antidoping, and higher punishments for dopers and the facilitators." If your logic is true, then whatever antidoping advencement are made, more money or better tests are invented, it is futile because dopers advvance in much higher rate.

As it stands, doping is simply too lucrative (both for the athletes and the facilitators), while antidoping is massively underfunded.
In that context, dopers will indeed be ahead of antidopers.
If more funding would become available for antidoping, and doping offenders/suppliers would get more severe and more frequent punishment, then the balance could shift.
Yes, it's hard to see that happen, because too many people are making too much money with selling cheats.

 

[Parker]

Blood doping has been extremely effective. I don't understand how "The effectiveness of doping went down as the methods of evading detection improved". I think this is just an error and not what you really mean?

It was an error, but not the one you highlighted. What I meant to "The effectiveness of doping went down it was the methods of evading detection that improved.

The main methods of doping - EPO and transfusions - have been around for ages. And as the methods of testing improve, the options of what can be done with them become more limited. As a result it is logical that the gains possible will decline over time.
Improving detection evasion methods can only minimise that decline - and this is where the innovations seem to come rather than the perfomance side. For example, when Ferrari came up with a new way of injecting EPO, it was to decrease the 'glowtime', not to improve the effectiveness of the EPO.

 

[red_flanders]

It was an error, but not the one you highlighted. What I meant to "The effectiveness of doping went down it was the methods of evading detection that improved.

The main methods of doping - EPO and transfusions - have been around for ages. And as the methods of testing improve, the options of what can be done with them become more limited. As a result it is logical that the gains possible will decline over time.
Improving detection evasion methods can only minimise that decline - and this is where the innovations seem to come rather than the perfomance side. For example, when Ferrari came up with a new way of injecting EPO, it was to decrease the 'glowtime', not to improve the effectiveness of the EPO.

Thanks for the clarification.

I think we saw a bit of a decline in the magnitude of doping and the number of people doing it with the advent of the blood passport. At this point however, cyclists have learned that they can't realistically be caught by the passport and it seems clear that performances are approaching or even in some cases exceeding those of the previous decade, and it's being done by people who don't seem to have the talent level of the champions of the previous decade.

It's difficult to see that it's fundamentally any different now than it was then. And it seems likely that new drugs and techniques are also part of what's brought us to this point.

 

[Netserk]

They do seem to climber faster now than in 2010/2011.

 

[Parker]

I think we saw a bit of a decline in the magnitude of doping and the number of people doing it with the advent of the blood passport. At this point however, cyclists have learned that they can't realistically be caught by the passport and it seems clear that performances are approaching or even in some cases exceeding those of the previous decade, and it's being done by people who don't seem to have the talent level of the champions of the previous decade.

The Bio Passport may not catch them - but only if they keep within far stricter parameters. This means what they can do less and it's likely to be more complicated to do. It is designed as a deterent as much as a detection method.
The likelihood of someone doping depends on three factors (which are dependant on one another): what are the gains? what are the chances of getting caught? how much will it cost?
It's simple economics - if the quality of the product goes down while the price goes up there will be less customers.
(Unless all cyclists are genuinely immoral, sociopathic junkies that will do anything for just one watt more that some posters make them out to me. But I don't subscribe to that).

Anyway, that has nothing to do with Walsh and I'm off now, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[ferryman]

Walsh threads folks - please stay on topic.

 

[thehog]

Walsh threads folks - please stay on topic.

Often being the outsider in such instances like Walsh was with USPS to being an insider results in a different determination to find out and report the truth.