JV talks, sort of

[JimmyFingers]

2 obvious flaws amongst others.

you still have not accounted for the doping input to setting these records.

you have not baselined an individual athlete in question.

re: science. this is still too fuzzy for actual boffins. (not me).

too many variables. I appreciate if you give an estimate, then throw in all riders, knowing that this will even itself out in the long run. this is my theory on the aspect of head growth. dont worry about contador. take the entire peloton in 2010. compare it to an entire peloton in 1980. if the heads are bigger (and they are) you need to make a case to me, that head size is an indicator of cycling talent now, when it was not 3 decades before. and, reverse engineering this theory, please lay it out that the endogenous growth factors that are making heads grow now, are merely a symptom of the natural hormones that determine good riders from mediocre riders that cant make the grade. so, dont have to indict one individual rider, when his fanbois will be up in arms.

another element cannot be factored in, which riders are au bloc, and who are soft pedalling for future goals in the race, or following stages domestique duties.

GH, nice try. but major and significant flaws = a fail.

Good post Blackcat

 

[JimmyFingers]

but it still is fundamentally flawed.

jamie burrow holds the record of plateau de beille beating a pantani record in ronde l'izard circa 99. he also beat the reigning u23 chrono champ thor hushovd in same race.

point, we dont know these riders' baselines. (clean)

we know doping and the rounding error metaphor of D-Q.

rounding errors on a comprehensive burrow/pantani program surpass any cumulative marginal gains.

and there are too many scientific variables to quantify the power on these individual stages GH wants.

CANT
HAPPEN.


what we know: we know the rounding error metaphor is sound.

we know it is anathema to science.

this tension, inviting sports scientists into the tent, to quantify things (power) without being able to ascertain the dope % improvement.

Cos you need to know the baseline.

reconcile this tension (contradiction)
cant be done.


wont matter how much MIT or CalTech put their best minds to it. Cant be done folks.

Points I have been trying to make more than a few times in more than a few threads, expressed more eloquently, or at least with longer words that sound right.

 

[Mr.38%]

That would be one of the internet's greatest ironies. A woman who knows more than men in an area of expertise and knowledge considered to be a mans game.

If this were actual video gaming it would be even funnier.

Smack my B!tch up

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

British cyclings memo of association (its basic constitutional document) states it's objects include the control of the sport for "Great Britain, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands" - Northern Ireland is not in any of these.

Interesting. Yet Steve Burke and Wendy Houvenhagel are/were fully fledged members of the GB track squad. Were they effectively poached from the Northern Ireland cycling set up?

 

[martinvickers]

Interesting. Yet Steve Burke and Wendy Houvenhagel are/were fully fledged members of the GB track squad. Were they effectively poached from the Northern Ireland cycling set up?

Wendy H was 'discovered' while living in England. Steven burke is from burnley.

Key here is belfast agreement/ northern ireland act 1998/arts 2 & 3 bunracht na h'Eireann - which god help me is my area of work - a person born in NI# has a birth right to both, or either, nationality - sport recognises this and willnot interfere - see couple of footballer cases.

As such, a 'northerner' can choose to ride for either ... given talent depth, logistcs, and federation jurisdction, they tend to race for ireland - as do several english born irish e.g. dan martin. But with dual nationality its entirely up to the rider. World champ martyn irvine was appeoached by bc, for example, but politely declined. As far as I know . Bc/ic relations are very good, and very cooperative

#its a lttle more complicated if you are born in NI of Foreign parents, but it holds for the vast majority.

 

[The Hitch]

Yes, this was in the text that accompanied the list as it was originally published in L'Equipe.

The post I made after that one seems to have gone unnoticed, but I think it raises important concerns:

it is a great point.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Yes, this was in the text that accompanied the list as it was originally published in L'Equipe.

The post I made after that one seems to have gone unnoticed, but I think it raises important concerns:

I know Geraint Thomas got a six and then in an interview he said he had not really been tested (at least no more than normal). Of course he might have had suspicious blood values as well...

The reason I asked the question in the first place is that it never seemed (to me) clear what the index measured.

 

[horsinabout]

.

Quoted for posterity.

So long as people have ars*holes, some b*gger is gonna try.

You wanna be a lawyer, better "clean up" on your rants

So why don't you use your energy to help that, at whatever level you can. Personally, I'm writing to Cycling Ireland to try and get them not to nominate Pat, for all the good it will do. I donated, several times, to Kimmage. I'm very likely to be doing a masters soon, and then a PhD in international sports law, because I'm interested in using my skill set in the area - there's a course in switzerland, but i'm hoping to set up something closer to home (and cheaper). Little things, from little people.

Seen through the pontiff....

Or equally good, find something else that you do trust 100%. But avoid religion. Tends to be a let down, like all cults

 

[JV1973]

Statistically, you only need a framework. You need the parcours, the time, a rough idea of the weather conditions (wind) and then you can calculate anything for any given weight. Sure there is an error of margin, that's granted but you can do a framework.

It's about more and more data. Looking at everything. What do Garmin make? Go look at their product lineup. GPS trackers. Stick one of those on every bike, you can get all the data you need. Then if a rider sticks in their own HR, blood values and what not you get MORE data. It's not about it being super duper 100% fool proof. It's about having a framework to add to. It's about the PATTERNS. Aka it's about that crucial life skill, pattern recognition. Being able to decipher them.

Then you can get a better understanding of how hard some stages really were ridden. A guy who wasn't suspect before, all of a sudden is because he's been doing gigantic wattages over back to back days, but because he was in a break (like Vockler does now or like Pellizotti did in 2009) it doesn't raise concern among the general populace.

Need to know the baseline? Dude that isn't going to happen unless the governing body forces it when testing blood when riders get their license. That ain't gonna change. A rider would need a darn good explanation to explain why they were groupetto form one year and front line contender the next if this happened. It would be opened to peer review, but of course it would be the academic community, not the UCI determining that.

Put it this way. They do figures for one Tour every 2-3 years from 91 onwards. 2006 would be interesting because you'd get to stage 17 and we now know a lot about what happened that day and the days before. We'd know Rasmussen, who dragged Menchov through the stage had no blood bags. He had epo, but no blood bags. So we know what the strongest racer in 2007 could do only on epo, or micro doses versus what the strongest guy in 2006 did do on everything. See what I'm getting at? It's about the general patterns. Yes add in the error of margin, but the patterns are there. We've already seen it with our eyes on the road, the numbers just show more. Yes, not everything, but if done right, they'd cover every contenders weight and all the missing bits with reasonable accuracy.

My point was having patterns emerge in quantifiable data. Stuff that you can add to with the BioPassport. I am not advocating doing a rushed job. No thorough, but accurate. If there is conflicting variables THEN COVER THEM ALL. It's what a smart person does.

Will such a measuring gauge detect small doping? Probably not. But big swings, like your top dawg Froome wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The patterns would show what is and what is not. Think about it like statistical analysis. The population, not the person is what I was suggesting.

While I've been agreeing with Blackcat a lot recently, he's wrong on this. Statistics do not rely on a given "baseline"... Statistically significant movement can occur with or without a secured baseline, i.e. things can become slower or faster than the mean of the last 20 years. Making a judgment on climbing speeds and if doping is greater or lessor requires looking at the broader trends, over years, not looking at isolated riders, records, or speeds.

so, saying this is not possible, to use your words, BC, lacks any intellectual vigor and shows a misunderstanding of how to read statistical trends. But don't get upset, you can't be a great philosopher and a mathematician. And I still think you're funny.

JV

 

[JV1973]

2 obvious flaws amongst others.

you still have not accounted for the doping input to setting these records.

you have not baselined an individual athlete in question.

re: science. this is still too fuzzy for actual boffins. (not me).

too many variables. I appreciate if you give an estimate, then throw in all riders, knowing that this will even itself out in the long run. this is my theory on the aspect of head growth. dont worry about contador. take the entire peloton in 2010. compare it to an entire peloton in 1980. if the heads are bigger (and they are) you need to make a case to me, that head size is an indicator of cycling talent now, when it was not 3 decades before. and, reverse engineering this theory, please lay it out that the endogenous growth factors that are making heads grow now, are merely a symptom of the natural hormones that determine good riders from mediocre riders that cant make the grade. so, dont have to indict one individual rider, when his fanbois will be up in arms.

another element cannot be factored in, which riders are au bloc, and who are soft pedalling for future goals in the race, or following stages domestique duties.

GH, nice try. but major and significant flaws = a fail.

Not a statistically valid argument. Trends can be found with enough data. In this case looking at the 20 highest VAM rates each year and looking at the trend over the last 20,30, or even 40 years will yield statistically significant data. While this data could be corrupted with doping, 20, 30, or 40 years ago, it will still show a trend as to the efficacy of the doping. The trend shows that doping is either being used less or is less effective than at any time in the last 20 years. Either that or it means training methods are worse, equipment is heavier, headwinds have become the norms for all climbs, or athletes are less talented.

So, you are right that you can't isolate doping and say "****! it's gone" but to say you can't derive some conclusions from the statistics that exist is not accurate.

 

[JV1973]

That from the

ahhhh.... .....home of "I didn't know my DS sent my rider to a known doper doctor, because no one on my team would do such a thing because we have team rules."

Looks like everyone is headed to his house now

But I did know, eventually, before you and before the public. And I owned it. And took action. I didn't just push it off on naivety. I didn't know about it as quickly as I should have. That is true.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So, you are right that you can't isolate doping and say "****! it's gone" but to say you can't derive some conclusions from the statistics that exist is not accurate.

Or are teams getting smarter and smarter? Just keeping it 'believable'?

When u look at the past, 'the dark ages', which riders, teams were caught? The ones that overdid it. In general speaking terms. USPostal had ONE positive if I recall correctly: Benoit fokking Joachim.

We have learned from Armstron/Hamilton and who not you needed a certain amount of watts per kg in those days, nowadays is just the same, just less. The winners all hiccup on certain w/k, just like in the old 'dark days'.

Less doping is still not believable.

And, maybe, clean athletes have more chances now, dirty ones have the same, maybe, quite certain even more.

 

[JV1973]

Or are teams getting smarter and smarter? Just keeping it 'believable'?

When u look at the past, 'the dark ages', which riders, teams were caught? The ones that overdid it. In general speaking terms. USPostal had ONE positive if I recall correctly: Benoit fokking Joachim.

We have learned from Armstron/Hamilton and who not you needed a certain amount of watts per kg in those days, nowadays is just the same, just less. The winners all hiccup on certain w/k, just like in the old 'dark days'.

Less doping is still not believable.

And, maybe, clean athletes have more chances now, dirty ones have the same, maybe, quite certain even more.

Ok, lets imagine all the guys says "let's keep it right below 5.9 w/kg, so no one is suspect!"

If o2 vector doping was at the same level of efficacy as 1996-2001, you'd have a 40 rider sprint (all staying just below 5.9, so they aren't suspect) on the top of the Ventoux. When that starts happening, I will quit the sport.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The French paper that published it included quoted commentary (from informed people, I imagine) to the effect that scores over 5 or 6 belonged to riders with so many or so significant irregularities that the possibility of doping was almost certain. Was that bull?

IMHO, it was not.

If they just pulled the names from the APMU just letting statistics make the list, then it had to be accurate.* Armstrong was a 4(?) on that list. Which, only reinforces the notion that it is a list of dopers starting at 3 for sure.

*Accurate in this sense is I'm assuming the statistics used are good. Even then, statistics is not perfect. As JV mentioned, if the rider did not have many samples it makes low-confidence results.

 

[JV1973]

IMHO, it was not.

If they just pulled the names from the APMU just letting statistics make the list, then it had to be accurate.* Armstrong was a 4(?) on that list. Which, only reinforces the notion that it is a list of dopers starting at 3 for sure.

*Accurate in this sense is I'm assuming the statistics used are good. Even then, statistics is not perfect. As JV mentioned, if the rider did not have many samples it makes low-confidence results.

You could have easily been a 5 or a 6 because you had not been tested in a while and not had significant irregularities in the pre Tour blood test. The suspicion index was actually a targeting index to used to targeting guys during the Tour.

You can't determine what is irregular from one blood test.

That's how it was explained to us at the CADF anyway.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ok, lets imagine all the guys says "let's keep it right below 5.9 w/kg, so no one is suspect!"

If o2 vector doping was at the same level of efficacy as 1996-2001, you'd have a 40 rider sprint (all staying just below 5.9, so they aren't suspect) on the top of the Ventoux. When that starts happening, I will quit the sport.

You must stop taking things personally Vaughters, it is not good for any discussion.

The question is - for me - always:
* what
* why
* where
* when
* how

And, from my historical background, I always try to add an historic perspective.

You always tend to come back with the O2Vectortime, you must know there are numerous methods to dope. Even obliged by UCI when they softened the cortisone use protocol.

Also, I tend to have problems with things like these:
Tour de France 2000, Stage 12, Mont Ventoux

Marco Pantani --------ITA | 48:59
Lance Armstrong ----- USA | 48:59

Versus:
Tour de France 2009, Stage 20
Bradley Wiggins ----- GBR | 49:22

And then claiming cycling is cleaning up. To be clear, wind is no factor there, given the name of the mountain.

Would love to see the w/k for Wiggins on that climb.

 

[JimmyFingers]

To be clear, wind is no factor there, given the name of the mountain.

Is this a pun?

 

[xcleigh]

To be clear, wind is no factor there, given the name of the mountain.

Would love to see the w/k for Wiggins on that climb.

Ventoux..windy?..was a wee bit windy when I was there! Cold too! I'd love to know the wattages for the riders up there too and how they compare. Just out of interest.

 

[weeniebeenie]

JV, really enjoyed your interview on Tour Chats.

Just a quick(ish) question. In the interview you discussed how Sky's zero tolerance approach is not realistic given the number of people from the 1990's/2000's era that are still involved in the sport. I agree and was wondering whether think that, if a Truth & Reconciliation commission is established, teams should have to formally agree not to fire anyone that comes forward? If not, it seems to me that members of certain teams will be discouraged from coming forward.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Wind will be a factor, as will other climatic conditions, and also as the length of the stage and preceding parcours.

 

[hrotha]

You could have easily been a 5 or a 6 because you had not been tested in a while and not had significant irregularities in the pre Tour blood test. The suspicion index was actually a targeting index to used to targeting guys during the Tour.

You can't determine what is irregular from one blood test.

That's how it was explained to us at the CADF anyway.

Hi JV

Could you please address this?

In fact, IIRC L'Equipe said the list was compiled taking only blood data into account, with other parties suggesting other factors were involved afterwards, possibly to be able to water down the ugly inferences regarding specific riders.

Oddly enough, the French teams and riders got, by far, the lowest scores. This was before 2011's Europcar festival, and before some other worrying signals coming from France. If lack of recent testing was such a big factor, wouldn't you expect high scores to be distributed more evenly? Or does this mean the French were tested more often than anybody else in 2010, despite their being largely a non-factor, therefore lowering their scores?

 

[JV1973]

Hi JV

Could you please address this?

First off, I'd like to point out that Garmin was also with the French teams at the bottom of the Team GC on the suspicion list.

But the rest is not how it was explained to us. But, i don't know, I'm just telling you how it was explained to us. No one (outside the UCI) knew this even existed before it popped up in the press.

 

[DirtyWorks]

You could have easily been a 5 or a 6 because you had not been tested in a while and not had significant irregularities in the pre Tour blood test. The suspicion index was actually a targeting index to used to targeting guys during the Tour.

You can't determine what is irregular from one blood test.

That's how it was explained to us at the CADF anyway.

Restating then, some of the higher scoring riders could be there because they hadn't been tested in a long time. Others score high because they have been tested frequently and really are suspicious. To the bolded, one part of a test in the APMU appears to account for the number of tests over time then and biases the score.

And without a doubt, there's no way one test can be used as a profile.

As an intellectual exercise to show exactly how easily corrupted the complicated system as run by the UCI is, my recollection is testing did not happen anything like the list recommended. If my recollection is wrong, then I'm sure someone will let me know.

 

[JV1973]

You must stop taking things personally Vaughters, it is not good for any discussion.

The question is - for me - always:
* what
* why
* where
* when
* how

And, from my historical background, I always try to add an historic perspective.

You always tend to come back with the O2Vectortime, you must know there are numerous methods to dope. Even obliged by UCI when they softened the cortisone use protocol.

Also, I tend to have problems with things like these:
Tour de France 2000, Stage 12, Mont Ventoux

Marco Pantani --------ITA | 48:59
Lance Armstrong ----- USA | 48:59

Versus:
Tour de France 2009, Stage 20
Bradley Wiggins ----- GBR | 49:22

And then claiming cycling is cleaning up. To be clear, wind is no factor there, given the name of the mountain.

Would love to see the w/k for Wiggins on that climb.

The record up Ventoux is around 55 minutes? I'm not sure where these times come from?

Anyway, like I said, you can come up with many individual speeds that will not match the trend, but the overall trend is slowing speeds.

Bradley's climbing power in 2009 was consistently in the 5.7-6.0 range during 2009. i can only use estimates since 2009 and not exact SRM data, as I don't have access to his SRM data anymore.

The Ventoux isn't windy???!! hahahaha...You ever been up there?

 

[JV1973]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dut...ls-for-passport-are-too-few-and-too-far-apart

I've said that i feel the biopass has been effective, thus far. However, riders talk, and they now will all discuss that the tests are too far apart, destroying the deterrent effect.

If the funding and execution of the biopass don't hit the gas, in a big way, soon, then trust me, I won't be coming here saying "the biopass is effective!" anymore. It has been reasonably effective. That is going to end if someone doesn't move fast.

Which is what my blog in CN a month ago was about.

Kudos to these riders coming forward and calling bul****. Hopefully someone is listening.