JV talks, sort of

[Galic Ho]

I wasn't that far off. I had the following data:

Wiggins: 57.0833 min for 20 km (from 378 m to 1912 m). At 71 Kg and 405 Watts that gave me 5.71 W/kg. But I made the assumption that he was drafting for 70% of the climb. That 30% had some effect in the calculations because it was a liitle windy that day.
And for Armstrong I have the following data:
For a time of 56.7167 minutes, I get 427 Watts, and with 75 kg, gave me 5.7 w/kg.

The only riders in the 6 watts/kg neighborhood were Andy and Contador. And both were slowed by the older team riders. So I wonder if they had gone all out what the numbers would have been. Telling.

Contador and Andy Schleck held back something chronic that day. Wiggins could barely hold the wheel of the front group. Had to cut corners and take the shortest path. Meanwhile Contador and Schleck were show boating.

If Andy hadn't been waiting for Franck, they'd have easily won the stage.

 

[blackcat]

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

hmmm.

Gallic's premise was to determine what is possible, and what is doped.

I am saying, it is manifest stupidity to take a block of results like Burrow's l'Izard Plateau des Beille record innit

there might be riders in this cumulative peloton, who are on bread and water, sure.

this was my premise, on taking an entire constituent of athletes from a discreet sport. be it mlb, nfl or cycling. And compare the Bonds' epoch heads, to the heads of the 80's athlete. If the sum of heads in 1980 r smaller, than Bonds era, need to come up with a coy' L theory, to demonstrate why their heads are bigger.

there is a quote of jonny vee on autobus.cyclingnews about foreheads and shrunken testicles, and good on em.

if Galic's premise is to determine a clean threshold. you definitely do need to differentiate in your sample.

 

[blackcat]

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.

when I said too fuzzy for boffins (not me).

i obviously have meant not a scientist here. not that I had a higher power to discern the numbers.

we are still missing the numbers for what the potential is for a clean athlete on the final scent on the Queen Stage in the third week in july.

Lemond can find solace in a VO2 test he did as a 19yo, but we know that this is not the end indicator of ability. it is merely a key factor in that function (formula). otherwise we would have Stuey and Aitken riding for the podium in the final week in july. greg is reverse engineering this, thinking this was the end proct of the performance formula, when it was but one, but the major factor along the line in formula of performance (ability). Greg should know that. yeah, we know you are natural greg. but, some rigour would not go astray.

 

[Athame]

we are still missing the numbers for what the potential is for a clean athlete on the final scent on the Queen Stage in the third week in july.

_ Humm,..............

 

[Athame]

hmmm. [...]

if Galic's premise is to determine a clean threshold. you definitely do need to differentiate in your sample.

Cases.
Studies.
ETC.,.

 

[blackcat]

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.

then he came out and mimimicked Armstrong talking points, done so much good for the third world, brought so much carnal joy to so many of the finer sex, potentially defied science to embrace fertility and fatherhood to cocktail waitresses out of wedlock, done so much for cycling, proved to so many that miracles are to be believed in,

G went the whole hog, and performed metaphorical fellatio on Armstrong.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You seem to have some misunderstanding of the ABP. The 9 week gap in RH's passport doesn't makes the program untenable. I asked you and others to provide some justification for why you take that to be the case. None was forthcoming (if I recall correctly, RH's 2012 testing # was in fact higher that the original UCI targets for the program). If you read the published case studies of the ABP, you'll notice inter-test intervals of up to 9 months in athletes who had already been targeted by the program. Part of this is due to the reasonable assumption that doping is likely not uniformly distributed, so testing doesn't have to be either. Given that, it is reasonable to pursue a strategy of 'intelligent testing' wherein meta-data is utliized to determine testing intervals and timing - what's not known (at least in the public domain) is the extent to which intelligent testing is effective compared to some 'optimal rate' or whether the tradeoff has been studied in cost-benefit terms. FWIW, the Dutch cyclists were complaining about inter-test intervals of up to 7 months, but these intervals aren't necessarily revealing in the absence of knowing the meta-data strategies that might be at work. FWIW, there are also cases of athletes being targeted after a single sample (it's in the published case studies).

Perhaps JV has some insights regarding the strategies utilized to target testing. I was surprised to read that normal samples [below threshold] were also forwarded for review - if that's true, it would be an important aspect of the program, since it would suggest that thresholds (which are now very conservative) could be adjusted downward to targeting. That should scare dopers.

I'd love you to point out the misunderstanding you continue to claim I (and others) have of the ABP. A simple pattern along the lines of

Dear Wiggo wrote," --------------------", which is not right because of, "----------------------" would suffice.

As for "none was forthcoming" - I not only posted the reason why large gaps in testing are making the BP pointless, but then repeated the post after the last time you said "nothing was forthcoming". I also mentioned I would not repeat my point a third time. Your inability to read english, or at least quote the point made and rebut it with some "logic" is your problem. But please, stop lying and saying nothing was forthcoming. Instead we get more noise from you, and no rebuttal. A shame, because you certainly write as if you know what you're talking about, and I would love to hear your counter-arguments.

As for doping not being uniform, we again will have to agree to disagree on that. All the schedules I have seen from the hastily scribbled emails or notes of Fuentes and/or Ferrari or read from Tyler, indicate it's a season long process involving regular doses of Hgb boosting EPO, test +/- cort +/- HgH +/-insulin for recovery and regular withdrawal / transfusion / combo cycles.

I have read the CADF report very closely, and there's enough information there to see how mostly pointless the exercise is. The fact that JV insists the teams should be spending 5x as much for the same program speaks loud and clear to me - despite what you think JV knows of the "intelligent" testing meta data being used to target test.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

then he came out and mimimicked Armstrong talking points, done so much good for the third world, brought so much carnal joy to so many of the finer sex, potentially defied science to embrace fertility and fatherhood to cocktail waitresses out of wedlock, done so much for cycling, proved to so many that miracles are to be believed in,

G went the whole hog, and performed metaphorical fellatio on Armstrong.

That's a beautiful story but are you saying that has an impact on his score? Probably, not. In which case you are clearly just trying to bait. A shame because this thread had seemingly found a semblance of civility. A shame a clown like you then has to try and spoil it...

Keep to finding new words like 'dichotomy' and then trying to shoe-horn it into every comment you make. #notnormal

 

[Dear Wiggo]

As for doping not being uniform, we again will have to agree to disagree on that. All the schedules I have seen from the hastily scribbled emails or notes of Fuentes and/or Ferrari or read from Tyler, indicate it's a season long process involving regular doses of Hgb boosting EPO, test +/- cort +/- HgH +/-insulin for recovery and regular withdrawal / transfusion / combo cycles.

An example from 2010 - 2 years after the BP was implemented:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kohl-not-possible-to-win-tour-de-france-without-doping

“I was tested 200 times during my career, and 100 times I had drugs in my body,” he said, according to the New York Times. “I was caught, but 99 other times, I wasn’t. Riders think they can get away with doping because most of the time they do. Even if there is a new test for blood doping, I’m not even sure it will scare riders into stopping. The problem is just that bad.”

 

[Frosty]

An example from 2010 - 2 years after the BP was implemented:

He tested positive in 2008 though, the year the BP was introduced. What his blood passport looked like at that point we will probably never know.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

He tested positive in 2008 though, the year the BP was introduced. What his blood passport looked like at that point we will probably never know.

He tested positive 2 months after the Tour for EPO thanks to the new Cera test.

Bottom line is, they were testing him and not finding anything. 200 tests, drugs in his sytem 100 of those times. So to say you can take 9 weeks off testing a rider and it's fine, just doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Galic Ho]

An example from 2010 - 2 years after the BP was implemented:

Be fair man. Kohl said that in 2010...sure. Was he riding in 2009? Or after the 2008 Olympics which ended August 2008? No. He was banned. Just like Stefan Schumacher.

Difference is he knew the jig was up and talked. Schumacher played the omerta ball game and is back racing for a conti team. Those tests were from 2005 to mid 2008 mostly. Most of that is pre ABP.

Edit: so you addressed that later on in the thread on this page. But quoting 2010 doesn't make it clearer. Could you get away with that level of deceit today? Valjavec and Pellizotti didn't in 2010. BioPassport nabbed them. But they did have to go to the extreme didn't they?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Be fair man. Kohl said that in 2010...sure. Was he riding in 2009? Or after the 2008 Olympics which ended August 2008? No. He was banned. Just like Stefan Schumacher.

Difference is he knew the jig was up and talked. Schumacher played the omerta ball game and is back racing for a conti team. Those tests were from 2005 to mid 2008 mostly. Most of that is pre ABP.

Edit: so you addressed that later on in the thread on this page. But quoting 2010 doesn't make it clearer. Could you get away with that level of deceit today? Valjavec and Pellizotti didn't in 2010. BioPassport nabbed them. But they did have to go to the extreme didn't they?

The whole point of this part of the thread and the posts I am making is an attempt to refute masterracer's claim that the BP is effective for people like Ryder Hesjedal who does not get tested for 9 weeks then 6 weeks, in the lead up to the Giro that he won "clean".

If anything, I honestly think the BP makes it easier to dope than previously. Why? Because as soon as you've been tested, it's a pretty safe bet you won't be tested again for some time.

 

[hrotha]

The whole point of this part of the thread and the posts I am making is an attempt to refute masterracer's claim that the BP is effective for people like Ryder Hesjedal who does not get tested for 9 weeks then 6 weeks, in the lead up to the Giro that he won "clean".

If anything, I honestly think the BP makes it easier to dope than previously. Why? Because as soon as you've been tested, it's a pretty safe bet you won't be tested again for some time.

Aren't BP "tests" separate and independent from normal tests? They're not actual tests, they're samples to get blood data and they aren't actually analyzed for EPO and the like, are they?

 

[Catwhoorg]

If anything, I honestly think the BP makes it easier to dope than previously. Why? Because as soon as you've been tested, it's a pretty safe bet you won't be tested again for some time.

Actually, I have seen several cases on twitter feeds from athletes (mainly swimmers and cyclists) about being tested close together.

Heck, Andy Schleck complained a couple of years ago about being tested 3 times in the space of 24 hours during le Tour.

It may not be quite the safe bet you think it is.


UKADA roughly does similar amounts of random OOC, normal IC testing, and targeted testing (IC and OOC) based on intelligence. If anything random OOC is slowly dropping away, and targeted OOC is replacing it.

From the last report
OOC 24%
IC 30%
Targeted 46%

Their remit is 25%+ random OOC, 30%+ normal IC, and 35%+ targeted (IC and OOC)


More tests for the biopassport are needed, clearly, but a gap of 6-9 weeks in itself is not as big an issue you make it out to be as long as the rest of the program is robust.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

The whole point of this part of the thread and the posts I am making is an attempt to refute masterracer's claim that the BP is effective for people like Ryder Hesjedal who does not get tested for 9 weeks then 6 weeks, in the lead up to the Giro that he won "clean".

I've not followed this thread in detail, but my recollection is that Masteracer's claim was that a rider's baseline profile can be established legitimately off infrequent blood tests.

It seems a bit of a "no-brainer" that if riders aren't tested frequently against their passport then the chances of them being caught are not high! The same applies with any test though.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Aren't BP "tests" separate and independent from normal tests? They're not actual tests, they're samples to get blood data and they aren't actually analyzed for EPO and the like, are they?

There are three type of blood draws taken in the WADA code and they are tested in different ways

1) Whole blood - 3ml (x2)
2) Blood for serum analysis 5ml (x2) - these use different tubes. This is where EPO would be tested for directly
3) Biopassport only - unusual in that there is only a single 3ml vial taken and there is no B sample.

(1 and 3 use one type of tube, and I believe a whole blood test would normally be expected to include biopassport type tests (hb and ret%))

 

[zigmeister]

The problem as recently reported by the dutch newspaper, there are very few out of competition (OOC) tests being done on a lot of guys.

So #1, they are clearly targeting, some guys were tested 20x times. Others tested 1 time in 6-9 months?!? WTF.

Your passport is going to be completely worthless IMO. Many guys dope while OOC, EPO etc....the effects are useful for weeks and even a month or two after use. So, you can't detect EPO unless you test for it randomly.

The passport is garbage and invalid without consistent testing, both in and out of competition. Common sense dictates we need blood values consistently throughout the year in and out of competition to gain a clear picture of a person's "normal" values during training, competition, or while on holiday.

 

[del1962]

The problem as recently reported by the dutch newspaper, there are very few out of competition (OOC) tests being done on a lot of guys.

So #1, they are clearly targeting, some guys were tested 20x times. Others tested 1 time in 6-9 months?!? WTF.

Your passport is going to be completely worthless IMO. Many guys dope while OOC, EPO etc....the effects are useful for weeks and even a month or two after use. So, you can't detect EPO unless you test for it randomly.

The passport is garbage and invalid without consistent testing, both in and out of competition.

Andyou can't get consistent testing without proper finance.

 

[martinvickers]

The whole point of this part of the thread and the posts I am making is an attempt to refute masterracer's claim that the BP is effective for people like Ryder Hesjedal who does not get tested for 9 weeks then 6 weeks, in the lead up to the Giro that he won "clean".

If anything, I honestly think the BP makes it easier to dope than previously. Why? Because as soon as you've been tested, it's a pretty safe bet you won't be tested again for some time.

Does that not mean you are stuck hanging around waiting for the tester to come, then go, before you start doping? Because only when he's been and gone can you then be confident you have a window? Seems a bit haphazard.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Aren't BP "tests" separate and independent from normal tests? They're not actual tests, they're samples to get blood data and they aren't actually analyzed for EPO and the like, are they?

My understanding of the WADA docs is samples are taken, then lab tests are run on the sample. Results are posted to the APMU. Some tests, like a clenbuterol can be done on a single sample. Other tests, to trap blood parameter manipulation (epo) need many sample results.

We don't know what tests are run per sample. That's good and bad. We know either the federation or the race promoter selects the tests. I don't know if race promoters have that ability in 2013. They did in the recent past.

My limited understanding is the APMU uses bayesian probability to catch inconsistencies. Inconsistencies means both not varied and too varied results. Bayesian method is very good for that. But, the results are less certain without regular testing. That means false positives and false negatives.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Aren't BP "tests" separate and independent from normal tests? They're not actual tests, they're samples to get blood data and they aren't actually analyzed for EPO and the like, are they?

The average OOC tests was 2/rider/year. The average number of those samples tested for EPO was 70% (.7). So the average OOC tests for EPO per rider, for the entire year, was 1.4.

 

[DirtyWorks]

UKADA roughly does similar amounts of random OOC, normal IC testing, and targeted testing (IC and OOC) based on intelligence. If anything random OOC is slowly dropping away, and targeted OOC is replacing it.

From the last report
OOC 24%
IC 30%
Targeted 46%

Their remit is 25%+ random OOC, 30%+ normal IC, and 35%+ targeted (IC and OOC)

In OOC and IC cases, do you know which entity is picking the subjects to test? (ex. the promoter or sports federation) According to the WADA docs, that is how it works.

Does targeted testing include direct testing by UKAD? In other words, if UKAD got a clue that an athlete is doping, they are initiating the test.

More tests for the biopassport are needed, clearly, but a gap of 6-9 weeks in itself is not as big an issue you make it out to be as long as the rest of the program is robust.

If you are talking about the core of the bio-passport, the longitudinal testing, you would be right. But, we know two things with great confidence:

1. UCI does what it pleases with positive test results be they one-time or longitudinal.
2. The smarter doping programs seem to plan dosing to remain non-positive.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The people still banging on about 9 weeks being no biggie, in the off season. I'll repeat it one final time: withdrawal / transfusion cycles take about 3 weeks.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The people still banging on about 9 weeks being no biggie, in the off season. I'll repeat it one final time: withdrawal / transfusion cycles take about 3 weeks.

It seems this is where the oxygen vector doping action is right now anyway because they can't use EPO-like drugs to life-threatening levels any more. The HGH/IGF combo is still good at low levels, but that's for recovery anyway.