Of Doping, and Hanging onto Cars

[lanternrouge]

A photo shows one instant in time. It does not show how long he was getting illegal help. It does not show if his teammates pulled him off and on during a climb. It does not show if he spent more than ten seconds drafting a car.

I trust that the other riders know a lot more about what is going on than a fan at one spot on the side of the road, and they have repeatedly called him out.

Crumbs it would seem Bob will go to any lengths to keep Cav!
Really you keep going on about something there is no evidence for but you know better. I sure hope you never get to do jury service. The (only) fact is you have nothing.

 

[SirLes]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...gest-challenge-in-fight-for-green-jersey.html

Just read this. Hope link works.

Cav says he's not even getting his own bottles for fear of someone taking a photo to imply he's holding on plus the fact he seems to have his own commissaire checking on him all the time.

 

[131313]

Why is Cav the only one being singled out?

Doc, you're normally a pretty well-reasoned guy, but this comment is ridiculous. Taking a sticky bottle isn't the same as getting dropped by the gruppetto and getting a tow so you can stay in the race. This really doesn't fall into shades of gray unless one is trying to be deliberately obtuse.

If he is cheating then punish him accordingly - but do far the accusers are his rivals, who aren't even riding near him.

How is this different than the rampant speculation based on performance that pervades this forum regarding doping. Sure, the guys weren't with him, but they were in the gruppetto. They know exactly how big the group was, how many guys were on the front of it (and who), and know exactly how fast they were going. They also have a good handle on what's believable and what's not, and how fast 3 guys can ride compared to the gruppetto. Some of them also have power meters and know the power they did just sitting in the gruppetto. So they know what's believable and what's not. However, since the back of the race has a very low profile, it's not discussed very often.

I'm not saying Cav should be tossed from the race based on the speculation of other riders. If you think I'm suggesting that, you're missing the point. My point is there's no evidence because the organizers of the race don't want there to be any evidence. There are no pictures because the team cars, officials and the cycling press are complicit in making sure there are no pictures. And this is no different than affording some guys an extra hour to take a shower when it suits the agenda of the race. In other words, the same rules don't apply to all, and it's business as usual.

 

[spalco]

I'm not saying Cav should be tossed from the race based on the speculation of other riders. If you think I'm suggesting that, you're missing the point.

What exactly is your point then, what do you suggest should happen to Cavendish?

 

[131313]

What exactly is your point then, what do you suggest should happen to Cavendish?

Umm, maybe rather than selectively quoting me, you could read (and quote) the rest of what I wrote?

 

[SirLes]

They had no problem taking points off Cav before or relegating him to last in a stage or sending home his lead out man why should they be so keen not to punish him in any way now?

They could very easily punish him for something without necessarily kicking him off the tour to make the point if they wanted but I can't see why they wouldn't kick him off anyway if it was serious enough. Only one more stage where he's going to feature. They never showed favouritism to Chipolini who was a bigger name.

The whole premise is deeply flawed

 

[spalco]

Umm, maybe rather than selectively quoting me, you could read (and quote) the rest of what I wrote?

I read what you said, but I'm asking because I don't understand your point. No reason to quote everything when your post is right above mine anyway.

 

[131313]

They had no problem taking points off Cav before or relegating him to last in a stage or sending home his lead out man why should they be so keen not to punish him in any way now?
...
The whole premise is deeply flawed

Sending home his leadout man, taking points away or docking him 2 minutes as in Cali (which was a total joke) means little. It still keeps him in the game, and spectacle and the illusion going. Sorry, to me the premise isn't flawed, the arguments against it are still falling a little flat to me.

 

[131313]

I read what you said, but I'm asking because I don't understand your point. No reason to quote everything when your post is right above mine anyway.

Sorry, you're going to have to read it again. Just start reading right below the part you selectively quoted.

 

[thirteen]

They had no problem taking points off Cav before or relegating him to last in a stage or sending home his lead out man why should they be so keen not to punish him in any way now?

They could very easily punish him for something without necessarily kicking him off the tour to make the point if they wanted but I can't see why they wouldn't kick him off anyway if it was serious enough. Only one more stage where he's going to feature. They never showed favouritism to Chipolini who was a bigger name.

The whole premise is deeply flawed

not only did they not show favourtism to Cipollini, they often didn't invite him to the Tour because he almost always bailed when it hit the mountains. Cipo's work was done.

they want a spectacle on the Champs, a sprint of all sprints, so maybe they don't see everything so their star sprinter stays till the end?

 

[SirLes]

It's impossible to argue. You say there's no evidence because the organisers are complicity in a cover up. The only way your position can be disproved is by giving evidence where the officials have punished Cav in the past for other transgressions. When that is done you say those are not serious enough punishments!

Keeps him in the game for what? The first time they deducted points essentially lost him the Green jersey. That's pretty serious. If they are prepared to do that then why should they think twice about preventing him from getting to Paris and possibly one more stage win. It's arguably better for them as it could be more exciting if he isn't there. A sprinter not making it to Paris is no big deal. Cipo never made it.

 

[SirLes]

not only did they not show favourtism to Cipollini, they often didn't invite him to the Tour because he almost always bailed when it hit the mountains. Cipo's work was done.

they want a spectacle on the Champs, a sprint of all sprints, so maybe they don't see everything so their star sprinter stays till the end?

That's exactly what I was thinking about. Chipo was a bigger star and they didn't even invite him because he couldn't get over mountains. Why the Hell should they now start to care so much about Cav? The last two Champs sprints have been formalities. If Cav's not there it increases the chance of something exciting.
Why stick the knife it and deduct points preventing him from winning the Green Jersey one year and then decide the Tour would be incomplete without him!?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doc, you're normally a pretty well-reasoned guy, but this comment is ridiculous. Taking a sticky bottle isn't the same as getting dropped by the gruppetto and getting a tow so you can stay in the race. This really doesn't fall into shades of gray unless one is trying to be deliberately obtuse.

I never said they were the same thing - I asked why is Cav being singled out for getting a tow when there is nothing to confirm it.

If DM (or yourself) wants to change that to getting a "sticky bottle" where is the outrage towards other riders who do the same?

How is this different than the rampant speculation based on performance that pervades this forum regarding doping.

It's not - but if you are "speculating" without any evidence or even useful information then it should get treated with the cynicism it deserves.

Sure, the guys weren't with him, but they were in the gruppetto. They know exactly how big the group was, how many guys were on the front of it (and who), and know exactly how fast they were going. They also have a good handle on what's believable and what's not, and how fast 3 guys can ride compared to the gruppetto. Some of them also have power meters and know the power they did just sitting in the gruppetto. So they know what's believable and what's not. However, since the back of the race has a very low profile, it's not discussed very often.

I have little doubt Cav gets assistance - drafting and pushes from spectators, which is quite common at the back.
But the specific claim here is that he was hanging on to a car -again none of the riders complaining were in a position to know that.

I'm not saying Cav should be tossed from the race based on the speculation of other riders. If you think I'm suggesting that, you're missing the point. My point is there's no evidence because the organizers of the race don't want there to be any evidence. There are no pictures because the team cars, officials and the cycling press are complicit in making sure there are no pictures. And this is no different than affording some guys an extra hour to take a shower when it suits the agenda of the race. In other words, the same rules don't apply to all, and it's business as usual.

As I pointed out before - it is not the job of the organizers to enforce the rules.
Of course they would not want the "stars" to be thrown out for any incident.

It is the UCI who should be keeping an eye on that - and if someone produced evidence of Cav or anyone else hanging on it would force them to act.

 

[thirteen]

lol! and you don't think they wanted Super Mario on the Champs???

the rules were changed this year so Cav could get green. damned straight they want their star sprinter in Paris!

 

[goggalor]

They had no problem taking points off Cav before or relegating him to last in a stage or sending home his lead out man why should they be so keen not to punish him in any way now?

They could very easily punish him for something without necessarily kicking him off the tour to make the point if they wanted but I can't see why they wouldn't kick him off anyway if it was serious enough. Only one more stage where he's going to feature. They never showed favouritism to Chipolini who was a bigger name.

The whole premise is deeply flawed

I don't necessarily agree that there is a conspiracy from the organisers to keep Cav in the race, but there is a significant difference between taking off points or throwing someone out for irregular sprinting, and throwing someone out for blatant cheating. The latter means a lot more bad press for the race, while the former is just part of the excitement of the racing.

 

[131313]

As I pointed out before - it is not the job of the organizers to enforce the rules.
Of course they would not want the "stars" to be thrown out for any incident.

It is the UCI who should be keeping an eye on that - and if someone produced evidence of Cav or anyone else hanging on it would force them to act.

And we've come full circle...

Please just read your comment above. Yes, I agree, it's the UCI who should be keeping an eye out. Of course, we've seen exactly how effective they are at administering the anti-doping regulations, directly or by delegating it to federations. It's the same thing. They aren't going to enforce the rules evenly when it affects star riders.

Likewise, it's the cycling press who should be the safety net to provide checks and balances. Yet, the process of selecting who gets into the caravan and to sit on a motorbike is as politicized as anything else. That's why we have Graham Watson acting like a fool, and that's why photogs are loathe to take pictures of 3 Highroad guys doing tractor pulls on the team car. Just as almost no one will ask hard questions regarding doping if it hurts their access, relationships or paycheck.

"But there are people and cell phones and motocameras everywhere, shouldn't we have pictures!".

"I've been tested over 500 times, and never a positive". Smells the same to me.

Every rider and every car has a radio, and the caravan rules state that the cars there are all cars with guys riding. So they all have a vested interest in not getting caught. Again, not much different than the Omerta regarding doping. Avoiding detection from towing is no more difficult than beating a drug test, so the lack of evidence is not evidence. 3 guys riding at the speed of a gruppetto is, to me, evidence. It's unfortunate that the guys in the group are reluctant to actually come forward with their data regarding their power and speed, but it shouldn't come down to the riders having to provide this evidence.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Is this complaint motivated entirely on a post-race interview? What else-from this year's race--do you have? If the officials have missed or overlooked something, everyone should know about it so something can be done before the 'worst' man wins.

 

[SirLes]

He'd have got green two years ago if they hadn't disqualified him. He would be in green this year under the old system for points. If they really loved him that much they'd have put in time bonuses and a few more dead flat stages at the start like there often used to be ( as in the Giro when Cipo and Pettachi were in their prime) so he could wear yellow and get more stage wins.

If they wanted to protect him but also make a point they could deduct him points. For holding a bottle too long but stopping short of he essentially got in the passenger seat and was driven up. that would liven up the green jersey competition so it became a shoot out on the Champs.

I also think there would be a bit of cash in it for anyone who could get an incriminating photo-hence Cav's reluctance to even get a bottle.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And we've come full circle...

Please just read your comment above. Yes, I agree, it's the UCI who should be keeping an eye out. Of course, we've seen exactly how effective they are at administering the anti-doping regulations, directly or by delegating it to federations. It's the same thing. They aren't going to enforce the rules evenly when it affects star riders.

Likewise, it's the cycling press who should be the safety net to provide checks and balances. Yet, the process of selecting who gets into the caravan and to sit on a motorbike is as politicized as anything else. That's why we have Graham Watson acting like a fool, and that's why photogs are loathe to take pictures of 3 Highroad guys doing tractor pulls on the team car. Just as almost no one will ask hard questions regarding doping if it hurts their access, relationships or paycheck.

"But there are people and cell phones and motocameras everywhere, shouldn't we have pictures!".

"I've been tested over 500 times, and never a positive". Smells the same to me.

Every rider and every car has a radio, and the caravan rules state that the cars there are all cars with guys riding. So they all have a vested interest in not getting caught. Again, not much different than the Omerta regarding doping. Avoiding detection from towing is no more difficult than beating a drug test, so the lack of evidence is not evidence. 3 guys riding at the speed of a gruppetto is, to me, evidence. It's unfortunate that the guys in the group are reluctant to actually come forward with their data regarding their power and speed, but it shouldn't come down to the riders having to provide this evidence.

No - you have not come full circle - you are still at the start because all you have so far is some riders (who were not there) mouthing off and assuming he got a tow.

As for Omerta - well isn't your whole position built on the fact that people have talked?

 

[SirLes]

131313

Your hypotheseis is entirely unscientific. Ie it cannot be disproved.

You have cunningly positioned yourself so that a lack of evidence of cheating which should support the argument against you, actually reinforces your position. Evidence of previous transgressions and punishments used initially to support the idea that Cav cheats unfortunately also undermine the premise that cheating is ignored so these are dismissed as trivial. That way you can have Cav as a convicted cheat and an organisation that turns blind eye. Nicely done!

I congratulate you on weaving a sublime web of BS and entrapping myself and others in an entirely pointless exercise.
I feel like I'm in Monty Python sketch and have paid for the full half hour!

 

[131313]

No - you have not come full circle - you are still at the start because all you have so far is some riders (who were not there) mouthing off and assuming he got a tow.

It's not an assumption that they know their speed, the size of the group, and the power required to sit in that group. If someone rides up L'Alpe in 30 minutes, is it an "assumption" that they're doping, or is it evidence? I think it's evidence. Not definitive evidence, mind you, but evidence nonetheless.

As for Omerta - well isn't your whole position built on the fact that people have talked?

...and the few who have talked have been castigated as being bitter losers, as the group remains silent. Sound familiar?

 

[Mambo95]

I'm not saying Cav should be tossed from the race based on the speculation of other riders. If you think I'm suggesting that, you're missing the point. My point is there's no evidence because the organizers of the race don't want there to be any evidence. There are no pictures because the team cars, officials and the cycling press are complicit in making sure there are no pictures. And this is no different than affording some guys an extra hour to take a shower when it suits the agenda of the race. In other words, the same rules don't apply to all, and it's business as usual.

So now it's now it's one big conspiracy with the whole of cycling (including the 'team cars' who have no interest in helping Cav) implicated in some sort of huge pro-Cav plot. Are all the spectators on the side of the road also in on it. After all one of them took several photos of car hangers on Mt Etna.

You're really overstretching yourself. That's real tin foil hat territory.

I think all of us who disagree with you would be perfectly willing to accept that he hangs onto cars with a reasonable bit of evidence. But the "word" of a green jersey, a rider he had a row with at Gent-Wevelgem (the DS of both was quoted as saying Cav doesn't car hang) and Farrar's adrenalin fueled comments which he later retracted aren't really doing it, I'm afraid. Not when compared to the commisaires, the ASO and the Broom Wagon.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's not an assumption that they know their speed, the size of the group, and the power required to sit in that group. If someone rides up L'Alpe in 30 minutes, is it an "assumption" that they're doping, or is it evidence? I think it's evidence. Not definitive evidence, mind you, but evidence nonetheless.

How far was Cav behind at the bottom of the last climb? How long did it take the grupetto to cover it?

If you have those numbers you may have enough to start something.

...and the few who have talked have been castigated as being bitter losers, as the group remains silent. Sound familiar?

As much as i like Farrar - in this instance he is a bitter loser.
He lost to Cav and then bitterly complains about him.

He (they) should have complained straight after the stage.

 

[Mambo95]

As much as i like Farrar - in this instance he is a bitter loser.
He lost to Cav and then bitterly complains about him.

I think that's a bit harsh on Farrar. He did retract his comments later. Personally, with his complaining, I thought he'd finally become a 'proper' sprinter. They're meant to be bad losers.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

As much as i like Farrar - in this instance he is a bitter loser.
He lost to Cav and then bitterly complains about him.

This whole forum is always going on about riders not complaining when others get caught doping. Now when riders complain about cheating of another kind, they are bitter and should have kept their mouths shut. Why should someone who has been cheated keep quiet? Why should he not complain? If cycling is to move forward, the riders need to be able to call out the cheaters.

Nice defense of omerta there, doctor.

This should be Lance's new defence: They are all bitter losers.