Peaking or consistent domination - what's more suspicious?

[Bwlch y Groes]

All this discussion about British Cycling's cyclists peaking at the right moment (or tapering or whatever you want to call it) got me thinking: what's actually more suspicious - is it dominating after never showing not signs of it for a long time, or dominating consistently without a break? Both would probably cited here as evidence of likely doping, but which one's the bigger red flag?

 

[King Boonen]

I replied in the other thread but will here to.

In the clinic I've heard pretty much every variation on this be used as an argument to point to doping. I have no idea if any of them do but they can't all. I think it's a much too complicated issue with far too many variables.

 

[DanielSong39]

Re: Peaking or consistent domination - what's more suspiciou

Anything other than being dropped on the last climb like a sack of potatoes looks pretty suspicious.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Peaking or consistent domination - what's more suspiciou

Anything other than being dropped on the last climb like a sack of potatoes looks pretty suspicious.

Unless of course you're faking it to lull the others in to a false sense of security :lol:

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

I replied in the other thread but will here to.

In the clinic I've heard pretty much every variation on this be used as an argument to point to doping. I have no idea if any of them do but they can't all. I think it's a much too complicated issue with far too many variables.

Over a career the person who suddenly peaks out of nowhere is way more suspicious. This is pretty widely accepted, even by the pro doping media outlets like bbc who will say things like "it was obvious Lance was doping because of his sudden transformation". They just exclude guys they like from the logic

Over a season its the exact opposite. at least in a sport like road cycling, the person who shows immunity to fatigue winning everything is far more dodgy, than the person who needs to specifically peak for something to get it right.

Either way both could be doping. But in both cases one is more dodgy for the same reason that someone who runs 9.5 100m deserves more suspicion than someone who runs 9.9

 

[doolols]

To me, total domination of an individual over a period of a season or more has a higher suspicion value that someone working towards a specific competition. Brits targeting the Olympics (because it has a much higher value to the people behind the teams that world championships) makes absolute sense. To think that Brits forfeiting Worlds is suspicious, doesn't understand how sports marketing works,

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

I replied in the other thread but will here to.

In the clinic I've heard pretty much every variation on this be used as an argument to point to doping. I have no idea if any of them do but they can't all. I think it's a much too complicated issue with far too many variables.

Over a career the person who suddenly peaks out of nowhere is way more suspicious. This is pretty widely accepted, even by the pro doping media outlets like bbc who will say things like "it was obvious Lance was doping because of his sudden transformation". They just exclude guys they like from the logic

Over a season its the exact opposite. at least in a sport like road cycling, the person who shows immunity to fatigue winning everything is far more dodgy, than the person who needs to specifically peak for something to get it right.

Either way both could be doping. But in both cases one is more dodgy for the same reason that someone who runs 9.5 100m deserves more suspicion than someone who runs 9.9

Speaking of Armstrong, over a season he did specifically peak for the Tour (and June, partly). For sure, I think that was suspicious in itself.

Über peak or consistent domination are both suspicious, the more so the more extreme they are. There's obviously a middle ground that is more normal, or at least less suspicious.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

To me, total domination of an individual over a period of a season or more has a higher suspicion value that someone working towards a specific competition. Brits targeting the Olympics (because it has a much higher value to the people behind the teams that world championships) makes absolute sense. To think that Brits forfeiting Worlds is suspicious, doesn't understand how sports marketing works,

That sounds awfully lot like -brits are so clever they target the Olympics. Everyone else is too stupid to realize that. Very similar to sky's marginal gains insinuations that no one else in the world would be clever enough to train, or eat correctly, or buy a light bike etc.

I mean do you really think team gb are the only ones who have figured out that the Olympics are the only time anyone bothers to tune In to 90% of these sports and that they can make the most money by winning there?

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

I replied in the other thread but will here to.

In the clinic I've heard pretty much every variation on this be used as an argument to point to doping. I have no idea if any of them do but they can't all. I think it's a much too complicated issue with far too many variables.

Over a career the person who suddenly peaks out of nowhere is way more suspicious. This is pretty widely accepted, even by the pro doping media outlets like bbc who will say things like "it was obvious Lance was doping because of his sudden transformation". They just exclude guys they like from the logic

Over a season its the exact opposite. at least in a sport like road cycling, the person who shows immunity to fatigue winning everything is far more dodgy, than the person who needs to specifically peak for something to get it right.

Either way both could be doping. But in both cases one is more dodgy for the same reason that someone who runs 9.5 100m deserves more suspicion than someone who runs 9.9

Speaking of Armstrong, over a season he did specifically peak for the Tour (and June, partly). For sure, I think that was suspicious in itself.

Über peak or consistent domination are both suspicious, the more so the more extreme they are. There's obviously a middle ground that is more normal, or at least less suspicious.

Disagree totally. That was the least suspicious part of Armstrong. Are you telling me you consider people with 1500 points in a cq season to be more suspicious than those with 3000 points?

 

[Netserk]

That depends on how they got them. Generally though, one would have to deliver suspicious performances to be able to gather 3k, whereas the same doesn't apply (at least not in an equal degree) to the 1.5k.

But for sure, I think it's suspicious in itself when someone suddenly gets an 'injection' of form.

What do you think is more suspicious, someone who is unable to finish a single race for the whole year, but then starts flying in the Vuelta and wins the race, or someone who was thereabout during most of the year before delivering a similar performance in the Vuelta?

BTW when you are calling it the 'least suspicious', does that mean that you still think that it was suspicious in itself?

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

That depends on how they got them. Generally though, one would have to deliver suspicious performances to be able to gather 3k, whereas the same doesn't apply (at least not in an equal degree) to the 1.5k.

But for sure, I think it's suspicious in itself when someone suddenly gets an 'injection' of form.

What do you think is more suspicious, someone who is unable to finish a single race for the whole year, but then starts flying in the Vuelta and wins the race, or someone who was thereabout during most of the year before delivering a similar performance in the Vuelta?

BTW when you are calling it the 'least suspicious', does that mean that you still think that it was suspicious in itself?

someone average the whole year and average in the vuelta is less suspicious than someone who kills the vuelta, I think we all agree.

I write least suspicious because the reality is anyone could be doping. Even someone who finishes every race they ever ride outside the top 100

 

[TMP402]

Posted this elsewhere, but on the topic of peaking:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/olympic-games-australia-to-re-think-approach-to-track-after-coming-up-short-in-rio/

The review into Australia's performance and lack of medals on the Rio Velodrome at the 2016 Olympic Games is already under review with Cycling Australia high performance director Kevin Tabotta leading the inquiry.

...

Tabotta suggested that those next steps may include Australia placing less of an emphasis on the World Championships than it has in the past.

"It may take us to actually take a step back and really take a thrust into an Olympic Games from a couple of years out," he said. "Now that's going to take some understanding from funders, and also from athletes because there's an expectation now in Australia to perform every time we line up at a world championship.

"I will also highlight that's no excuse. At the end of the day we came here to win medals and we'd set ourself at least five medals off the track here and we've walked away with two.

"We need to master an August peak and we haven't nailed that yet."

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

That depends on how they got them. Generally though, one would have to deliver suspicious performances to be able to gather 3k, whereas the same doesn't apply (at least not in an equal degree) to the 1.5k.

But for sure, I think it's suspicious in itself when someone suddenly gets an 'injection' of form.

What do you think is more suspicious, someone who is unable to finish a single race for the whole year, but then starts flying in the Vuelta and wins the race, or someone who was thereabout during most of the year before delivering a similar performance in the Vuelta?

BTW when you are calling it the 'least suspicious', does that mean that you still think that it was suspicious in itself?

someone average the whole year and average in the vuelta is less suspicious than someone who kills the vuelta, I think we all agree.

I write least suspicious because the reality is anyone could be doping. Even someone who finishes every race they ever ride outside the top 100

Yeah, we do, but what do you think about the example I wrote? I will bold the part you seem to have overlooked.

 

[buckle]

Re:

Posted this elsewhere, but on the topic of peaking:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/olympic-games-australia-to-re-think-approach-to-track-after-coming-up-short-in-rio/

The review into Australia's performance and lack of medals on the Rio Velodrome at the 2016 Olympic Games is already under review with Cycling Australia high performance director Kevin Tabotta leading the inquiry.

...

Tabotta suggested that those next steps may include Australia placing less of an emphasis on the World Championships than it has in the past.

"It may take us to actually take a step back and really take a thrust into an Olympic Games from a couple of years out," he said. "Now that's going to take some understanding from funders, and also from athletes because there's an expectation now in Australia to perform every time we line up at a world championship.

"I will also highlight that's no excuse. At the end of the day we came here to win medals and we'd set ourself at least five medals off the track here and we've walked away with two.

"We need to master an August peak and we haven't nailed that yet."

"August peak" new name for doping?

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

To me, total domination of an individual over a period of a season or more has a higher suspicion value that someone working towards a specific competition. Brits targeting the Olympics (because it has a much higher value to the people behind the teams that world championships) makes absolute sense. To think that Brits forfeiting Worlds is suspicious, doesn't understand how sports marketing works,

So by your logic Wiggins and Froome 2012- 2013 were suspicious as hell. Do you agree?

 

[Zypherov]

Alejandro Valverde has mastered the art of the four year peak and counting, since his return to racing in 2012. Never tires. No injuries. Consistent top results. Multiple top ten finishes in Grand Tours. He is riding the Vuelta, which will be his third Grand Tour of the year. If he finishes in the top ten overall at the Vuelta, he will become only the third rider in history to finish in the top ten of all three Grand Tours in the same year.

 

[proffate]

I agree with netserk, crazy swings in form (off the back in Dauphine, winning Tour) indicate doping. Blood withdrawals, etc.

You can have consistent form all year long while clean but it won't be dominant. So consistent domination is also suggestive.

Something like top 8th place at Dauphine followed by podium at Tour is less suspicious (aside from the fact that a tour podium in and of itself is fairly suspect).

 

[Cannibal72]

Re:

Alejandro Valverde has mastered the art of the four year peak and counting, since his return to racing in 2012. Never tires. No injuries. Consistent top results. Multiple top ten finishes in Grand Tours. He is riding the Vuelta, which will be his third Grand Tour of the year. If he finishes in the top ten overall at the Vuelta, he will become only the third rider in history to finish in the top ten of all three Grand Tours in the same year.

Valverde is comfortably the most suspicious rider active, imo.

 

[mike75]

Re:

To me, total domination of an individual over a period of a season or more has a higher suspicion value that someone working towards a specific competition. Brits targeting the Olympics (because it has a much higher value to the people behind the teams that world championships) makes absolute sense. To think that Brits forfeiting Worlds is suspicious, doesn't understand how sports marketing works,

I completely disagree with this. You say this as if it's such a massively complicated notion that one nation would target the Olympics and NO ONE ELSE does, at least as much as the Brits do. That's ridiculous. You don't think 100 out of 100 athletes would forfeit a World Championship medal for an Olympic medal? I guarantee you they would. So please, stop with this "the Brits are so much smarter than everyone else because they train to peak at the Olympics, and other countries are aiming to win their local neighborhood crit race." It's a falsehood used to try and fit a narrative.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

To me, total domination of an individual over a period of a season or more has a higher suspicion value that someone working towards a specific competition. Brits targeting the Olympics (because it has a much higher value to the people behind the teams that world championships) makes absolute sense. To think that Brits forfeiting Worlds is suspicious, doesn't understand how sports marketing works,

I completely disagree with this. You say this as if it's such a massively complicated notion that one nation would target the Olympics and NO ONE ELSE does, at least as much as the Brits do. That's ridiculous. You don't think 100 out of 100 athletes would forfeit a World Championship medal for an Olympic medal? I guarantee you they would. So please, stop with this "the Brits are so much smarter than everyone else because they train to peak at the Olympics, and other countries are aiming to win their local neighborhood crit race." It's a falsehood used to try and fit a narrative.

but it is more complicated.....there is now a vast (and expensive) bureaucracy built up at BC which depend on these medals...I've heard it less at these Games but at previous ones where the cyclist's talk isn't one of joy but of a job done. So for GB it isn't just the cyclist, it's everyone involved that knows that medals bring with it a continued cushy number at the manchester velodrone advising, say, on pillows

1 cyclist = 10 FTE

 

[blackcat]

Peaking or consistent domination?

I would say, Beijing, or San Jose track club

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

To me, total domination of an individual over a period of a season or more has a higher suspicion value that someone working towards a specific competition. Brits targeting the Olympics (because it has a much higher value to the people behind the teams that world championships) makes absolute sense. To think that Brits forfeiting Worlds is suspicious, doesn't understand how sports marketing works,

I completely disagree with this. You say this as if it's such a massively complicated notion that one nation would target the Olympics and NO ONE ELSE does, at least as much as the Brits do. That's ridiculous. You don't think 100 out of 100 athletes would forfeit a World Championship medal for an Olympic medal? I guarantee you they would. So please, stop with this "the Brits are so much smarter than everyone else because they train to peak at the Olympics, and other countries are aiming to win their local neighborhood crit race." It's a falsehood used to try and fit a narrative.

Good post. I've been laughing at this - but the brits focus on the Olympics, explanation too. Yeah, all other countries are too stupid to figure out that a medal at the Olympics is better than one at some random meet 10 people attend.

But if you look at it historically, the simple minded fan, the one who really needs to believe his idol is clean in order to fall asleep at night, has always hid behind these kind of explanations.

I remember one of the Wiggins arguments was - he paces himself Up climbs. Then there's the whole- they train harder. They pay attention to their weight. They recon the course. They use technology to improve their bikes. Walsh once said that froo e identified the mountain stage as the place to attack. Its all stuff that anyone with an iq over 20 realizes that everyone is doing, but those are not the people teams market their books and kit at.
The simpletons need simple arguments, regardless of logic. They can't handle that reality is slightly more complex.

 

[Bolder]

Re: Peaking or consistent domination - what's more suspiciou

Anything other than being dropped on the last climb like a sack of potatoes looks pretty suspicious.

At this point, just making it to the pro peloton or Olympics is almost prima facie evidence.

Performance isn't actually much of an indicator, I'd say a rider's associations with doctors/teams etc are a much better gauge.

As a mental exercise, imagine that everyone was clean. You'd still have the same kinds of performances. Some teams or countries would be better prepared, some riders physically advantaged, smarter, or training better.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Peaking or consistent domination - what's more suspiciou

Anything other than being dropped on the last climb like a sack of potatoes looks pretty suspicious.

At this point, just making it to the pro peloton or Olympics is almost prima facie evidence.

Performance isn't actually much of an indicator, I'd say a rider's associations with doctors/teams etc are a much better gauge.

As a mental exercise, imagine that everyone was clean. You'd still have the same kinds of performances. Some teams or countries would be better prepared, some riders physically advantaged, smarter, or training better.

but you wouldn't have these performances relative to precious doped performances

 

[Netserk]

Re: Peaking or consistent domination - what's more suspiciou

Anything other than being dropped on the last climb like a sack of potatoes looks pretty suspicious.

At this point, just making it to the pro peloton or Olympics is almost prima facie evidence.

Performance isn't actually much of an indicator, I'd say a rider's associations with doctors/teams etc are a much better gauge.

As a mental exercise, imagine that everyone was clean. You'd still have the same kinds of performances. Some teams or countries would be better prepared, some riders physically advantaged, smarter, or training better.

No. Just, no.

They would be slower. A lot.