Richie makes his Clinic debut...

[Fester]

Yea I thought the same thing Myself. Yea 7.6 w/kg is extreme in the sense of plausibility. I wonder what the test involved exactly, to produce such a figure. It certainly does not represent an accurate indication of watts per Kilo. Like nobody can produce that sort of wattage over long distances and climbing Alpine Cols for example.

Richie Porte's weight is 63 Kgs x 7.6 w/kg = 478.80 Watts. Sustained over what length of time ? And what specifically does this particular testing method involve ?

It is certainly does not represent any indication of Doping. To suggest otherwise is just mere speculation.

I haven't read the whole discussion, but without seeing the testing procedure it's very difficult to draw conclusions. I actually believe this figure, if you are talking a 20-25m ramp test up to VO2max, in one or two minute increments.

His VO2max seems low for such a high power output. Obviously an efficient cyclist. Probably would be awesome up climbs 3-4km in length, but would die on longer climbs. His TT would be there or there abouts. Probably around 390w-400w given the previous figures.

His statement on cycling being cleaner I would agree with. I think people are limited in their doping advantage. Enough that a dope free and talented rider might dream of being more than a domestique.

 

[pmcg76]

This discussion seems to assume doping is an either/or proposition. In fact, evidence suggests that anti-doping efforts in the past few years, while certainly not eradicating the practice, have forced riders to do it more carefully. It's well known that after the EPO test was developed, riders continued to use the drug, but generally by carefully timed microdosing. This presumably does not result in as much performance enhancement as using all you want, whenever you want. I have also heard on the grapevine that blood transfusions are made in smaller volumes now, to reduce passport fluctuations.

Riders may not be too concerned about having to reduce their doping, since they figure everyone is in the same boat. If, hypothetically, Tuft finished 5th among a certain group of TTers, all of whom were doping at a maximal level, his finish might not be expected to change much if all these competitors were forced to reduce their doping to the same, lower level. But--beyond the old debate about high and low responders--you could argue that the presence of doping controls is more likely to shake up the rankings, because some riders may be more knowledgeable than others about the new limits--or more willing to test them.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that every time there is an advance in anti-doping testing, it spurs innovative ways to beat the tests. Even experienced dopers may not have equal access to these innovations. Some are more likely to get busted than others, while others may, out of fear of getting caught, reduce their doping to levels below what their more knowledgeable rivals are getting away with. Even undoped athletes see variations in their performance from event. The flux occurring in doping protocols insures another source of variation.

I think this is a fair and balanced analysis.

Personally, I think its unfair to assume everyone dopes without some form of evidence. On the flip side, its naive to come on here and say with certainy somebody doesnt dope. I would like to believe some riders are clean but I would never go out on a limb to defend someone. Never be surprised with anything.

Is Richie Porte doping, I have no idea, as yet there is no evidence so unfair to point the finger but as others have said, he is a pro cyclist so I will keep an open mind.

 

[bianchigirl]

Agreed Merckx index - the Bio Passport is a way, like the 50% hct level, of allowing doping within closely prescribed parameters.

After the revelations of the WADA IO report & McQuaid's recent comments on 'star making' and globalisation, is it really any wonder that certain riders from the Anglo countries emerge without the slightest whiff of scandal? It would be really really interesting to see some transparent figures re: number of tests per named rider - wonder if we'd see the Porte's of this world being tested as frequently as young Spanish/French/Italian riders?

Testing is an arms race but there's also a wider globalisation agenda to be considered in terms of who gets tested & when

 

[hektoren]

and that makes him clean. lol lol lol.





Is this guy a wonderlance type poster or is he for real.

So not only does he know for sure that hushovd is clean (how?) and Evans is clean ( because hes the poster child for anti doping, apparently) but he also knows for sure that Eddy Boss, Richie Porte and Peter Sagan are clean. Wow we are covering a lot of ground here. If only Wada or the UCI had you around they wouldnt need to spend any money on tests, because you could just tell them whose clean.

But perhaps not wisest to claim you know the sport is way cleaner, mere months after the biggest name in the sport and one of the top 10 names in the sport tested positive.

And you clearly dont understand doping or the fact that half the big names to get caught doping never failed a test, and the other half only failed one test out of hundreds through a mistake, often as with contador, with only a very small almost insignificant trace of the drug remaining.

Oh and i shouldnt have to waste space pointing out that unlike you i never said i know for certain whther Cuddles or anyone else who hasnt been caught dopes ( though im prettty sure about Andy). I merely suspect Cuddles dopes, i have my reasons, i think i can make a good case for it, and am clearly not the only one here ready to absolve cuddles of any chance that he dopes. You on the other hand claim to know for certain that Cuddles and a bunch of others dont dope, which is ludicrous.


This exact same form of trolling keeps coming up now and again. If you dont think the whole peloton is clean then a "why do you watch cycling", b "you shouldnt watch cycling", or in this case c "you might as well advocate shutting down the sport".

No I like the sport, and i wont shut up.

You started out by stating as fact that all the top guys dope. Look back at your first post. You said: "I say all the top guys dope". You don't "suspect" that all guys dope. You say that all the top guys dope. Well, you try, as good as you can, to shift the burden of evidence onto me for stating that the guys with the least amount of suspicion attached to them are clean. That's so not the way it works. Evans's results have been above suspicion throughout his entire career from his U23-years up till now. An anonymous amateur expert like you, citing absolutely no evidence but his "suspicions", "thinking you could make a good case for it" is about as useful as the guy who pi$$es in the well.

It's quite a wide continent between a professional take on the state of doping in the peloton and the straw-man you introduce, claiming that I am ready to absolve Evans of any chance that he dopes.

You're short on factual knowledge, long on poor logic and personal insults. Welcome to my "ignore"-list!

Actually, I don't understand at all why you bother watching cycling if you believe it's true that all top guys dope. It's gotta qualify for the masochist-of-the-year-award 2011. And it's only Jan 2nd!!!
No trolling about it. Just a more educated perspective.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are numbers really required? Because apparently "history" of doping is enough.

Ok, ok - we will take "history" out of it for you then.

In that case - so far this year Australia, Britain & Denmark have had the exact same amount of positives in cycling that (historically) doping nations like Spain & Italy have had.

 

[hrotha]

I don't get it. Evans isn't even particularly outspoken about doping, compared to others. What exactly makes him THE poster-child of drugfree athletes? There's no evidence of Evans doping, no particular reason to think he dopes or has doped other than inferences about what's possible for clean riders in the peloton in the 00s, but I don't see where this talk of him being beyond suspicion comes from. With Cunego or Moncoutié I can understand. Even with Hushovd. But Evans? Cadel is just another top level rider for whom no evidence exists one way or another. Nothing else. The only thing that sets him apart from Sastre is his passport (and I'm not talking about the biological kind here).

 

[hektoren]

I don't get it. Evans isn't even particularly outspoken about doping, compared to others. What exactly makes him THE poster-child of drugfree athletes? There's no evidence of Evans doping, no particular reason to think he dopes or has doped other than inferences about what's possible for clean riders in the peloton in the 00s, but I don't see where this talk of him being beyond suspicion comes from. With Cunego or Moncoutié I can understand. Even with Hushovd. But Evans? Cadel is just another top level rider for whom no evidence exists one way or another. Nothing else. The only thing that sets him apart from Sastre is his passport (and I'm not talking about the biological kind here).

Well, there's this new-fangled thing called consistency.......

 

[The Hitch]

You started out by stating as fact that all the top guys dope. Look back at your first post. You said: "I say all the top guys dope". You don't "suspect" that all guys dope. You say that all the top guys dope. Well, you try, as good as you can, to shift the burden of evidence onto me for stating that the guys with the least amount of suspicion attached to them are clean. That's so not the way it works. Evans's results have been above suspicion throughout his entire career from his U23-years up till now. An anonymous amateur expert like you, citing absolutely no evidence but his "suspicions", "thinking you could make a good case for it" is about as useful as the guy who pi$$es in the well.

It's quite a wide continent between a professional take on the state of doping in the peloton and the straw-man you introduce, claiming that I am ready to absolve Evans of any chance that he dopes.

You're short on factual knowledge, long on poor logic and personal insults. Welcome to my "ignore"-list!

Actually, I don't understand at all why you bother watching cycling if you believe it's true that all top guys dope. It's gotta qualify for the masochist-of-the-year-award 2011. And it's only Jan 2nd!!!
No trolling about it. Just a more educated perspective.

I believe all sports are rife with dope. I watch it cos i like it. And "i say all the top guys dope" is the expression of an opinion. On the other hand "the peloton is cleaner now, this is a good thing" is treating it as a fact.

And i did explain why i felt Evans as well as all the other top guys dope. You clearly did not read it but dont worry i am patient and can explain it again (more patient than you seeing as i am already on your ignore list already for challenging fanboyish remarks).

I beliebe evans dopes because he has links to teams and managers heavily involved in doping.
Cuddles results are far from above suspicion. He was one of the top guys during the latter stages of what someone like yourself might call the doping era (since you believe its all clean now).
4th at the 06 Tour de doping. 2nd at the 07 Tour de doping. Beating with ease several known dopers at the 08 Tour de doping.

I believe there are riders who dope but dont get caught because, well considering you attacked claimed you were better educated (did you go to doping school or something?) i will permit myself a moment of narcisism too and say that i believe riders who dont get caught dope because i know more than you about doping.

Like i said, we know all the top guys in the late 90's doped. All of them. Pantani Ullrich, Riis, Armstrong, zulle etc etc etc etc. We didnt neccesarily know it at the time but we know it now. We know all the top guys of the early 2000's doped. Armstrong, Basso, Vinokourov, Cunego, Heras, Valverde, Garzeli etc.

Now we have just finished the late 2000's. They said the peloton was clean in the 90's we know they lied. THey said the peloton was clean in the early 2000's we know they lied. Now once again they say the peloton has been cleaner. But there is no reason to believe that this time they are telling the truth. In fact we know that a lot of the top guys from this era are dopers. Some of them, we know from earlier - Basso, Vino Valverde. Others - Contador Ricco, Di Luca got caught during this time.

Considering the effects of doping are we to believe that Evans was mixing it with the Rasmussens, the Riccos, the Contadors the Kohls all this time while being clean.

And bare in mind that according to some of the top dopers its easy for riders to get away with doping. Landis was doing it for years without getting caught. Kohl was doing it for years without getting caught. They explained how easy it is to get away with it.


You critiscise my logic. Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? The simplest answer is usually the right one.

You can either believe that Cuddles has been a white knight in the doping era, is above suspicion, taking on all the evil dopers by being so amazingly naturally superior and that the younger generation has decided its wrong to dope, dont care so much about winning and wont do it.

OR you can believe that considering everything we know about doping the ways to beat the tests, the fact that previous "anti doping poster boys" like Armstrong turned out to be doing it, the fact that all the other big guns in Cuddles era were doing it, the advantage epo gives, human nature and hunger for success, and the fact many dopers never test positive, you can beliueve that he is very likely to have been doing exactly what everyone of his competitors was doing.

Whatever you believe it is clear that b is clearly the most logical answer and usually the right one, but fanboy mentality does often get in the way of such things.

 

[The Hitch]

What exactly makes him THE poster-child of drugfree athletes?

Hes australian. It might sound like im being facetious but im not. This is not the first time this argument has surfaced. A few months ago Marcus (something or other) said that Evans is clean because everyone knows Evans is clean. I kid you not. And he was being serious.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

+1

and the pointing out of Dan Staite as a doper is clutching at straws as the guy is a club rider, and Rob Hayles hasnt ridden for a long while anyway.

So because of this Britain are as bad as Spain, USA, Italy.

Of course no-one actually said that Britain was as "bad" as any other country - but it has been suggested that they are somehow cleaner,.
Also strange how the USA made your list as their last big positive was Landis 06 (Hayles was 08) and the Papp list has snared glorified 'club riders' like Staite.

You mention that Spain, USA & Italy are "bad" countries - isn't a large part of that reputation because each of those countries has had their own law enforcement uncover the doping networks that the UCI do not (want to) uncover. How would Australia, Britain or Denmark do if the plod came knocking?

Pull in the flag, doping has nothing to do with nationality - it is a sportswide problem.

 

[hrotha]

Well, there's this new-fangled thing called consistency.......

Ah yes, consistency, something riders like Valverde and Contador apparently didn't display.

 

[Escarabajo]

Well, if you want numbers, i had some fun using data from the cqranking database. I know the figures might not be accurate and subject to many assumptions but they can used as proxy indicators and as a snapshot or cross-sectional view of the current situation. I included in the numerator the riders who are suspended or provisionally suspended (like Contador and Pellizotti) and in the denominator all active riders present in the cqranking database plus the suspended riders.

Colombia must be the cleanest because it did not even make that list.

Thanks Nobilis.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Agreed Merckx index - the Bio Passport is a way, like the 50% hct level, of allowing doping within closely prescribed parameters.

After the revelations of the WADA IO report & McQuaid's recent comments on 'star making' and globalisation, is it really any wonder that certain riders from the Anglo countries emerge without the slightest whiff of scandal? It would be really really interesting to see some transparent figures re: number of tests per named rider - wonder if we'd see the Porte's of this world being tested as frequently as young Spanish/French/Italian riders?

Testing is an arms race but there's also a wider globalisation agenda to be considered in terms of who gets tested & when

How is it a way of allowing doping? It is simply a way of at least limiting the gains from blood doping if you cannot detect it. How is that a bad thing? By your logic, no BP means athletes are allowed to blood dope as much as they feel like! You people criticizing regulations like the 50% crit limit, off-score, and the BP need to start comparing it with the alternative, which is back to the 90's, instead of some pipe dream.

 

[Hugh Januss]

How is it a way of allowing doping? It is simply a way of at least limiting the gains from blood doping if you cannot detect it. How is that a bad thing? By your logic, no BP means athletes are allowed to blood dope as much as they feel like! You people criticizing regulations like the 50% crit limit, off-score, and the BP need to start comparing it with the alternative, which is back to the 90's, instead of some pipe dream.

We (cycling) are better off with the Passport than without it, as long as we don't allow it to stop there. Because it is not a deterrent to doping it is only a deterrent to doping as much.
Accept that the Passport is helping but don't accept the word of UCI and Richie Porte that the war has been won. Because it has not, and to be satesfied now and relax the pressure for further improvement will only allow things to slip back to the status quo of a few years ago.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

We (cycling) are better off with the Passport than without it, as long as we don't allow it to stop there. Because it is not a deterrent to doping it is only a deterrent to doping as much.
Accept that the Passport is helping but don't accept the word of UCI and Richie Porte that the war has been won. Because it has not, and to be satesfied now and relax the pressure for further improvement will only allow things to slip back to the status quo of a few years ago.

Good post! I fully agree with that.

 

[hektoren]

I believe all sports are rife with dope. I watch it cos i like it. And "i say all the top guys dope" is the expression of an opinion. On the other hand "the peloton is cleaner now, this is a good thing" is treating it as a fact.

And i did explain why i felt Evans as well as all the other top guys dope. You clearly did not read it but dont worry i am patient and can explain it again (more patient than you seeing as i am already on your ignore list already for challenging fanboyish remarks).

I beliebe evans dopes because he has links to teams and managers heavily involved in doping.
Cuddles results are far from above suspicion. He was one of the top guys during the latter stages of what someone like yourself might call the doping era (since you believe its all clean now).
4th at the 06 Tour de doping. 2nd at the 07 Tour de doping. Beating with ease several known dopers at the 08 Tour de doping.

I believe there are riders who dope but dont get caught because, well considering you attacked claimed you were better educated (did you go to doping school or something?) i will permit myself a moment of narcisism too and say that i believe riders who dont get caught dope because i know more than you about doping.

Like i said, we know all the top guys in the late 90's doped. All of them. Pantani Ullrich, Riis, Armstrong, zulle etc etc etc etc. We didnt neccesarily know it at the time but we know it now. We know all the top guys of the early 2000's doped. Armstrong, Basso, Vinokourov, Cunego, Heras, Valverde, Garzeli etc.

Now we have just finished the late 2000's. They said the peloton was clean in the 90's we know they lied. THey said the peloton was clean in the early 2000's we know they lied. Now once again they say the peloton has been cleaner. But there is no reason to believe that this time they are telling the truth. In fact we know that a lot of the top guys from this era are dopers. Some of them, we know from earlier - Basso, Vino Valverde. Others - Contador Ricco, Di Luca got caught during this time.

Considering the effects of doping are we to believe that Evans was mixing it with the Rasmussens, the Riccos, the Contadors the Kohls all this time while being clean.

And bare in mind that according to some of the top dopers its easy for riders to get away with doping. Landis was doing it for years without getting caught. Kohl was doing it for years without getting caught. They explained how easy it is to get away with it.


You critiscise my logic. Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? The simplest answer is usually the right one.

You can either believe that Cuddles has been a white knight in the doping era, is above suspicion, taking on all the evil dopers by being so amazingly naturally superior and that the younger generation has decided its wrong to dope, dont care so much about winning and wont do it.

OR you can believe that considering everything we know about doping the ways to beat the tests, the fact that previous "anti doping poster boys" like Armstrong turned out to be doing it, the fact that all the other big guns in Cuddles era were doing it, the advantage epo gives, human nature and hunger for success, and the fact many dopers never test positive, you can beliueve that he is very likely to have been doing exactly what everyone of his competitors was doing.

Whatever you believe it is clear that b is clearly the most logical answer and usually the right one, but fanboy mentality does often get in the way of such things.

Hey! Can't ignore a guy who's heard of Occams Razor!! But you misrepresent it! The principle states that we should tend towards simpler theories until we can exchange some simplicity for increased powers of explanation. The advances in testing, both regarding timing and lab-equipment, cooperation with pharmaceutical industry, retro-testing of historic samples, double-ought investigations with multiple-pronged attacks on doping practices by customs officials, police, financial police, scientists and antidoping bodies etc. etc. represent just that increase in explanatory power that Occams razor deals with. Thus, some simple answers can now safely be done away with.
Sure, there's still blind spots, and sure, the human nature is what it is, thus we'll never eradicate doping completely, (sadly enough, among 500 tests performed on Italian amateur cyclists in the first half of 2010, almost 15% were positive!!!) but I'm utterly confident that Richie Porte's statement to the effect that todays peloton is cleaner (than before) is quite correct.

I haven't mentioned a happy bit of news from the antidoping community either. A tidbit that makes some of us smile.
The reappearing use of a drug that is so late-nineties, reveals the level of sophistication (or lack thereof) in some quarters. I won't say more, but it was smiles all around for a few days. More news to come.

 

[veganrob]

Hes australian. It might sound like im being facetious but im not. This is not the first time this argument has surfaced. A few months ago Marcus (something or other) said that Evans is clean because everyone knows Evans is clean. I kid you not. And he was being serious.

Ironically, I think if Cadel had actually won a GT there would be more suspicion of his doping. He has been somewhat erratic.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I don't get it. Evans isn't even particularly outspoken about doping, compared to others. What exactly makes him THE poster-child of drugfree athletes? There's no evidence of Evans doping, no particular reason to think he dopes or has doped other than inferences about what's possible for clean riders in the peloton in the 00s, but I don't see where this talk of him being beyond suspicion comes from. With Cunego or Moncoutié I can understand. Even with Hushovd. But Evans? Cadel is just another top level rider for whom no evidence exists one way or another. Nothing else. The only thing that sets him apart from Sastre is his passport (and I'm not talking about the biological kind here).

1) Does he have to be overly out spoken to be a clean rider?
2)Who is that outspoken about doping? Personally i see Evans' opinion of doping more rational and realistic than most. Porte is kinda right but I don't entirely agree.

Here is a shortened version of what was in his book about doping.

In everything we do in life there are people who cheat/look for the easy option , etc. In cycling, it is one of the MANY challenges we face as professionals.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Ironically, I think if Cadel had actually won a GT there would be more suspicion of his doping. He has been somewhat erratic.

Well done. Understatement of the year.

 

[D-Queued]

Ironically, I think if Cadel had actually won a GT there would be more suspicion of his doping. He has been somewhat erratic.

I love Cadel! Some of the best Tour moments ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzHDmQP014w&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrpL6BA6PBQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fe79ZuDKfk&feature=related

Erratic is right.

If we irradicate doping, will we lose priceless moments like these?

Dave.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I love Cadel! Some of the best Tour moments ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzHDmQP014w&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrpL6BA6PBQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fe79ZuDKfk&feature=related

Erratic is right.

If we irradicate doping, will we lose priceless moments like these?

Dave.

Some great logic is present here. Lets judge someone on 3 clips adding up to 1minute and 43 seconds of their life and yet you still fail to look at the other persons point of view.

 

[hrotha]

1) Does he have to be overly out spoken to be a clean rider?

Of course not. But he kind of has to be if he's to be regarded as "the poster-child of drugfree athletes."

My point is that there's no reason to single him out as a doper, but also no reason to single him out as a clean rider. We have nothing on him. Zilch. Nada.

 

[D-Queued]

Some great logic is present here. Lets judge someone on 3 clips adding up to 1minute and 43 seconds of their life and yet you still fail to look at the other persons point of view.

What did the 3 other people have to say about those incidents anyways?

C'mon, already. Those were all 'Finish Line' moments with scores of press around. Is he really that out of touch?

There are a few other post-stage funny clips:
1. Lance running into a pedestrian on purpose
2. The fight after the 2010 Stage
3. Triki (?) running away from the DCO after a 2008 stage (can't find the link)

But, these are all one-offs. No threepeat like our erratic friend.

Dave.

Dave.

 

[veganrob]

I am not condemning the guy at all. I was happy to see him win World Championship, show some balls for once.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Of course not. But he kind of has to be if he's to be regarded as "the poster-child of drugfree athletes."

My point is that there's no reason to single him out as a doper, but also no reason to single him out as a clean rider. We have nothing on him. Zilch. Nada.

Yes but the onus is on people to prove his guilt not that he is innocent which is why he should be given the benfit of the doubt going on your logic.

He has said stuff about Vinokourov, Valverde & landis. Why would he also make comments about AC or LA on their situations. With AC, he didn't say he was guilty but didn't say he was innocent like many others who are suppose to be anti doping (Millar). He just didn't want to get involved with it and look like a hypocrite so said I need to look at it more. With LA he said that this investigation will prove his guilt or innocence eitherway and that there will be no more investigations after this one.