Should JV and DM be steering cycling wrt cleaning it up?

[Don Quixote]

Zinoviev thanks for your points.

Perhaps zero tolerance isn't the way. If Teams have to pay for additional risk, the sport will naturally move in a clean direction.

You're right, if a rider really wants to dope he will still dope. But if he's caught and doesn't make full disclosure he will be responsible for the downfall of his team, and all the livelihoods associated with it.

Would he choose to betray his whole team and never ride again, or a doctor and just get 6 months?

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Any thoughts?

Insurance companies are not interested in fairness, or in anti-doping. They are interested in profit.

This means that no insurance company would insure a cycling team against the possibility of a rider doping, and certainly not with a payout capable of covering the consequences of a year's suspension for the whole team, without it being prohibitively expensive. I suspect that no insurance company would do it at all, as given the history of the sport it looks like a very bad bet for them, but if some could be found they would charge an absolute fortune.

Secondly, insurance companies are not going to give a **** if they treat some rider unfairly. You would make the profit motive of these private corporations into the arbiter of a rider's career prospects, when in fact those private corporations would be entirely indifferent to whether or not any particular rider is unfairly screwed over. If they assess a rider wrongly in a manner that renders him unemployable they would have no reason to care, given that they will be insuring his replacement anyway.

The whole schema essentially amounts to saying that the invisible hand of the market will fix everything if only it's let do so. I find that approximately as convincing in cycling as I do in every other field of human activity.

Not that it matters, of course, because there is absolutely zero chance of this happening.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

You're right, if a rider really wants to dope he will still dope. But if he's caught and doesn't make full disclosure he will be responsible for the downfall of his team, and all the livelihoods associated with it.

Would he choose to betray his whole team and never ride again, or a doctor and just get 6 months?

You are essentially relying on the moral uprightness of people who've just been caught doping. I don't think that's a good idea.

To go back to the example I used earlier, one of the most frequently caught type of doper is the rider who has lost his contract and is doping to help find a new one. Such a rider may well be very badly disposed towards his team and will know that he isn't getting back into the pro ranks regardless of the length of his suspension because he wasn't good enough to begin with and certainly isn't good enough for a team to take over a new prospect after he's been caught.

Why is this guy going to cooperate?

 

[Don Quixote]

Insurance companies are not interested in fairness, or in anti-doping. They are interested in profit.

I know.

This means that no insurance company would insure a cycling team against the possibility of a rider doping, and certainly not with a payout capable of covering the consequences of a year's suspension for the whole team, without it being prohibitively expensive.

If you have a dirty past? I know.

I suspect that no insurance company would do it at all, as given the history of the sport it looks like a very bad bet for them, but if some could be found they would charge an absolute fortune.

Insurance companies are not interested in fairness, or in anti-doping. They are interested in profit.


Secondly, insurance companies are not going to give a **** if they treat some rider unfairly. You would make the profit motive of these private corporations into the arbiter of a rider's career prospects, when in fact those private corporations would be entirely indifferent to whether or not any particular rider is unfairly screwed over. If they assess a rider wrongly in a manner that renders him unemployable they would have no reason to care, given that they will be insuring his replacement anyway.

Did you actually bother to read my post?

The whole schema essentially amounts to saying that the invisible hand of the market will fix everything.

It often does.


Not that it matters, of course, because there is absolutely zero chance of this happening.

So go spend your time more constructively on another thread

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr Maserati - thanks for the feedback, not sure if this makes sense:

How the system would work in practice wrt (ii-v):

Teams would insure themselves against this risk.

Each rider would carry his own risk profile based on factors the insurers would no doubt decide - they are pretty good at risk assessment.

Factors possibly affecting a riders risk profile, and corresponding premium:

Past doping convictions.

Previous associations with suspect teams and doctors.

Age.

Year of contract.

Substantial team discounts maybe available for:

Full team release of 12 month blood data.

As you can see, it's simply more expensive for Teams to employ ex-doped or suspect riders because they carry more risk.

If riders want to lie about their history when they're risk assessed, they're committing insurance fraud. If the Teams are turning a blind eye - they are taking a very large gamble indeed.

Pulling a Frei - The Team still loses its licence. Do you think it would legally be a difficult condition of the licence to enforce?

The other side is - what happens if a rider is found by the team to have doped, but not by the ADA? We can call this the Sky dilemma- there needs to be a way that a team would not be punished for removing that rider

If a Team discovers something they would be legally obliged to make disclosure to the insurers. Also a licence condition would also be to notify the ADA. There would be no Team punishment in this scenario.

However - there needs to be some protection for riders too (the Gusev dilemma) - where a team cannot just fire or remove someone by suggesting they doped (by error, or worse by deceit)

If a rider is unhappy with his risk rating, he could argue his case with the insurer. Perhaps he could reduce his premium by individually releasing all his blood data and volunteering for extra controls/testing.

Any thoughts?

Loads!!

The insurance angle is very interesting. The only minor point is that it puts a lot of the burden on the rider (the individual) - but I suppose a positive would also have consequences on the team policy?? Which could be easily done - and would cover all angles (pun intended)
I will reflect a bit more on it - but keep it coming. Great stuff.


My own view or theory is- where teams are currently part of the World Tour on results, points, ethics etc - make it solely on ethics.
Points and results only encourage doping, as illustrated by the AG2R rider last week.

Firstly - I think the riders deserve to be treated in a safe, fair environment and get well paid and paid on time. This is often not the case.
So the teams must submit proper accounts (etc etc) and pay on time, every-time - then you are given a load of points.
However, you lose points if you miss a payment etc - but you lose a huge amount if someone on the team is found doping, not just the riders - any employee, soigneur, DS, doctor etc. Obviously the rider/employee is punished but basically, have 2 positives within a short period and the team will lose its licence.
It punishes the team management, which would encourage them to be pro-active. Also it would encourage athletes not to turn a blind eye on doping teammates - and breaks the omerta.
Any thoughts?

 

[Don Quixote]

Loads!!

The insurance angle is very interesting. The only minor point is that it puts a lot of the burden on the rider (the individual) - but I suppose a positive would also have consequences on the team policy?? Which could be easily done - and would cover all angles (pun intended)
I will reflect a bit more on it - but keep it coming. Great stuff.


My own view or theory is- where teams are currently part of the World Tour on results, points, ethics etc - make it solely on ethics.
Points and results only encourage doping, as illustrated by the AG2R rider last week.


Firstly - I think the riders deserve to be treated in a safe, fair environment and get well paid and paid on time. This is often not the case.
So the teams must submit proper accounts (etc etc) and pay on time, every-time - then you are given a load of points.

And/or Teams should also be obliged to pay into a rider welfare fund that provides financial, medical and legal assistance to riders. Great point.


However, you lose points if you miss a payment etc - but you lose a huge amount if someone on the team is found doping, not just the riders - any employee, soigneur, DS, doctor etc. Obviously the rider/employee is punished but basically, have 2 positives within a short period and the team will lose its licence.
It punishes the team management, which would encourage them to be pro-active. Also it would encourage athletes not to turn a blind eye on doping teammates - and breaks the omerta.

Agreed, how about awarding bonus points to teams making available blood data? Like a significant number of points, not just a token gesture.

Any thoughts?

Yes, you're proposing the carrot half - totally agree that it's required.

QUOTE]

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

If you have a dirty past? I know.

If you have a dirty past. If there is some "risk factor" present which makes it look like you have a dirty past, even if you don't. Or just generally if you are a professional cyclist, something which any reasonable person would regard as a massive risk factor in and of itself.

Insurance companies are not interested in fairness, or in anti-doping. They are interested in profit.

Which means that their behaviour and attitudes will often run counter to behaviour and attitudes advocated by people who actually are interested in things like fairness or anti-doping.

Did you actually bother to read my post?

Yes, and in particular I read your Pollyannaish remarks about how wronged riders could negotiate with their insurance company for better treatment.

It often does

Only if you have no interest in the people the invisible hand slaps around.

So go spend your time more constructively on another thread

No thanks.

 

[Don Quixote]

If you have a dirty past. If there is some "risk factor" present which makes it look like you have a dirty past, even if you don't. Or just generally if you are a professional cyclist, something which any reasonable person would regard as a massive risk factor in and of itself.



Which means that their behaviour and attitudes will often run counter to behaviour and attitudes advocated by people who actually are interested in things like fairness or anti-doping.



Yes, and in particular I read your Pollyannaish remarks about how wronged riders could negotiate with their insurance company for better treatment.



Only if you have no interest in the people the invisible hand slaps around.



No thanks.

Sounds to me like you're wailing from an ex-dopers perspective at how unfair it would all be.

The sport is shot. Open your eyes. Read the news.

It needs a radical overhaul that makes it unprofitable to dope. End of.

To repeat the only salient point you made (by mistake) - let the invisible hand of the market fix it.

 

[arjanh]

The other side is - what happens if a rider is found by the team to have doped, but not by the ADA? We can call this the Sky dilemma- there needs to be a way that a team would not be punished for removing that rider

Why not having the team hand over the evidence to the ADA?

One angle I haven't seen so far: why not make a rider pay a year's worth of salary as a fine if he's not forthcoming? That money could go to the ADA or WADA to fund more testing.

 

[Don Quixote]

Yesterday: On the "A Dave Millar thread"

Originally Posted by coinneach
Millar has shifted his position on Pat Mc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20034768

"Regarding the UCI, there needs to be change. Some will not resign, so they will have to be removed. If they don't and there isn't a change then it would have to be forced upon them.

Should UCI president Pat McQuaid resign? I dont know. He has to distance himself from former UCI chief Hein Verbruggen and accept the past. We have to get rid of Verbruggen as honorary president. "

OK, its not a big shift, but its sure not support.

No shift. He's basically saying that, if Pat distances himself from Hein, THEN he doesn't have to resign. But he doesn't know if Pat will do that, so the answer to "Should Pat resign?" is "I don't know".

Which is what he's been saying from the start, and it sickens me.

Today on the "Teams want independent investigation of UCI " thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by IFRider
Who's saying that?

I did. From Matt Slaters tweets OP:

The teams want an independant body to examine the UCIs anti-doping record. The teams have moved on, but the perception hasn't.

Ie. the focus in cycling is being drawn back to previous eras because the UCI failed to deal with doping correctly at the time.

This is creating an image problem, rather than indicating a doping problem.

ergo "We're all clean, we just have an image problem courtesy the UCI"

Did I understand it wrong?

Edit: If I believed the main problem facing cycling was a perception of doping, rather than doping itself I would applaud the actions. But I don't.

It's like JV and DM often say one thing and mean something else.

Jonathan Vaughters‏@Vaughters

I'm gonna do one of those lame "in case you missed it" tweets. It's important to me this gets out there. Written in1999
http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/jonathan-vaughters-crossing-the-line/

See what I mean?

Thus, perhaps JV could clarify - In his opinion, is the perception of doping in cycling the problem, or is doping in cycling the problem? As I'm sure he'll agree - there's a world of difference.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

JV only cares about the perception.

eg: apparently David Millar is not a GT-capable rider, does not recover well in GTs, and therefore misses out on the plasma volume expansion phenomenon coz he is not recovering well enough to have it.

Therefore his Hct goes up during a GT. But that's perfectly fine coz JV knows this and says so on Twitter.

He said things like, pros would be expanded from January - as if they ride full-gas all year and never have down-time.

I pointed out that in 2001, Millar had a pretty successful Vuelta, but this seemed to be the final straw and he blocked me from twitter.

Here's Millar's 2001 Vuelta. Looks pretty good for a non-GT rider to me...

30/09/2001 GTr [Esp] 32 Vuelta a España, Mountains classification 0
30/09/2001 GTr [Esp] 6 Vuelta a España, Points classification 10
30/09/2001 GT [Esp] 41 Vuelta a España 25
30/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 3 Vuelta a España, Stage 21 : Madrid - Madrid I.T.T. 35
29/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 73 Vuelta a España, Stage 20 : Guadalajara - Alto de Abantos 0
28/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 106 Vuelta a España, Stage 19 : Cuenca - Guadalajara 0
27/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 41 Vuelta a España, Stage 18 : Albacete - Cuenca 0
26/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 135 Vuelta a España, Stage 17 : Murcia - Albacete 0
25/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 134 Vuelta a España, Stage 16 : Alcoy - Murcia 0
23/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 108 Vuelta a España, Stage 15 : Valencia - Alto de Aitana 0
22/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 75 Vuelta a España, Stage 14 : Tarragona - Vinaroz 0
21/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 21 Vuelta a España, Stage 13 : Andorra - Salou (Port Aventura) 0
20/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 16 Vuelta a España, Stage 12 : Ordino (And) - Estació d'Ordino-Arcalís (And) I.T.T. 0
19/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 26 Vuelta a España, Stage 11 : Alp - Estació de Pal (And) 0
18/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 23 Vuelta a España, Stage 10 : Sabadell - La Molina 0
16/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 8 Vuelta a España, Stage 9 : Logroño - Zaragoza 3
15/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 12 Vuelta a España, Stage 8 : Reinosa - Alto de la Cruz de la Demanda 0
14/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 8 Vuelta a España, Stage 7 : Torrelavega - Torrelavega I.T.T. 3
13/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 1 Vuelta a España, Stage 6 : Cangas de Onis - Torrelavega 70
12/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 46 Vuelta a España, Stage 5 : Gijon - Lagos de Covadonga 0
11/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 31 Vuelta a España, Stage 4 : Leon - Gijon 0
10/09/2001 GTs [Esp] leader Vuelta a España, Stage 3 : Valladolid - Leon 20
10/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 19 Vuelta a España, Stage 3 : Valladolid - Leon 0
9/09/2001 GTs [Esp] leader Vuelta a España, Stage 2 : Salamanca - Valladolid 20
9/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 9 Vuelta a España, Stage 2 : Salamanca - Valladolid 2
8/09/2001 GTs [Esp] leader Vuelta a España, Stage 1 : Salamanca - Salamanca I.T.T. 20
8/09/2001 GTs [Esp] 1 Vuelta a España, Stage 1 : Salamanca - Salamanca I.T.T. 70

I'd also like to understand how someone with no recovery and no plasma expansion manages to win Stage 12 of this year's Tour de France. You'd think he'd be so poorly recovered by then he'd be out the back, not off the front. Meh. What would I know, I'm just a bone-idle, lazy vanker conspiracy monkey.

 

[slowup_fastdown]

I read the thread title and immediately thought "Why the hell would you want Denis Menchov for this role?!". Slow up and slow uptake I guess.

 

[Frosty]

I pointed out that in 2001, Millar had a pretty successful Vuelta, but this seemed to be the final straw and he blocked me from twitter.

Here's Millar's 2001 Vuelta. Looks pretty good for a non-GT rider to me...

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that he had a suspect performance in the race where he says he first took epo?

 

[Don Quixote]

I read the thread title and immediately thought "Why the hell would you want Denis Menchov for this role?!". Slow up and slow uptake I guess.

Not at all, things are rarely as they seem

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that he had a suspect performance in the race where he says he first took epo?

JV says David Millar is not a GT rider. That he does not recover well in GTs, as explained by the lack of plasma expansion - in fact he is arguing there is plasma contraction, as Millar's Hgb goes up in the 2008 Tour.

I say Millar's 2001 Vuelta performance looks too good for a non-GT performer. In particular, he comes 3rd in the final TT.

If you're not recovering well during a GT, how do you manage to win Stage 12 at the Tour de France? That's 11 stages of low or no recovery.

CaptaintBag brought up the issue from Millar's 2008 blood values. One of the captain's observations is every time there's an anomaly, there's an interesting explanation.

So far we have:
Giro - everyone tested high. When asked if he could supply another rider from his own team to verify this, he says he could. But does not.

Millar - not a "GT" rider so no recovery and hence Hct goes up in a Tour, not the expected down. So captain asks,

https://twitter.com/captaintbag1/status/260081232006750208
@Vaughters @mendip5000 @pjakma for correlation does zabriskie follow the same pattern as millar ie lack uv volume expansion ?

And we get no reply.

In both cases, JV is claiming something external to the rider to explain the rider's (IMO anomalous) blood values.

In both cases, JV could verify / backup / prove his claim, using data readily available to him because he had 8 other riders in the peloton at the time.

So far: nada.

ETA: we have data from 2008 for DM, but he's been riding for 5 years now. Show us the all the other GTs he rode with no plasma expansion. Simple. The most vocal anti-doping rider of the last decade hell-bent on cleaning up cycling should release his blood values.

 

[Frosty]

My point is that the 2001 Vuelta is where Millar says he first started using EPO so it is inadvisable to use those performances to try and work out what his clean performances would be like.

Not sure what winning stage 12 proves either. He wasnt in the highest quality break ever.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

My point is that the 2001 Vuelta is where Millar says he first started using EPO so it is inadvisable to use those performances to try and work out what his clean performances would be like.

Not sure what winning stage 12 proves either. He wasnt in the highest quality break ever.

JV is basically saying Millar does not recover, therefore no plasma expansion. Millar then wins Stage 12. Or comes 3rd in a final GT TT. It's not the break that's the problem, it's the fact that a rider who does not recover is riding in the Tour for 11 days, then getting in a break then winning.

Either way, it's pretty easy to prove - just show us the following year's values, and values from another rider who is also not a "GT" rider.

2009 he wins the final TT of the Vuelta. Is he just having a holiday for the previous 3 weeks? This after riding half a Giro, and all of the Tour de France.

He was pristine clean in 2009.

 

[Frosty]

JV is basically saying Millar does not recover, therefore no plasma expansion. Millar then wins Stage 12. Or comes 3rd in a final GT TT. It's not the break that's the problem, it's the fact that a rider who does not recover is riding in the Tour for 11 days, then getting in a break then winning.

Either way, it's pretty easy to prove - just show us the following year's values, and values from another rider who is also not a "GT" rider.

2009 he wins the final TT of the Vuelta. Is he just having a holiday for the previous 3 weeks? This after riding half a Giro, and all of the Tour de France.

He was pristine clean in 2009.

Ok so you acknowledge that taking a doped performance and saying that it shows he isnt clean isnt the greatest insight ever

Not sure what chats you have been having with JV but it looks like Millar was actually on a holiday for much of the Vuelta looking at his results. Maybe taking it easy for the final TT. He can struggle sometimes at the end of GTs though, in 2011 he was off the back of the autobus early on the alpe d'huez stage.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ok so you acknowledge that taking a doped performance and saying that it shows he isnt clean isnt the greatest insight ever

No. I was simply pointing out he rode a GT well in the past. It's got nothing to do with being clean or not, but whether you recover. I am not arguing whether he is clean, so your point here is irrelevant.

Does someone recover (ie does plasma volume expand) when they are racing in the Tour de France. JV says no.

Nothing to do with being clean. Purely physiological response to racing at the Tour.

Not sure what chats you have been having with JV but it looks like Millar was actually on a holiday for much of the Vuelta looking at his results. Maybe taking it easy for the final TT. He can struggle sometimes at the end of GTs though, in 2011 he was off the back of the autobus early on the alpe d'huez stage.

Really? On a holiday in 2009? After riding half a Giro and a full TdF - again keeping in mind the discussion is, "Does this rider recover during a GT?" And he wins the final TT.

And then you say he's off the back of the autobus in 2011 - not a holiday that year? Really not following.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Here's what Robert Millar says, right now:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/the-bare-minimum
Want to know who was juiced? That's easy – just ask to see their blood levels . Before EPO, the haematocrit norm would have been around 40-42%, gradually reducing as a grand tour went on.

In 2008 Tour, David Millar's Hct went UP.

JV says that's coz Millar is not a GT rider and doesn't recover well and doesn't therefore have plasma expansion and therefore his Hct doesn't go down.

 

[Don Quixote]

It is a rather different story for David Millar - the Vuelta is his third Grand Tour this year alone. The Garmin man has previously voiced his concerns, complaining that Giro d'Italia selection was not part of his planned schedule.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...n-and-ireland-well-represented-in-vuelta.html

Came 2nd in the ITT Stage 7 behind Spartacus.

Will look closer, interesting.

 

[ElChingon]

Here's what Robert Millar says, right now:



In 2008 Tour, David Millar's Hct went UP.

JV says that's coz Millar is not a GT rider and doesn't recover well and doesn't therefore have plasma expansion and therefore his Hct doesn't go down.

Shouldn't he be giving a medical leave of absence due to this health issue and pulled from racing? I mean, they want health checks and balances this to me should be cause to pull him from racing by a direct health concern.

Nagh, let him race and if it hampers him health-wise lets deal with that later when they can sue or pull the health post racing card on the governing bodies, but not now while he can still race and try to pick up a few wins and ProTour points

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Shouldn't he be giving a medical leave of absence due to this health issue and pulled from racing? I mean, they want health checks and balances this to me should be cause to pull him from racing by a direct health concern.

Nagh, let him race and if it hampers him health-wise lets deal with that later when they can sue or pull the health post racing card on the governing bodies, but not now while he can still race and try to pick up a few wins and ProTour points

You'd think so, yes.

Even more telling when Millar says Giro was not originally on his planned schedule. JV management at its finest. And people say no way would JV make Lowe race the Tour under/over done - Millar is part owner of Garmin and having to race an unscheduled GT. What say would a neo-pro have in when and where he races. Good grief.

 

[blackcat]

Should JV and DM be steering cycling wrt cleaning it up?



What ship?

The Titanic?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I respect their wherewithal, but they shouldn't steer the ship as long as they are associated with Garmin or any team in competition. Same goes with who ever does lead the ship out of the storm.

Has to be led by an independent entity