• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

So Suddenly the Tour is clean. Where did this idea come from

Page 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
kielbasa said:
Guys, yeah, if you lose a GT by 8 seconds, it can mean millions of dollars difference (huge!). But this being The Clinic and all, even so I don't see a GT contender doping for a gain of 4-5 W. Sorry, I just don't see it. Not getting stressed out by a fan, or skipping an interview is probably of more benefit.

Then again, maybe I'm just overestimating a pro rider's intelligence and in fact they do dope to gain 1% whilst picking fights with interviewers, partying late, and eating contaminated beef. After all, they think that getting a 2 second push from a support car actually makes a difference. :rolleyes:

Your 4-5 watts is based on what? A figure of 400watts? You probably exerted that while changing your tires.

If we say EPO provides a substantial or dare I say it huge performance boost, then what would a PED like clenbuterol be classed as (you can choose the adjective)?
Then ask yourself why would people take it?
 
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Your 4-5 watts is based on what? A figure of 400watts?
1% of 400-500w sustainable power estimate for a pro cyclist.
You probably exerted that while changing your tires.
Cute, but these days it would probably take an all out sprint. :eek:
If we say EPO provides a substantial or dare I say it huge performance boost, then what would a PED like clenbuterol be classed as (you can choose the adjective)?
Then ask yourself why would people take it?
Dunno, you're the doctor. Forgive me, because the only doping education I received was lurking right here in The Clinic, but there are blood thinners, masking agents, stimulants, and other substances that of their own do not provide a benefit at all. Do plasticisers give a benefit? :)
 
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
Depends on the personality of the Cyclist, IMHO.

Sleeping well ~ 0-1% (Relative to other elite cyclists)
Eating Well ~ 0-1% (Relative to other elite cyclists)
Doping Well ~ 5%-15% (Against Clean Riders)
Not Doping Well ~1-5% (Against Clean Riders)
Doping well between two Elite Cyclists ~ 0-2%
Doping well between a talented elite cyclists versus a less talented elite cyclist ~ ????
Bicycle Performance~ 0% (If all are in similar conditions)

I pulled these numbers out of my A... My main point is that everything is relative. Numbers can be big depending on its reference.:)

Did you leave this one in by mistake?

Making charitable donations ~ 15%+

:D
 
May 23, 2011
977
0
0
Visit site
Mrs John Murphy said:
While the TDF lacked mountain trains and superdoms, it looks to me like they are back in the Vuelta.

Wiggins' tranformation may challenge Armstrong's for incredulity. Add in the performance of the near forty year old Leipheimer and it is a wonder that anyone in cycling can keep a straight face when they talk about how much progress has been made.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Ok, where does the term "huge" fit in to science terminology?
A. It doesn't.

.
Actually it is rather common to apply semantics to statistics. Cohen's d uses the terms "small", "medium", "large" and the newer inference based statistical approach popularised by Will Hopkins uses terms such as "trivial", "likely", "very likely".

Linear Models and Effect Magnitudes for Research, Clinical and Practical Applications
Will G Hopkins
Sportscience 14, 49-57, 2010 (sportsci.org/2010/wghlinmod.htm)

Making Meaningful Inferences About Magnitudes
Alan M Batterham, Will G Hopkins
Sportscience 9, 6-13, 2005 (sportsci.org/jour/05/ambwgh.htm)

Will Hopkins invented this type of statistical approach specifically for application to elite sporting performance. Using p>0.05 is meaningless to a coach or an athlete because they are not interested in statistical significance, but rather whether or not a particular intervention is going to have a high enough probability that it will improve performance beyond the typical coefficient of variation.


@kielbasa: If you look at a wide range of event distances the CV for performance (for elite athletes) is around the 0.7-1.0% mark, so in general, >1.0% difference can be expected to make a real difference as opposed to just being natural variation. So I don't know if I would say that 1% is "huge" (because it is so close to the natural variation which is effected by things such as how you slept, whether you are fatigued, mentally stressed, the ambient temperature etc etc), but in general if I knew that something was going to make a 1% difference to performance then I would tell the coach it is worth it.
 
Damiano Machiavelli said:
Wiggins' tranformation may challenge Armstrong's for incredulity. Add in the performance of the near forty year old Leipheimer and it is a wonder that anyone in cycling can keep a straight face when they talk about how much progress has been made.

We've entered a new clean era just like we did in 1999, 2006, 2008 and now we've turned the corner for the fourth time in 2011.

I would mention Wiggins but his fans tend to be a big highly strung and a Wiggins is doped thread might cause a collective rise in blood pressure.
 
Dec 21, 2010
513
0
0
Visit site
Mrs John Murphy said:
We've entered a new clean era just like we did in 1999, 2006, 2008 and now we've turned the corner for the fourth time in 2011.

Which means we are back to where it all started in 1998, assuming all corners turned are the same direction...... :rolleyes:
 
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENe...es/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYxNw&LangId=1

Press Release: Tour de France 2011: last anti-doping tests all negative

29.08.2011


The Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF) has received the complete and final results of the tests carried out at the Tour de France 2011. The last samples received from the Châtenay-Malabry, Lausanne and Cologne laboratories all showed a negative result.

UCI President Pat McQuaid stated that «this excellent news further highlights the quality of the various anti-doping measures brought in by the UCI in recent years, especially the introduction of the biological passport. It also indicates that there has been a change of mentality and behaviour within the peloton. Our sport is on the right track and we will continue to use all means available to protect it».

Dr. Francesca Rossi, CADF Director, pointed out that there had been «an excellent cooperation between the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) and the laboratories which analyzed the samples. From a purely technical point of view, the outcome of the anti-doping activities at the Tour de France is very satisfying».

UCI Press Service
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Ferminal said:
Press Release: Tour de France 2011: last anti-doping tests all negative

29.08.2011

The Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF) has received the complete and final results of the tests carried out at the Tour de France 2011. The last samples received from the Châtenay-Malabry, Lausanne and Cologne laboratories all showed a negative result.

UCI President Pat McQuaid stated that «this excellent news further highlights the quality of the various anti-doping measures brought in by the UCI in recent years, especially the introduction of the biological passport. It also indicates that there has been a change of mentality and behaviour within the peloton. Our sport is on the right track and we will continue to use all means available to protect it».

Dr. Francesca Rossi, CADF Director, pointed out that there had been «an excellent cooperation between the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) and the laboratories which analyzed the samples. From a purely technical point of view, the outcome of the anti-doping activities at the Tour de France is very satisfying».

UCI Press Service

another edition of UCI fiction ;)
 
sniper said:

"It also indicates that there has been a change of mentality and behaviour within the peloton. Our sport is on the right track and we will continue to use all means available to protect it."

- Unless of course it’s a top ranking rider then you'll never hear of the positive but you can rest assured bottom feeders and medium rung riders will go down.
 
sniper said:
see sniper this is where we agree. When McQuaid comes out and says this whereas the biopassport team are saying that doping is still prevalent, then I take a press release for what it is.... a kiddy feelgood make believe story + bucket of salt. When the biopassport team says progress is being made and they back these statements up with published studies (note use of plural) in scientific journals, I'm more inclined to take notice and start believing that pro cycling might actually be heading in the right direction after 20yrs of blood boosting free for all mayhem.

The international skating union implemented a blood screening program a long time before the biopassport (around 2001-2002 I think?) and what is interesting is that 1 or 2 yrs after it was introduced the pattern of the blood profiles amongst the top 100 skaters changed in a fashion similar to what has happened in pro cycling in the last 2 yrs. The point here being that there is already a precedent, so it isn't some sort of coincidence that abnormal blood profiles are on the decrease following the introduction of the biopassport.

I can't wait for the day your guy wins the tdf because then at least I will know for sure that cycling is clean because you will say so ;)
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Mrs John Murphy said:
We've entered a new clean era just like we did in 1999, 2006, 2008 and now we've turned the corner for the fourth time in 2011.

I would mention Wiggins but his fans tend to be a big highly strung and a Wiggins is doped thread might cause a collective rise in blood pressure.
#defribilator

#stat

#scrubs

#ER_George_Clooney_so_sexy
 
Benotti69 said:
another edition of UCI fiction ;)

For those that might be new, some have like me and Benotti and others have no confidence that the UCI is in fact testing to catch anyone. The lack of results is not the result of an effective anti-doping program.

There are very well publicized cases of career dopers with no positives.
We know the UCI tried to suppress the Contador positive. How many positives did they supress this year?
We know the UCI seems to keep a suspicious list of riders, yet none get tested.
We know volume of testing is down for 2011 too.

That's just the short and incontrovertible list!
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Krebs cycle said:
see sniper this is where we agree. When McQuaid comes out and says this whereas the biopassport team are saying that doping is still prevalent, then I take a press release for what it is.... a kiddy feelgood make believe story + bucket of salt. When the biopassport team says progress is being made and they back these statements up with published studies (note use of plural) in scientific journals, I'm more inclined to take notice and start believing that pro cycling might actually be heading in the right direction after 20yrs of blood boosting free for all mayhem.

The international skating union implemented a blood screening program a long time before the biopassport (around 2001-2002 I think?) and what is interesting is that 1 or 2 yrs after it was introduced the pattern of the blood profiles amongst the top 100 skaters changed in a fashion similar to what has happened in pro cycling in the last 2 yrs. The point here being that there is already a precedent, so it isn't some sort of coincidence that abnormal blood profiles are on the decrease following the introduction of the biopassport.

I can't wait for the day your guy wins the tdf because then at least I will know for sure that cycling is clean because you will say so ;)

I am very open to the idea, and will even except the conclusion that it is now more difficult to dope full throttle than it was a couple of years ago, and yes, probably owing to the bloodpassport.
Though that would in itself be an important change to the better of the athlete's health, I remain very much in denial as far as the "change of mentality" is concerned.
McQuaid impersonates the old mentality of "no positive = no doping", you'll know that from the way he's defended armstrong and continues to ignore or even attack whistleblowers.
And McQuaid's still there, trying to sell us cookies.
Old = New = Old = No Change in Mentality

btw. I'm Dutch, so my favorites used to be guys in orange, but the day Geesink wins the Tour is the day that I will know for sure that he's doped to the gills.

Doping has pretty much robbed me of the excitement and thrill I used to have for the sport. I still watch it (though I'm certainly not a specialist), but the true excitement of the old days when watching a mountain stage in the Tour de France just isn't there anymore.
I hear similar commentaries alot lately, so it's turning into a cliché, which means that it's true for many people.

And I'm quite pessimistic when speaking about change, because I see a direct and strong causal relationship between money/revenues, and doping (not only in cycling, of course).
As long as the revenues keep going up, doping will be essential.
 
The problem is that a dichotomy exists between the UCI and the anti-doping community. The UCI pretends to embrace anti-doping in public but behind closed doors all sorts of corruption is occurring and they undermine the anti-doping researchers.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
For those that might be new, some have like me and Benotti and others have no confidence that the UCI is in fact testing to catch anyone. The lack of results is not the result of an effective anti-doping program.

There are very well publicized cases of career dopers with no positives.
We know the UCI tried to suppress the Contador positive. How many positives did they supress this year?
We know the UCI seems to keep a suspicious list of riders, yet none get tested.
We know volume of testing is down for 2011 too.

That's just the short and incontrovertible list!

And we also know that the UCI has accepted 'donations' from a TdF winner who allegedly tested positive for EPO in the TdS for a blood testing machine.

UCI should get a guest role on the Sopranos.
 
Aug 6, 2011
738
0
0
Visit site
Just wanted to note this: significant is not the same as effect size, although the significant has evolved to mean "a big effect". This discussion is actually everywhere in the bio-medical science scene. A significant difference just means that the statistics show that it's very probable that the two conditions differ, it doesn't however say that the difference is worth cheering for as significance is not a (direct) measure of effect size.

Would athletes dope for a 5% change in performance (effect size)? If they consider doping an option, I believe they would. Within bike design, a lot of money is invested into even smaller gains. Chasing every advantage that you can, will make you total increase of performance larger. When performance is your goal, you'll seek out every possibility to do so. Training different for a 4% edge? Reducing drag by 1% by adjusting you position? Using a different lubricant to reduce chain friction by 0.5%? Taking EPO to elevate your blood's oxygen saturation by a minute percent? Why not?

---

Back to the question whether this Tour was clean. I believe not. Was it cleaner than previous year? I don't know. The UCI is not transparent enough to judge whether the out-of-competition doping tests are well performed or certain cyclist are not protected. I don't see a lot of empirical evidence for a cleaner tour than last year.
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
And we also know that the UCI has accepted 'donations' from a TdF winner who allegedly tested positive for EPO in the TdS for a blood testing machine.

UCI should get a guest role on the Sopranos.

but it's naive to even suppose an entity can regulate itself irrespective of whether it's a sporting entity, a financial entity, etc. As for corruption, Duggan and Levitt's study of Sumu wrestling ("Winning Isn't Everything: Corruption in Sumo Wrestling") pretty much says it all; wherever incentives structures exist, there will be cheating/corruption even in the presence of the strongest possible anti-cheating norms.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
mastersracer said:
but it's naive to even suppose an entity can regulate itself irrespective of whether it's a sporting entity, a financial entity, etc. As for corruption, Duggan and Levitt's study of Sumu wrestling ("Winning Isn't Everything: Corruption in Sumo Wrestling") pretty much says it all; wherever incentives structures exist, there will be cheating/corruption even in the presence of the strongest possible anti-cheating norms.

i am not naive, where there are humans there will be corruption. But why sit back and accept it? We must demand it is not acceptable. Make it the minority who can get away with corruption not the majority and put n place sanctions for those caught that make others think twice about taking the same road.