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

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
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.

no disagreement here, however, it is exceedingly hard to know how to implement that, since the UCI has such a conflict of interest (and is either corrupt or incompetent depending on how you view it). It's also deeply problematic that the IOC is so deeply intertwined with WADA, since that also a fundamental conflict of interest. According to reports, over 2,000 athletes should have been barred from participating in the Beijing Olympics because their country had not implemented the WADA codex (including Russia). The IOC ignored their own rule and allowed them to participate. Then there's corruption at the national cycling federation level (Spain is a good example). Not clear what sort of institutional structure would be effective...
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
mastersracer said:
no disagreement here, however, it is exceedingly hard to know how to implement that, since the UCI has such a conflict of interest (and is either corrupt or incompetent depending on how you view it). It's also deeply problematic that the IOC is so deeply intertwined with WADA, since that also a fundamental conflict of interest. According to reports, over 2,000 athletes should have been barred from participating in the Beijing Olympics because their country had not implemented the WADA codex (including Russia). The IOC ignored their own rule and allowed them to participate. Then there's corruption at the national cycling federation level (Spain is a good example). Not clear what sort of institutional structure would be effective...

The way the federation is governing the sport nothing is gonna change. It needs to come from the top down and that does not look like it is gonna change anytime soon. In cycling we have the situation of top teams being DS'ed by former dopers, Bruyneel, Riis even JV so how do we break this cycle, with tougher sanctions is my opinion. Those caught doping for a 2nd time banned from the sport for life. Which means Riis would still be allowed to DS, Bruyneel was he ever caught? But teams get a 3 strikes then your out of the pro peloton. Making it extreme and then we will see a serious attitude to anti doping. Make it a collective responsibility for riders, DS soigneurs, mechanics etc....
Also make anti doping stretch to federations with sanctions for those running those federations etc...
 
Mar 19, 2011
334
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
I think this Tour was cleaner overall. However I'm not sure about cycling in general. Earlier in the season we had disturbing climbs to Huy, Arrate, Kapelmuur and Sierra Road. The Tour, however, has the means to fight against doping more efficiently, and the AFLD was involved. Could it be that dopers have to be more careful during the Tour, ironically making it one of the cleanest big races? That's a possibility.

The numbers (times and watts) suggest the top guys are indeed going slower. As of late there's been a lot of emphasis put on what watts/kg ratios are possible while clean, and going above them is mighty suspicious. But then there's another side to that: the usual contenders may have to remain within these human limits, but nothing stops a lesser rider from rising from middle of the pack to great but human levels. This would be a sinister explanation for the close racing that has been praised as a sign of cleanliness.

That scenario would still allow the natural talents to shine, though. The general trend of improving French performances is probably a good sign in that regard, but "French cycling is cleaner" is not an absolute truth that will always apply, and I'm afraid the French and others may have become too complacent and lowered their guards. The improvement would be expected in a cleaner peloton if the French were indeed, as a rule, clean(er) these past few years (and all the data seems to suggest that), but that doesn't mean some particularly outstanding performances aren't suspicious. When whole teams perform above expectations, it makes you wary. Some French team might have decided they've had enough of being largely irrelevant and, on top of that, being mocked for not winning big races, while no one else followed their lead in anti-doping matters. It's always a possibility.

These two scenarios combined mean that we wouldn't be able to look at hard data, watt figures or climbing times to pinpoint outlandish performances, because they all would be within human limits. A top-class clean rider could produce 5.8 W/kg in the final climb of a mountain stage, but some guy doing it might still be doping to raise his power from a natural 5.4 W/kg or whatever.

So, to summarize, I think this Tour got clean enough that a very talented clean rider could compete, but there's still dark shadows overhead.

How do you work that out?
 
Mar 19, 2011
334
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
It's an estimate. The actual figure is not important to the discussion.

Well, an actual figure should be important in the discussion if that determines which elite riders are doping and which aren't.

But how can you come up with such value, whatever it is. How do you know your control specimens are not doping? What or who is your reference point?
 
Albatros said:
Well, an actual figure should be important in the discussion if that determines which elite riders are doping and which aren't.

But how can you come up with such value, whatever it is. How do you know your control specimens are not doping? What or who is your reference point?
If you read my post, you'll see my point was that no figure would allow us to determine who isn't doping.

To your second paragraph: there's physiological barriers which are for the experts to find. Currently there's no answer that will satisfy you, although 6.2 W/kg as the asbolute upmost limit for a medium MTF is a commonly agreed figure among many experts who of course can be suspect as they are very involved in pro cycling.
 
Mar 20, 2009
406
0
0
Visit site
jilbiker said:
I don't agree that that Cadel is the first clean rider to win the TDF. Lets do the numbers
1/ Cadel in the past years has cracked on tough mountains. he has not held it with the pure climbers
2/ Cadel has not lasted more than 2 weeks on other TDF or Giro. His last week has seen an exhausted athlete.
3/ Cadel was right in front in the first week competing with the sprinters and in the last week hanging with the climbers including attacking and leading the chase.
4/ At 34 Cadel is able to recover in the way he couldn't in his 20's??

Everything points to juice. At 34, just say whatever and go for it, if they catch me I don't care, I won the tour and I can retire at 34.

I will overlook this one, better him than AS in yellow...but don't be back at 35...don't push it.
im not a cadel fan. but you're pretty wrong on all counts. are you just blinded by being a cadelhater