Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[pihi42]

makes an arms race that renders opaque what real talent can achieve on a truly level playing field.

I am making philosophical inquries on these terms, "real talent" and "level playing field".
If you level out everything, the only difference then is the exact genetic makeup. So just scan the subjects, determine physiological parameters like max Vo2, FTP, etc. and you have the result.
What this does is really exactly the opposite - it only maximizes the influence of factors totally out of control of an individual (genetics) and minimizes the action potential (what subjects can really do to improve).
For me, as an engineer, a "playing field" consists of primarily clear rules and goals, and not so much of various limitations on where to innovate.
Competition is by definition an arms race. Denying it does not make things better.
I think rules are there to minimize health issues and to enable "fair play", but I don't see a clear line between things that are coloquially marked as "dope" and things that are viewed as "nutrition", "training methods" etc.
"Performance enhancing" definitiely does not constitute a line of any kind, since all one does with preparation is trying to enhance performance.
Besides a list of banned things, as a rule, I don't really see any other way. And what isn't on the list is not banned, therefore does not constitute "doping".
These are my personal views. I am eager to hear arguments to clarify or modify them; but so far I haven't heard any.

 

[Netserk]

I have two questions:

1. What would it look like if everybody was "clean" - that is, not using any banned things
2. How is it possible that only a single rider is using banned things. I know of no industry capable of keeping secrets - what competition does is quickly copied (or exposed if illegal). Is just one rider hiding it from everybody else? That has never happened before.

And just an honorable mention: the Zippf's law - it's a statistical thing. The top item on any list will be quite distant from 2nd thing on the list, given normal distributions.
Without math: look at past chess champions. No cheating possible - but there was one clear genius beating all the rest for most of the last 180 years.
Now there is cheating in chess - and even more panic about it than with cheating in sports - and it's quite self-correcting. Nobody wants to be beaten by a cheater.

So, I only see 2 possible states: either nobody is cheating, or everybody is. Anyway the playing field is level.

You raise general points that should apply at all time.

Why then was the distribution of strength so different 5 years ago? 10 years ago?

Well, if they are novel methods and not banned, then there is no cheating involved. I don't think they have to reveal their methods or am I wrong? Do they have to reveal all materials for aero stuff as well?
They are certainly not using EPO or some hard-banned chemistry from the list.
Do you want to ban everything? There is a thinking everyone should have the same equipment/training/everything. But then it's not a real competition, is it? I mean, sort of communism, no innovation.
We decided to ban some pharmacy for whatever reasons, but most stuff isn't banned.
And most stuff isn't available to everyone. That's the very essence of competition - to have an edge. To be innovative.

It seems like you don't know what is banned, I'd advise you to read up on it.

 

[Nick2413]

I am making philosophical inquries on these terms, "real talent" and "level playing field".
If you level out everything, the only difference then is the exact genetic makeup. So just scan the subjects, determine physiological parameters like max Vo2, FTP, etc. and you have the result.
What this does is really exactly the opposite - it only maximizes the influence of factors totally out of control of an individual (genetics) and minimizes the action potential (what subjects can really do to improve).
For me, as an engineer, a "playing field" consists of primarily clear rules and goals, and not so much of various limitations on where to innovate.
Competition is by definition an arms race. Denying it does not make things better.
I think rules are there to minimize health issues and to enable "fair play", but I don't see a clear line between things that are coloquially marked as "dope" and things that are viewed as "nutrition", "training methods" etc.
"Performance enhancing" definitiely does not constitute a line of any kind, since all one does with preparation is trying to enhance performance.
Besides a list of banned things, as a rule, I don't really see any other way. And what isn't on the list is not banned, therefore does not constitute "doping".
These are my personal views. I am eager to hear arguments to clarify or modify them; but so far I haven't heard any.

Do you support motors?

 

[pihi42]

Do you support motors?

Interesting you should ask that. I'm actually divided on use of electric motors for shifting gears. This is energy not coming from the rider and indirectly helps with energy management. For example, as we have seen in GCN reporting, the sailing competitions, using the motors for steering, actually have to power these motors by people driving generators.
So it's a matter of decision.
You probably asked if I'm for use of motors for driving the wheels themselves? Well that would change cycling into something else - and we already have that - the e-bike competitions.
What I'm saying is the rules are becoming larger and more detailed and specific.
Whatever the rules are, they should not be vague.
I'm actually going to read more about what is banned in cycling, specifically regarding so called "doping". Theoretically at least it seems to me, the term is sufficiently ill defined that it cannot be put into practice with any precision or effectiveness.

 

[pihi42]

You raise general points that should apply at all time.

Why then was the distribution of strength so different 5 years ago? 10 years ago?

I don't know. People might want to investigsate this.
But the reasoning "we don't know so it must be doping" is just bad thinking.

 

[E_F_]

One thing we can say is that the numbers produced by Pogacar this season are mightily impressive even if you believe that he is doping

One thing we can't say is that the numbers produced by Pogacar this season are mightily impressive even if you believe that he is motor-doping

I'm beginning to feel like it's more plausible than not... I don't really see how bio-doping is capable of producing these (jumps in) numbers.

 

[pihi42]

It seems like you don't know what is banned, I'd advise you to read up on it.

Ok, I checked the WADA anti-doping Code (very briefly).
The definition of "doping" in there is "violation of anti-doping rules".
Then the rules are defined.
Basically, there is a list of prohibited stuff, which also includes the problematic "what is not addressed with this list is prohibited".
The document itself is sufficiently complicated (also with exceptions) so that contadictory conditions can happen (as with for example therapeutic exemptions), the wording of prohibiting anything not approved by governing bodies for therapeutic use (jurisdictional issues), and of course a large (and growing) potential for unknowingly violating the rules by using products in general use.
The "all methods not approved" is also wery weak; what is a novel method, a variation of established method, an approved method used with different parameters, combinations, etc.
I'm sure (as is the case in the field of patent law, for example) there is sufficient maneouvering space to achieve what you want with enough resources (and lawyers), while at the same time inadvertendly banning people for eating something from a supermarket.
Anyway, I stand by the general questions: how to innovate and adhere to ever more complicated rules? Do the materials used on the skin, on the bycicle, in the helmets etc. pass the above rules? What is the point of preventing athletes from using stuff other people can (and do) use everyday? What is "level playing field" and the "spirit of sport"?

 

[Extinction]

I am making philosophical inquries on these terms, "real talent" and "level playing field".
If you level out everything, the only difference then is the exact genetic makeup. So just scan the subjects, determine physiological parameters like max Vo2, FTP, etc. and you have the result.
What this does is really exactly the opposite - it only maximizes the influence of factors totally out of control of an individual (genetics) and minimizes the action potential (what subjects can really do to improve).
For me, as an engineer, a "playing field" consists of primarily clear rules and goals, and not so much of various limitations on where to innovate.
Competition is by definition an arms race. Denying it does not make things better.
I think rules are there to minimize health issues and to enable "fair play", but I don't see a clear line between things that are coloquially marked as "dope" and things that are viewed as "nutrition", "training methods" etc.
"Performance enhancing" definitiely does not constitute a line of any kind, since all one does with preparation is trying to enhance performance.
Besides a list of banned things, as a rule, I don't really see any other way. And what isn't on the list is not banned, therefore does not constitute "doping".
These are my personal views. I am eager to hear arguments to clarify or modify them; but so far I haven't heard any.

Understood, however, you have a strange moral compass riddled with causistry. What's not banned is not doping, as Hinault once said, only if you live in world without "values" or understanding of what doping is. Dottore Conconi knew full well he was doping Moser with EPO at the 84 Mexico City hour record, even if the powerful performance enhancing drug was unknown at the time.

Philosophically speaking sport ideally should be about genetics over pharmachalogy and tech advantage (which, within the market construct, can't be regulated). The latter aspects have today distorted the playing field to such a degree that it's impossible to determine real values on the road. This has become so evident in modern sport, as the human factor becomes only one variable in the equasion, rendering it impossible to know how much genetics actually determines excellence.

Add in the economic factor necessary to gain full access to the sophisticated means of performance enhancement and we have entered the Matrix of sport, where alternative realities are fabricated to take the place of reality itself. This is why I scoff at performances backed by petrol dollars with a dubious management running the operation.

Scanning the subjects has been advocated, but has only lead to a biopassport that shifts attention away from pure values, allowing for acceptable discrepancies within a "controlled" doping regime. Within that regime, however, there are a wide range of performance benefits among riders, based on program and response, that cancels the effectiveness of the biopassport itself among riders with adequite medical support. This too costs a lot of money.

Nutrition is one thing and a legitimate means to maximize performance, but we all know this is just a requirement today for doping to achieve maximum effect. Unless you believe riders can eradicate the records of known past doped riders, who incidentally already were guided by nutritionists, as if powerful performance enhancing drugs never existed. Take Pantani and Armstrong, for example. Anyone, of course, is free to believe what they choose. I choose to accept that what we see is a distortion and then try to identify what seems tolerable and what becomes merely obscene.

 

[Raest]

Perfomance depends on a multitude of factors but broadly you can place pretty much every factor in one of two categories. Intrinsic (to the athlete) or extrinsic.
Intrinsic factos are predetermined. Physiological/anthropometric traits that someone is born with. Nothing can be done to change those. Only 1% of the population has a VO2 max value higher than 65 ml/kg/min and the average value for elite cyclists is around 78. You have zero chance of winning the TdF if it's not in the high 80s. Not much one can do about that.
The extrinsic factors though are modifiable. Technique, nutrition, strength, equipment, even psychology, all can be tampered with and modified. And now the question becomes "what modifications are allowed and what are not". And there is not a clear cut answer, as every such modification is (or can be) performance enhancing.
So I am not sure what the point of the discussion is?
Whether the line has be drawn fairly? Or whether there should be a line in the first place?

 

[yaco]

What would actually happen if a journalist went rogue and started doing some real journalism here? You’d think someone independent could at least give it a shot.

This requires investigative journalism which requires lots of resources and time spent chasing down the most problematic of leads. Sometimes, I think people live in a fantasy world and have no idea how the real world operates. Even if by chance you got a whistleblower this is still a long process and you may not not obtain eneough evidence to prove there is doping using prohibited substances.

 

[Netserk]

I don't know. People might want to investigsate this.
But the reasoning "we don't know so it must be doping" is just bad thinking.

And likewise, reasoning that ~"inequality and outliers are general phenomena and therefore normal --> there is nothing unusual about a very recent change in how much of an outlier the number one rider is" is just bad thinking.

 

[E_F_]

Yeah this is my actual syllogism, no joke:

We do not know whether or not they are doping.
If we de not know whether or not they are doping, then they are doping.
They are doping.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Understood, however, you have a strange moral compass riddled with causistry. What's not banned is not doping, as Hinault once said, only if you live in world without "values" or understanding of what doping is. Dottore Conconi knew full well he was doping Moser with EPO at the 84 Mexico City hour record, even if the powerful performance enhancing drug was unknown at the time.

Moser and Conconi/Ferrari used blood transfusions in 84, which weren't illegal at the time. I assume he used EPO for his 1994 attempt though.

 

[Raest]

I don't know. People might want to investigsate this.
But the reasoning "we don't know so it must be doping" is just bad thinking.

Not really. Cycling and aerobic capacity in general have been extensively studied, we have a pretty good idea of what should be physiologically possible and what should not.
7 Watts/kg for example for 40 minutes is unheard of, it has exceeded by far, anything that past, doped to the gills, champions have managed to do. So either we have a unicorn or a new doping method.
I, personally, don't believe in unicorns (as much as I'd want them to exist).

 

[Extinction]

Moser and Conconi/Ferrari used blood transfusions in 84, which weren't illegal at the time. I assume he used EPO for his 1994 attempt though.

Yes, this is what's generally assumed. At the time Conconi was financed by CONI to carry out his research on Olympic endurance athletes with EPO, the first generation. Strangely enough (wink, wink), CONI was also responsible, as it still is, for Italian anti-doping (see Valverde)

 

[ivanic]

I agree that it's certainly not specific to UAE and I'd say that Jumbo and Sky before them were indeed much more PR conscious in trying to force a certain narrative upon the public. To some extent the other teams have to hail Pogs brilliance or at worst ignore it because they are all inter linked and are eating from the same pie.

Jumbo for instance aren't going to complain publicly about Pogacars performances when they have produced the only rider who could live with him in the last 4 seasons. If he was dirty then what would that say about Vingegaard. The only response will be to try and figure out a new and better way of competing with him.

Even the riders much lower down the food chain benefit from the money that UAE and Pogacar help to generate. Those with the strongest principles will simply exit the sport.

Thibaut Pinot.



Tell me what else has to happen, all the human walls and the years of doping have been torn down by this guy. We continue to see absurd things and what happens?

We discuss and in two days everything is forgotten and we continue as if nothing had happened, now it's wrestling.

I think this forum is also read by professional cyclists, write here, write to some newspaper, write to Vayer, do something and reveal the substances.
Do you have dignity or are you only interested in 15k-30k a month?

 

[Nick2413]

If you want one, become one I'd say there seems to be some around already.
And if you want something it's better to try to do it yourself

You can take the credit for when Nick2413 from Cyclingnews ends up being the one to blow the lid off this whole thing

But actually… someone needs to step up

 

[Extinction]

Ok, I checked the WADA anti-doping Code (very briefly).
The definition of "doping" in there is "violation of anti-doping rules".
Then the rules are defined.
Basically, there is a list of prohibited stuff, which also includes the problematic "what is not addressed with this list is prohibited".
The document itself is sufficiently complicated (also with exceptions) so that contadictory conditions can happen (as with for example therapeutic exemptions), the wording of prohibiting anything not approved by governing bodies for therapeutic use (jurisdictional issues), and of course a large (and growing) potential for unknowingly violating the rules by using products in general use.
The "all methods not approved" is also wery weak; what is a novel method, a variation of established method, an approved method used with different parameters, combinations, etc.
I'm sure (as is the case in the field of patent law, for example) there is sufficient maneouvering space to achieve what you want with enough resources (and lawyers), while at the same time inadvertendly banning people for eating something from a supermarket.
Anyway, I stand by the general questions: how to innovate and adhere to ever more complicated rules? Do the materials used on the skin, on the bycicle, in the helmets etc. pass the above rules? What is the point of preventing athletes from using stuff other people can (and do) use everyday? What is "level playing field" and the "spirit of sport"?

You should become a lawyer and then a politician, forget engineering.

 

[Raest]

I can understand the reluctance among cycling journalists to rock the boat as these days most (if not almost all) of their revenue comes from ads. Most of those ads are placed by cycling sponsors. They'll be writing themselves out of a job.
Someone like Walsh who writes for Times, can afford to do it perhaps but on one hand there might not be the interest among his readership for him to go on another crusade, he might not want to go on another crusade and he didn't do his credibility any good when he cosied up to Team Sky.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Yes, this is what's generally assumed. At the time Conconi was financed by CONI to carry out his research on Olympic endurance athletes with EPO, the first generation. Strangely enough (wink, wink), CONI was also responsible, as it still is, for Italian anti-doping (see Valverde)

It was just because it sounded like you've gotten the timeline mixed up a bit.

 

[E_F_]

Yeah this is my actual syllogism, no joke:

We do not know whether or not they are doping.
If we de not know whether or not they are doping, then they are doping.
They are doping.

While I do actually as a rule suspect that there is probably doping going on in most sports most of the time this was in fact a joke - and suggesting that this is the reasoning behind our conviction that the Pogster et al. are megacheating is both disingenuous and insulting.

 

[Extinction]

This requires investigative journalism which requires lots of resources and time spent chasing down the most problematic of leads. Sometimes, I think people live in a fantasy world and have no idea how the real world operates. Even if by chance you got a whistleblower this is still a long process and you may not not obtain eneough evidence to prove there is doping using prohibited substances.

Mainstream journalism and the news have become mere entertainment, wholesale products of the corporate hegemon. Look at the capital portfolios of those who own the media outlets, think of Murdock and the late Berlusconi, which have penetrated into industries, including sport, upon which huge revenues are gained. There is thus a built-in conflict of interests to maintain the status quo, not rock the boat too much, as it's bad for business. Panem et circensis, oh yea baby!

 

[Extinction]

It was just because it sounded like you've gotten the timeline mixed up a bit.

No, it is you who have gotten the timeline mixed up: Moser did the Mexico City hour record in 84.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

No, it is you who have gotten the timeline mixed up: Moser did the Mexico City hour record in 84.

I was referring to the comment about them using EPO in 1984, which I have never heard before.
As far as I know, synthetic EPO hadn't been introduced to the market yet by that time, and Conconi's known "research" on its effects didn't take place until the early 90s. I therefore assumed you had made a mistake, unintentionally, of course.

 

[Extinction]

I was referring to the comment about them using EPO in 1984, which I have never heard before.
As far as I know, synthetic EPO hadn't been introduced to the market yet by that time, and Conconi's known "research" on its effects didn't take place until the early 90s. I therefore assumed you had made a mistake, unintentionally, of course.

No, it pre-dates that going back to the 84 Olympics and Moser's hour record. The relative investagative journalism is in Italian. Here is something, but with further research other, more specific, articles can be found.

IL CONI PAGAVA LA FABBRICA DEL DOPING? - Marco Gregoretti

Una "fabbrica" di super-atleti. Giovani promesse, ma anche sportivi in gara alle olimpiadi, "truccati" con sostanze mediche off-limits per lo sport. DOPING.

www.marcogregoretti.it

Francesco Conconi: ho fatto il Test

sportspoetssociety.blogspot.com