"I'll say to the people who don't believe, the cynics and the sceptics: I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles." - some cyclist.
-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
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.
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.
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.
The access to the best substances and methods is limited to a select few due either to political influence within the sport or being on the cutting edge scientifically, or both. Even in Armstrong’s years when we know it was widespread he also benefited from a combination of those 2 principles. The last few years especially point to new substances or methods that not everyone is aware of or has access to even among the dopers.
The point about normal distributions is worth noting but I’d argue we’re seeing only a partial normal distribution with a statistical anomaly of outliers beyond what would be expected, as in a small group of riders far better than the rest, not a gradual tailing off, more of a separate cluster.
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.
Hard disagree. The human body isn't an F1 engine that needs to be experimented on with drugs and substances that endanger the rider. And we know that riders will do anything, so they need to be protected from themselves. Not to mention the lack of fair competition.
Thanks! A very interesting read. I think the author did a good job putting into words a sort of high-brow version of the celebratory narrative. The goat, and all that, but with longer words.
To me the discussion of doping didn't read as a serious one though. Rather it was included either to just cover all bases, or to be dismissed as noise or nuisance via whichever route. His was aesthetics.
What he cannot explain away is that performances always imply an underlying physiology. As the article posted by extinction shows, the numbers were sky high (no pun intended). I mean first 5w/kg normalised for 4hrs and then start racing... 5-10min stints into 7,5-
8w/kg territory, etc.
Either Pog is genetically the superman he has been portrayed to be, but actually even better, because he found a way to bump up his level yet again this year; or he has an absolute gear advantage (also includes porridge and the like) in the current context. Combinations exist, but one of the factors is going to dominate when all is said.
Unfortunately both explanations are of the black box kind as of now. On the other hand there is the context: what is the likelihood of pulling off performances like that without porridge? Not very high, unless you believe in unicorns.
Regardless of whether he is doping or not, personally I find it perplexing that so many find utter domination aesthetically pleasing.
Last edited:
To the first bolded, using a substance before it is banned does not meet the ethical requirements of fairplay, for which the substance eventually gets banned. For example, this was the case with EPO, which wasn't publically discussed until Johannes Draaijer of the Netherlands was presumed to have died from the drug in 1990. Initially, following being made illegal, there was no test to reveal EPO in the blood. So the doctors figured out ways to keep the hematocrit level below the 50% limit for health reasons. In short, EPO flooded the peloton, but so long as you kept your blood values in line "no infringement" of the rules had occured. Of course, the performance advantage gained remained the same.
When EPO remained accessible to only but a few, although not yet banned, it still constituted doping in terms of physical enhancement. When EPO became widespread, although banned, it was undetectable at first and so riders rode doped, even if declaired "clean". Thereafter, with a test to dectect the drug, everthing got more sophisticated and only the best money and therefore best doctors, as well as best responding, could ensure a champion's success. Armstrong personified this. It's no reason he paid Ferrari 1 million to work exclusively with him. This debunks the idea that everybody doping "levels the playing field". And then new drugs, novel treatments combined with best performance science, which only the well funded teams can afford, makes an arms race that renders opaque what real talent can achieve on a truly level playing field.
I'd say the big shift in doping verily skewing the playing field, because it has always existed in the sport, occured in the early 90s. From there onward it's become increasingly difficult to know the true athletic value of each rider on the road. Certainly talent plays a part, but it has become impossible to know how much of a rider's success (like Pogacar's) amounts to mother nature or highly sophisticated artificial enhancements that are either outright doping or contrary to the spirit of ethical sport. Naturally only having access to enormous economic resources, through which corruption may also be permitted, gets this effectively done.
To the second bolded, it's simply the market structure that allows and makes necessary the other battle front of the arms race: tech advancement of equipment. Back in the 80s, for instance, doubtless there were descrepancies in equipment quality, but more or less the peloton rode on the same machines. Its nothing like that today, where, again having huge financial resourses, some get to ride on machines and wear clothing that literally gives a huge advantage over other riders on less well funded teams, who can't afford the most expensive and performance enhancing models/materials. It's good for the the business of the sport, but what does it say about another aspect of cycling at "two-speeds"?
Last edited:
If you want one, become one
I'd say there seems to be some around already. The discussion about journalism is especially frustrating for me as once upon a time it was my first day of student practice work and I was thrown into a local politician corruption story. But the head of the department told me I was just being used by the opposite side because I was a little gullible one. I was never allowed to do that story and some years later another news source broke the news and it was by then just a tiny story because it was old.
Didn't people here recently mock Nick Harris for trying? He was stopped during his years as non independent. Now that he can do things his stories are old. It's not the fault of the journalists.
And cycling highlights as much as we hate their language/values honestly comes off to me as having some journalist skills.
Journalists doesn't just go rogue. They have sources, they work in teams etc. What was Walsh without Betsy Andreiu? When Walsh story broke did this forum know that stuff in advance?
There have been riders "yapping" these last years? Was it Bardet suggesting motor doping 2021 or so? I vaguely remember. I'd start from there.
Edit: found a computer and could edit. Still messy. I am just trying to say there's already people out there trying. And that the individual journalists rarely are to blame. And if you want something it's better to try to do it yourself
Last edited:
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. No other rider in history, doped or otherwise, has managed to produce those sorts of numbers before. Whatever magic cocktail they have found has managed to produce record speeds on long and medium mountain climbs.Sivakov doing +500 watts (7.4 watt/kg) for almost 10 minutes while drafting in Pogacar's wheel
Visually what strikes me this season is that when he attacks, some other riders can only hold his wheel for 15/20 seconds before they simply have to let go. Most don't even bother responding to his attacks. Yet he can sustain this speed for several kilometres thereafter. Yet at the end of the race he still looks as fresh as a daisy. After Sundays gruelling ride he took off his helmet and he was barely sweating! Whatever you think is behind these performances its incredible the number of super human rides he has produced this season.
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.
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?
It seems like you don't know what is banned, I'd advise you to read up on it.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
Last edited:
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Last edited:
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)
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championships 2024: Men's Road Race (September 29)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
2024 Paris-Tours: Chartres › Tours (213.8km)- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 140
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 28K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 10K
-
Women’s RR - World Championships 2024 (September 28)- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 327
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram