Talent and the dark era (blood doping before biopasport)

[Taxus4a]

(Continuing Landa treath in Professional cycling)

As always sorry about my english anf mistakes...

Some people said Landa has not the talent of Heras.

Well, in the dark era we show how Pantani finished Giro with 52 hematocrit. He had 40 days before the Giro 41.

Well, Now we could see some bio pasport publized... I remember Armtrong (Giro and Tour), Wiggings, Horner, Basso,... maybe more, I am not an expert of that issues like some people here.
all of them finished Tour with about 40-42 hematocrit.

We can disscuss or the expert, if some of them are a proof or not of doping, if they are suspicious or not, but we cant disccuss that to finished with 41 is not the same that to finished with 51, and maybe most of the riders that finished with that 51, today, with his natural hematocric, just training in altitude, Pantani, Lance, Simoni, Mayo, Heras, Hamilton... today were people of top 20 or less, kost of them maybe anything to do with the current champions, and Lance said in his comeback, this generation is better than mine.

There were some years of change of era, 2008-2011-...it is difficult to put an end, becouse doping is not always to be eliminated totally, but froom 2012 we could say a new era, for some riders :

Those years still some people doped and it was hard in term of people saying good bay of cycling, scandals, an so on, really hard, and give a bad image of cycling, just in the moment this sport was cleaning itself. Losing of contracts, money in cycling, teams, bad image, more penalties, but mainly now regulations and methods as Biopasport were the factors that influenced.

it was Modena there, people doping in a minor level than previously, but lot of people, maybe 30 % of cycling riders of best level were there (not all of them in WT), maybe 80... some of them were santioned, others left cycling, etc...but that was an important point as weel than a rider as Contador, as well Valverde, were santioned finally, when before they were forgiben in OP, and other talented riders were out of Europe as Mancebo.

Well, what is my point, from 2012 on, there are some riders that doped in the past and now are not more in the top level, another still in the top level, and riders than didnt dope that now has increased his result (not performance), at least in the term of a 3rd week of a Tour.

The real good people, the talented: Contador, Valverde,... are going to get good result with doping or not. Basso as well won the Giro again. But Basso and Contador are not exactly the same, Valverde is even better now, the same as was Evans.
But were are Schleck brothers now? Andy crashed and we dont know, but for Frank is not the same now, Mayo didnt want to start again , he is as old as Basso...younger than a lot of riders. Menchov as well, Di Luca, Dekker, Zabriskie,... The new era is not the same for then as for Valverde or Evans. Even for Cancellara is not the same (some people will say, the age..., no way, Valverde and Evans are olders. That man that won the Tour de Suissse, and could do big exhibition in Roubaix or ITT wanst the same, although he is very natural talented and he is always one of the best in any race suit him, of course.

How to know if Pantani, (mi idol by the way) or a lot of riders, were so talented if in that era they (not everybody, most of them) were since juniors with doping, and since second year of profesional with blood doping and more?

In Spainish cycling world all we know Santi Blanco was really talented and the era dont allowed him to has really good result.. just some stages, some top ten...the same is said about Freire, but in his cycling, doping wanst necessary to win.

In the start of the era we see a real talented rider that always talked againts doping: Andrew Hampstein. He won the Giro and a lot of good result, but in the 90 he started to get worse result.

In 1994 he was just 32 years old, and he was 10th in Giro, that is the difference. If the change of era is in the opossite and Hamstein would have born 20 years later, he would has past from 10 to win this years, and maybe some people would say, ouuuu, he must be a doping, that is a single and unidirectional way to thing withoput perspective...

I dont know if Purito is good and now he get best result becouse that reason or he still can dope a little and that make a difference...Could be both, but it more likely the first one, becouse now a clear doping as Santambroglio is detected.

Well, when I said a rider is talented and a rider is not so talented is becouse I have enought information to say that, in other cases I will say, IMO...but of course you can believe or not, that is normal and i understand if people dont believe.

But here about some aspect I have put argument that are evidences, not speculations, the same that even of the altitude concentration, the best training methods, the material, baths with ice, etc,... etc... they are going slowly than in 90-00, it is needed better conditions and circusnstances in a climb or in a Tour to get the same time. Alp Dhuez, Ventoux or Hautacam records are an example. that is a clearly tent, the same as french and colombian riders are again good riders.

Sorry about my long explanation about if Landa is more talented than Heras (very good with doping, for that reason Lance catch him, but we dont know without), the same as Beloki, Mayo, etc...or Rujano, we see Rujano a year clean in Caisse...not the same.

Thanks.

 

[SeriousSam]

Talent is always hard to estimate, even when there is no PED use, which there always is, in every sport, because it is a latent variable: We do not directly observe but instead have to do make inferences about it based on that which we do observe, such as performance and other variables. Unfortunately, the other factors that determine performance, like PED use, make that very difficult.

To eliminate at least the doping confounder, we need variation in doping and see how performance relative to peers co-varied with that. We really need that.

If we don't have that, we can only make inferences about a version of talent that includes the response to PEDs (ie a version where someone who gets more performance out of PEDs is deemed more talented).

In other words, our ability to judge someone's ("true", ie not including response to ped) talent rests on our ability to tell when someone doped and how much doping they did, and any uncertainty about that will trickle down to uncertainty about talent.

 

[The Hitch]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!.

Why did you respond Sam?

Whyyyyyy?

The thread was really close to just dropping down the page and being totally forgotten forever which is exactly the response it deserves considering its nothing but a deliberate troll thread designed to troll people

 

[SeriousSam]

I'm not entirely sure what taxus is saying but I think the problem is an interesting one and that post is my two pennies on the topic. We can always turn a troll thread into a good thread by making non troll responses and getting a discussion going.

Also, I'm drunk

 

[Taxus4a]

The answer of Hitch is allowed with the forum rules?
I am here to analyze and discuss, not for BS answers.

I think Sam you didnt read well what I have trying to explain.

The only way to dont troll as Hitch is argument.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Personally, I would love to see the same graph extended out to 2013 or 2014. I asked for it on the science of sport website a year or so ago.

Ross obviously has had a change of careers, so may not have access to the data to generate it, or the level of confidence with those that do have the data.

(or if its UCI data, maybe it doesn't tell the story they want...)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yeah funny about that. The CADF yearly report went bye bye when Cookson took over. :-/

 

[Taxus4a]

Re:

Personally, I would love to see the same graph extended out to 2013 or 2014. I asked for it on the science of sport website a year or so ago.

Ross obviously has had a change of careers, so may not have access to the data to generate it, or the level of confidence with those that do have the data.

(or if its UCI data, maybe it doesn't tell the story they want...)

I agree, it would be interesting.

And it would be interesting to see all the biopasport, maybe some people here surprise about.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

(Continuing Landa treath in Professional cycling)

Well, what is my point, from 2012 on, there are some riders that doped in the past and now are not more in the top level, another still in the top level, and riders than didnt dope that now has increased his result (not performance), at least in the term of a 3rd week of a Tour.

The real good people, the talented: Contador, Valverde,... are going to get good result with doping or not. Basso as well won the Giro again. But Basso and Contador are not exactly the same, Valverde is even better now, the same as was Evans.
But were are Schleck brothers now? Andy crashed and we dont know, but for Frank is not the same now, Mayo didnt want to start again , he is as old as Basso...younger than a lot of riders. Menchov as well, Di Luca, Dekker, Zabriskie,... The new era is not the same for then as for Valverde or Evans. Even for Cancellara is not the same (some people will say, the age..., no way, Valverde and Evans are olders. That man that won the Tour de Suissse, and could do big exhibition in Roubaix or ITT wanst the same, although he is very natural talented and he is always one of the best in any race suit him, of course.

Just wanted to appreciate the effort you are making into this afterall and you shouldn't receive stupid answers like the one from Hitch. That said I disagree strongly with this section specifically.

First of all I just want to defend my hero (Fabian) here. His best classics years came after the Bio passport was introduced. Yes he didn't have a great 2014 season, but he was superb in 2013 and he was on track to another great season this year. That you compare his development over the past seasons to Cadel Evans is laughable given that Evans has been struggling to get top 10 positions in GT's while Cancellara has won 3 monuments (and finished on the podium of 12 straight monuments).

Secondly, I also wonder how much you are following cycling if you measure Frank Schlecks results against Ivan Basso. Of the two riders, I'm sad to tell you that Frank Schleck is currently the better climber. He was 3rd in the 2011 Tour de France and his best years as a GT rider came around 2008-2011 (after the bio passport). Basso on the other hand hasn't shown much since his 2010 Giro win.

Thirdly, what your analysis is missing is a more nuanced view on what causes decline. Drawing causal mechanisms between career decline and the introduction of the Bio passport is to simplify what is a question of many more variables than the use of doping (Even then you've pointed out some extremely stupid cases to speak for your argument). In Cancellara's case we know that he's a father and a familyman with other priorities, while the same goes for Schleck to some extent. Also riders respond differently to ageing, Horner being the extreme point. In Andy's case you completely rule out the more mental variables affecting performance.

The only thing I can agree about is that the peloton is cleaner nowadays based on the graph. But that's pretty much common knowledge. As for the debate of whether the riders of previous generations are less talented, you need to look at comparable data on climbs, speed etc from back then and now. That's impossible, as technology have altered the equipment too much to compare. For instance Heras holds the record on L'Angliru by more than a minute. Does the equipment gain from 2000 to now equal the benfits received from the use of doping back? That is impossible to tell, so talent is bound to be an undescribed size.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ryder Hesjedal was not tested the day he took back the pink jersey the year he won the Giro. Based on that single data point, I want to register my belief that the graph that has been posted to prove the ABP had any impact on the doping of riders is complete bunkum, given that the graphed values are indicative of doping samples taken deliberately by an organisation intent on avoiding doping scandal.

 

[Taxus4a]

(Continuing Landa treath in Professional cycling)

Well, what is my point, from 2012 on, there are some riders that doped in the past and now are not more in the top level, another still in the top level, and riders than didnt dope that now has increased his result (not performance), at least in the term of a 3rd week of a Tour.

The real good people, the talented: Contador, Valverde,... are going to get good result with doping or not. Basso as well won the Giro again. But Basso and Contador are not exactly the same, Valverde is even better now, the same as was Evans.
But were are Schleck brothers now? Andy crashed and we dont know, but for Frank is not the same now, Mayo didnt want to start again , he is as old as Basso...younger than a lot of riders. Menchov as well, Di Luca, Dekker, Zabriskie,... The new era is not the same for then as for Valverde or Evans. Even for Cancellara is not the same (some people will say, the age..., no way, Valverde and Evans are olders. That man that won the Tour de Suissse, and could do big exhibition in Roubaix or ITT wanst the same, although he is very natural talented and he is always one of the best in any race suit him, of course.

Just wanted to appreciate the effort you are making into this afterall and you shouldn't receive stupid answers like the one from Hitch. That said I disagree strongly with this section specifically.

First of all I just want to defend my hero (Fabian) here. His best classics years came after the Bio passport was introduced. Yes he didn't have a great 2014 season, but he was superb in 2013 and he was on track to another great season this year. That you compare his development over the past seasons to Cadel Evans is laughable given that Evans has been struggling to get top 10 positions in GT's while Cancellara has won 3 monuments (and finished on the podium of 12 straight monuments).

Secondly, I also wonder how much you are following cycling if you measure Frank Schlecks results against Ivan Basso. Of the two riders, I'm sad to tell you that Frank Schleck is currently the better climber. He was 3rd in the 2011 Tour de France and his best years as a GT rider came around 2008-2011 (after the bio passport). Basso on the other hand hasn't shown much since his 2010 Giro win.

Thirdly, what your analysis is missing is a more nuanced view on what causes decline. Drawing causal mechanisms between career decline and the introduction of the Bio passport is to simplify what is a question of many more variables than the use of doping (Even then you've pointed out some extremely stupid cases to speak for your argument). In Cancellara's case we know that he's a father and a familyman with other priorities, while the same goes for Schleck to some extent. Also riders respond differently to ageing, Horner being the extreme point. In Andy's case you completely rule out the more mental variables affecting performance.

The only thing I can agree about is that the peloton is cleaner nowadays based on the graph. But that's pretty much common knowledge. As for the debate of whether the riders of previous generations are less talented, you need to look at comparable data on climbs, speed etc from back then and now. That's impossible, as technology have altered the equipment too much to compare. For instance Heras holds the record on L'Angliru by more than a minute. Does the equipment gain from 2000 to now equal the benfits received from the use of doping back? That is impossible to tell, so talent is bound to be an undescribed size.

Thanks for your answer.

I agree in some things and I will try to expalin with my bad english some of that things.

About Cancellara, he is a great rider, I saw him in Madrid ITT Worlds and everybody talked about him, I didnt now yet.

He is maybe the rider who more impressed me in all this years.

maybe you are right.

i have defend him even when he is so serious with fans, it is the only rider I know difficult to as for a sign. but I understand and I respect. I saw him in the vuelta signing to childrens. I defend him as well with that doping bike issue.

But, he was in OP as Contador and many others, he was Classicomano Luiggi as several riders call him when he talked againts certain team about doping,

He is that kind of rider that in a clean cycling is going to be similar good and take similar results, even similar performance. and is like that, he is always in the podium of any monument he ride. For that reason he complain, becouse other people of other teams, without doping are nothing.

The new era for me start in 2012 as i said, not with the BP properly, it is difficult to put a date...as well that doping afect possibely a little till about 2 years after stop, it depens

Previous Cancellara did amazing things, as won T d Suisse, that maybe in this era wouldnt be in his possibilities, and I remenber how he worked in that mountain stage for Sastre that finished in Alp D Huez. Yes, he losed weight and so on, but... IMO (this is not the same as with Landa, this is IMO) those performances are too much for him.
In those years he said nobody should give him a meter, and he was rigth as we see when he won San Remo and lot of times. he was the same awesome in Roubaix and Flandes.

He won Vanmarke later in Roubaix, but he finished exhausted, he was clever, he tried to keep energy, he wanst that rider that just needed an strong attack and bye bye...

I dont want to put Cancellara career into question, becouse he deserves all that he is and that track record, it was just my impresion in the case of Cancellara, I dindt explain quite well.. but for me he is not the same, althoug maybe he is still the best in his things, and age afect, familiar issues afect, etc.. Ok.

For me, Evans didnt dope, so it is not to pass of doping to dont doping, but it is to have your rivals without doping, he could be always with big results all the year, but had forgiven to win a grand Tour.

About Shcleck, I was well know in an spain forum as Andy fan, even here.. I wanst really an andy fun, but i enjoyed a lot his best performances and i defend him a lot of times about all the bad things and lies people said.

I man, a man that knoew a lot about that team, becouse he worked there, tell me, Andy is a good rider, but 2011 Andy was about a product that is not allowed anymore and help a lot to him, the same helps a lot to Gilbert. he didnt explain more and i try to knoe mre but impoosible.. not more allowed? i dont know.

What I say is that frank, who is still a good climber, was podium in TD F, podium, not top ten, and he won CI and things like that., and now he struggle to be in any top ten he tried. http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider.asp?riderid=75

12 in TDF is not bad, but is far from podium (without Contador and Froome)

Of course he already has an age, after an stop it is difficult to be the same, lot of things can have influence, but, Valverde came back and he won in Australia, as he always said. And I like more Frank than Valverde.

And for that reasons with Andy, I dont know what to think. He was after his crash too much time with bad results.

Basso is older than frank, he was a big doper, but he was in Vuelta 2013 in a very good level before he quit frozen in Andorra.

i dont know what to say about him in his Giro win of 2010.. people think after a ban you will be clean, but it is more a question of erasm and he won in a year where thing were changing, but there were still some doping, and he was very strong in Zoncolan. I dont Know, IMO, he could have an samall doping, but i think is possible as well he did clean. No my opinion, but not impossible.

But antway, I have a good comnsideration of riders as Cancellara and Schleck, maybe I used that examples becouse some people know I like them... and when I talk about doping i never talk with te argument of if i like this rider or another, I just like cycling.

I dont like SKY too much but if I have to defend him, no problem, and I was a big fan of Mayo, but he dont deserve the things he did.

Best wishes.


And well, you say that today are less doping is an evidence, but I read some people here that dont think the same, when I talk of new era they said I am trolling. even those people that said: there is not a new era, just avoid the BP, are saying there is a new era... even if the only thing has changed is to avoid biopasporrt, an most of cycling doped a lottle, what I know is not true, but even with that there is a new era.

Sean Kelly can say on TV that 2009 Contador was in another era, but I cant say the expresion new era here

 

[ray j willings]

Evans did not dope. IMO you could not win a tour without doping.
Look who he was riding against that year Schleck, Bertie, etc
Drink, comfy chair and popcorn at the ready

 

[Taxus4a]

Re:

Evans did not dope. IMO you could not win a tour without doping.
Look who he was riding against that year Schleck, Bertie, etc
Drink, comfy chair and popcorn at the ready

He couldn t in the dark era, things started to change in 2008, but he was one day best rider of the year, and despite that I think he didnt dope.

In 2011 things have changed a lot looking at 2005. Real good people, are going to be always with good result, with doping or not. Of course Europcar was there with a product that improve resiliance, I dont remember the name, and maybe other riders as well doped a little, I dont know, but passsport and UCi advises were changing things.

Lance was right, in his era it was impossible to win the Tour clean, and Evans didnt, other way, IMO, he and Sastre would have won a lot of GT...there is a mistake about that question to amrstriong, becouse he did reference to his years, he especify later, becouse he answered wrong.

I dont pretend anybody thinks like me, I know he was with Ferrari, but Ferrari didnt just dope, ot was important to be with that doctor, but not necessary for doping (read Hamilton book)

We can just speculate, we just only Know that today, WT cycling is more real that in those years. and when i see people that are climbing with the best that I know they dont dope, and they are comited againts doping, for me, I dont mind the rest of the wordl, I can believe. I dint believe before becouse I discovered my idols doped, even surely Indurain, and that is sad and you dont believe anything, but I could change my mind and I see how thinks works... but yes, some people still dope, in the terms on the possible now... and other people out of world Tour dope more than that.

Amador I know he is clean as well, and he is in the top ten, and I know that for the same person that tell me now he dont come back to race in road becouse there everybody dope, and he has saw everything: aicar, actoveging, EPO,... that is normal there, there is no control.

I know than Hamilton said just his girlfriend knew what he was doing, I am not stupid, but sometimes you can trust and now we know a lot of things about doping, in that past everybody knew anything. And rules.. here there are controls againts needles, that way must be very difficult to use actoveginm something that before was quite usual.