Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Wallace and Gromit]

You got it (although I'd argue that it should take more than just one singing canary).

Indeed, and it would need to be canaries that could not be discredited, hence why USADA needed confessions from the likes of Hincapie.

 

[acoggan]

And in 2006 you said Armstrong did not need to dope to improve his power the amount he did, due to improvements in his efficiency.

Incorrect: I said that he - or anyone - could at least theoretically achieve an 8% increase in power output without any increase in O2 delivery. That remains true regardless of what Armstrong actually did.

So we are stuck with you yet again defending someone who anecdotally has improved out of sight: from autobusser to winner, winner chicken dinner, based on science you and those of your ilk continue to believe in despite a sample size of n=1 for said science.

I'm not defending anyone, I'm just stating facts (inconvenient to your or others' world view though they may be).

I'll give you this: you are consistent at least.

That's because I rely on reason, not emotion, to inform my opinions.

 

[acoggan]

The best we can do is construct a work/time plot and check to see if the relationship is linear and/or if there are any outliers ABOVE the line (ie: unusual increase in work for duration). acoggan has taken the trouble to construct this figure from the best available evidence we have.

I agree with everything else that you wrote (which I snipped for brevity), but am responding simply to point out that my analysis was based on a rather cursory web search for Wiggins' power data. If someone else wishes to dig around more there might be additional data points that could be added to that figure...any takers?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Joking aside, my interpretation of some a acoggan's posts is that even the extreme climbing performances of the EPO era aren't conclusive proof of doping (apologies to the Good Doctor if this interpretation is incorrect) which suggests that the only real proof is a failed test or a team-mate singing like a canary.

Thats why 'sciense' is bullocks. Everyone with a pair of eyes and a working brain knows when something is wrong, only 'science' has not concluded it is because of doping. Why would that be?

a: don't bite the hand that feeds you?
b: they just do not know the upper limits of human physiology?
c: a combination of above?
d: they want to become swimming coaches

Bet he knows what is possible:
http://www.aljazeera.com/sport/cycling/2012/12/20121214173931365503.html

 

[acoggan]

Madrid 2005: Wiggins -2%
Stuttgart 2007: (not sure about Wiggins' form here): Wiggins -4%
Annecy 2009: Wiggins -1.5%
Salamanca/Copenhagen 2011: Essentially equal
Besancon 2012: Cancellara -2%

Those are some really small differences...what year did Cancellara switch from riding a Cervelo to riding a Specialized?

 

[acoggan]

Thats why 'sciense' is bullocks. Everyone with a pair of eyes and a working brain knows when something is wrong, only 'science' has not concluded it is because of doping. Why would that be?

a: don't bite the hand that feeds you?
b: they just do not know the upper limits of human physiology?
c: a combination of above?
d: they want to become swimming coaches

Bet he knows what is possible:
http://www.aljazeera.com/sport/cycling/2012/12/20121214173931365503.html

Ah yes: the ol' "I can tell a doper by looking in his/her eyes" position.

Maybe we should just tie all pro cyclists to wooden planks and dunk in the river...if they don't drown, they're innocent, whereas if they do, they're dopers.

 

[del1962]

Ah yes: the ol' "I can tell a doper by looking in his/her eyes" position.

Maybe we should just tie all pro cyclists to wooden planks and dunk in the river...if they don't drown, they're innocent, whereas if they do, they're dopers.

Nah, if they drown they are innocent, if they don't the dope must give them special powers

 

[JimmyFingers]

Ah yes: the ol' "I can tell a doper by looking in his/her eyes" position.

Maybe we should just tie all pro cyclists to wooden planks and dunk in the river...if they don't drown, they're innocent, whereas if they do, they're dopers.

This made me laugh out loud, but that is a very good point

 

[JimmyFingers]

Thats why 'sciense' is bullocks. Everyone with a pair of eyes and a working brain knows when something is wrong, only 'science' has not concluded it is because of doping. Why would that be?

a: don't bite the hand that feeds you?
b: they just do not know the upper limits of human physiology?
c: a combination of above?
d: they want to become swimming coaches

Bet he knows what is possible:
http://www.aljazeera.com/sport/cycling/2012/12/20121214173931365503.html

FGL can you not see the danger in this approach? Believe me I have sympathy with your reasoning, but there is an inherent danger in condemning people out of hand using the 'walks like a duck, quacks like a duck' approach favoured by so many here?

Also clearly personal bias comes into what you choose to believe or not. It would be trial by who has the biggest lynch mob behind them. Wiggins would be hanging from the nearest tree while Contador rides off into the sunset.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Thats why 'sciense' is bullocks.

I can actually see your point here.

The "correct" (ie scientific) conclusion re Pantani's 1995 Alpe D'Huez foray is that it's not necessarily outside the bounds of what it's possible for a human to do naturally. Ergo, we can't conclude he was doping.

But you'd need to be a spectacular optimist (or Pantani's Mum) to even think he wasn't doped to his earing and back again.

What else have we got, though? If we're talking about busting people for cheating and banning them then we have to base it on something solid. A lot more ooc testing would help, I think.

Ultimately, the deck is heavily stacked in favour of dopers, and in my view, anyone who is seriously bothered/offended by this should follow a different sport, to save themselves from being bothered/offended.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ah yes: the ol' "I can tell a doper by looking in his/her eyes" position.

Maybe we should just tie all pro cyclists to wooden planks and dunk in the river...if they don't drown, they're innocent, whereas if they do, they're dopers.

Since you have pointed out clearly you couldn't be bothered: why bother?

I can actually see your point here.

The "correct" (ie scientific) conclusion re Pantani's 1995 Alpe D'Huez foray is that it's not necessarily outside the bounds of what it's possible for a human to do naturally. Ergo, we can't conclude he was doping.

But you'd need to be a spectacular optimist (or Pantani's Mum) to even think he wasn't doped to his earing and back again.

What else have we got, though? If we're talking about busting people for cheating and banning them then we have to base it on something solid. A lot more ooc testing would help, I think.

Ultimately, the deck is heavily stacked in favour of dopers, and in my view, anyone who is seriously bothered/offended by this should follow a different sport, to save themselves from being bothered/offended.

Wallace, we are being told cycling is getting cleaner and cleaner by for instance mister Coggan. Well, he is not able to spot a doper doped to the EPO-gills while non - scientists can. The only thing I want to say is do not insult peoples intelligence. If you can not prove someone is doping by pointing out to the numbers there must be some other way to prove the obvious, now, that wouldn't be scientific, wouldn't it.

I, for instance, use statistics. Let someone like Contador explain why he is able to do Verbier at 6,7w/k - maybe even more given the fact the riders weight is such a secret - and now is at 6,55w/k at Lagos de Covadonga, or, even better, 5.6w/k at the Bola del Mundo.

Also clearly personal bias comes into what you choose to believe or not. It would be trial by who has the biggest lynch mob behind them. Wiggins would be hanging from the nearest tree while Contador rides off into the sunset.

You are taking this way too personal Jimmy. Given the - almost - fact the bio pass is a fraud cycling once again has a credibility problem. Not just the Sky swimmers.

 

[sniper]

Ah yes: the ol' "I can tell a doper by looking in his/her eyes" position.

Maybe we should just tie all pro cyclists to wooden planks and dunk in the river...if they don't drown, they're innocent, whereas if they do, they're dopers.

the ol' "which hunt" argument.

 

[acoggan]

Wallace, we are being told cycling is getting cleaner and cleaner by for instance mister Coggan.

Don't attempt to put words in my mouth (I'd say "please", but you don't deserve the courtesy).

Well, he is not able to spot a doper doped to the EPO-gills while non - scientists can.

If the "I know 'em when I see 'em" approach really worked, then there wouldn't be any doping.

If you can not prove someone is doping by pointing out to the numbers

You can't prove a negative.

there must be some other way to prove the obvious, now, that wouldn't be scientific, wouldn't it.

No, it wouldn't.

I, for instance, use statistics. Let someone like Contador explain why he is able to do Verbier at 6,7w/k - maybe even more given the fact the riders weight is such a secret - and now is at 6,55w/k at Lagos de Covadonga, or, even better, 5.6w/k at the Bola del Mundo.You are taking this way too personal Jimmy. Given the - almost - fact the bio pass is a fraud cycling once again has a credibility problem. Not just the Sky swimmers.

You clearly know very little about statistics, physics, or physiology.

 

[acoggan]

the ol' "which hunt" argument.

Not quite: a witch hunt involves looking for witches when there aren't any. In contrast to the Middle Ages, though, witches clearly now exist - at issue is how to successfully identify them.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

...there must be some other way to prove the obvious, now, that wouldn't be scientific, wouldn't it.

If you're talking about banning people and stigmatising them officially as cheats, then there are only two acceptable proofs:

1) Failure of accredited tests

2) Reliable eye-witness accounts

Lower levels of proof are fine for proving things to ourselves and to waiverers in The Clinic, but they mean (close to) diddly squat in the real world. And rightly so, as there's only a finite number of trees and lengths of rope available.

 

[sublimit]

Ah yes: the ol' "I can tell a doper by looking in his/her eyes" position.

Maybe we should just tie all pro cyclists to wooden planks and dunk in the river...if they don't drown, they're innocent, whereas if they do, they're dopers.

If they did this for the last 30 years or so only Greg Lemond would survive. I might have to start watching BMX and I dont want to do that particularly.

 

[thehog]

If you're talking about banning people and stigmatising them officially as cheats, then there are only two acceptable proofs:

1) Failure of accredited tests

2) Reliable eye-witness accounts

Lower levels of proof are fine for proving things to ourselves and to waiverers in The Clinic, but they mean (close to) diddly squat in the real world. And rightly so, as there's only a finite number of trees and lengths of rope available.

This is not true.

It's the totality of evidence which would convict a person or organization.

There are not only two methods as you state.

That's just stupid.

Ullrich never failed a test. No one ever saw him dope. How was he sanctioned?

Attempting to limit proof of doping to a postive test proves your nativity on the subject. Suspicion plays a very big part.

Without a suspicion you do not have reason to investigate.

Society is built on such fundamentals.

We all should be suspicious and call out when we feel there has been a crime or a law/violation taken place.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Don't attempt to put words in my mouth (I'd say "please", but you don't deserve the courtesy).

Well, then I must have misinterpreted your posts.

If the "I know 'em when I see 'em" approach really worked, then there wouldn't be any doping.

Well, the 'we do not see anything humanly impossible' approach is working just fine, too bad scientists can not point out what is humanly possible. Nice little paradox if you ask me.

You can't prove a negative.

Okay, thanks for that. Let us not ask why a top rider like Contador loses that much power. That is no science, you must be right.

No, it wouldn't.

A bit like defending a paper on a cyclists efficiency?

You clearly know very little about statistics, physics, or physiology.

I would be the first to agree on physics and physiology mister Coggan, statistics an history are my best ones. But, I do not brag about them like some of us.

If you're talking about banning people and stigmatising them officially as cheats, then there are only two acceptable proofs:

1) Failure of accredited tests

2) Reliable eye-witness accounts

Lower levels of proof are fine for proving things to ourselves and to waiverers in The Clinic, but they mean (close to) diddly squat in the real world. And rightly so, as there's only a finite number of trees and lengths of rope available.

Balco? Armstrong? Indurain? Festina? Basso? Etc etc. Never tested positive and yet they could go on and on and on.

 

[oldcrank]

a postive test proves your nativity

A Cambridge education is not what it used to be.

 

[JimmyFingers]

You are taking this way too personal Jimmy. Given the - almost - fact the bio pass is a fraud cycling once again has a credibility problem. Not just the Sky swimmers.

It was meant as a general 'everyone has a personal bias and that will affect who they believe to be guilty and who isn't' rather than directed at you in particular, or anyone, so apologies I wasn't more specific.

What I simply meant is that Contador is a more popular rider than Wiggins, so is likely to have an easier ride.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Ullrich never failed a test. No one ever saw him dope. How was he sanctioned?

I guess this is actually true. Unfortunately, his DNA was matched "without a doubt" to 9 blood bags in Doc Fuentes' lab. So technically he passed these tests!

The case ultimately ended up at CAS who ruled unfavourably from Ullrich's viewpoint.

 

[Ferminal]

Those are some really small differences...what year did Cancellara switch from riding a Cervelo to riding a Specialized?

Time not power

CSC changed to Specialized in 2009 but Fabian has been Trek since 2011. Wiggins on the other hand went from Felt in 2009 to Pinarello.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I guess this is actually true. Unfortunately, his DNA was matched "without a doubt" to 9 blood bags in Doc Fuentes' lab. So technically he passed these tests!

The case ultimately ended up at CAS who ruled unfavourably from Ullrich's viewpoint.

No you're wrong, DNA matches are simply more suspicions

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Balco? Armstrong? Indurain? Festina? Basso? Etc etc. Never tested positive and yet they could go on and on and on.

Whether someone is officially a doper or not makes a huge difference. (They get banned etc.) Whether they are considered a doper by a significant proportion of people is interesting, but not relevant, as such a rider can't get sanctioned so they carry on riding.

Thus, the official process for determine doper status is the only one of any relevance. Any sanctioning regime has to be able to withstand lawyers, and weaker levels of proof would not (*) survive the legal process, just as four year bans for first offences didn't circa 20 years ago.

Not saying it's right. It's just the way it is. "Doper" is a binary status in the real worl. A rider either officially is (and faces the consequences), or isn't (and gets the same treatment as Mother Theresa would if she race a bike). There's no middleground.

(*) Things do change, and it would be interesting to see what happens if a doping case ever was brought that involved Hoggian levels of proof!

 

[thehog]

I guess this is actually true. Unfortunately, his DNA was matched "without a doubt" to 9 blood bags in Doc Fuentes' lab. So technically he passed these tests!

The case ultimately ended up at CAS who ruled unfavourably from Ullrich's viewpoint.

Well no.

He was removed from the Tour based on suspicion alone. His team suspended him on suspicion alone.

He never raced again competitively based on suspicion alone.

The matching of the blood bags came much later. Done so to secure the case for formal suspension but not as the catalyst for initial suspension.

Counter terrorism requires suspicion of all citizens. Be alert, and stay safe. See a suspect package on a train? Report it.

Suspicion plays a very important role in society.

Whilst many here which to label those whom are "suspicious" as crackpots destroying the very nature of democracy and our freedoms of innocence; the truth of the matter is we rely on suspicion to keep us safe. We rely on suspicion to call out those whom are defrauded us... whether in sport or elsewhere.

We all should hold the view that suspicion is healthy part of human nature and without it there would be anarchy.