thehog said:
Whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm because you think you've unlocked the secret of Ferrari and Tenerife that its no longer the mystical island of doping I'll ask you to take two steps back.
All the way through the Reason Decision Ferrari has taken all of his riders in question to Tenerife for training and specifically (and I quote):
The entire document is littered with examples that high altitude regardless of where it is performs a specific function in a doping program.
Ferrari has never said go to Tenerife and dope all you want. The location has a specific purposes in the training program. A) it provides high altitude to mask the use of EPO even when taken prior to the training camp and b) its location was always hard to get to for testers - meaning you'd have a fair idea when they arrived and on what plane.
Yep, I've read that. All through the documents, and Hamilton's book for that matter, is also the idea that doping techniques and methods evolve and change over time in response to the regulatory environment. And as far as I'm aware it's a statement of fact to say that all that pertains to doping techniques in the early noughties. (Because, apparently, all the riders have subsequently been clean since 2006!) Whether those doping practices are still current ten years later is not discussed in the evidence - it simply does not attempt to answer that question.
Whilst the translation is fairly accurate it lacks context. What Ferrari meant was "be careful of Tenerife" as its "scolded". What he meant was "everyone" is going there and its become too common. He never said it was "monitored". That does not appear in the text.
As I don't speak Italian I'll take your word what Ferrari meant. But given the number of posts that assert Sky go to Tenerife to dope - as evidenced by previous cyclists going to dope - then it's definitely interesting (to me at least) that the best doping Dr is advising his clients
against going there. Even with the meaning you've attributed, it's certainly interesting that Wiggins, who apparently has started working with Ferrari (as you personally have claimed he is), seems to be completely ignoring the advice of the doping Dr that he is, apparently, paying so much for, and what's more has explicitly made a song and dance about visiting the specific location that his highly paid Dr warns him to be careful of.
I think what you're trying to do is take one statement from Ferrari tossing away everything else he has done in his entire career and tried to apply it to Sky and say "look no doping!".
But you think wrong. I'll be clear. I don't think one statement from Ferrari gives any real insight into whether Sky are doping or not. I don't know if Sky are doping, and if they are doping I don't know how they are doping. And what's more I don't really care - if they are popped I'll be sad (like I was when my favourite rider, Contador, was) if they're not I won't and give them the benefit of the doubt. I have no real emotional attachment to the team.
What I'm trying to do is point out that the evidence from Ferrari in 2010 certainly indicates his own personal thinking of an optimum doping strategy has changed over the years. And I think it is really interesting that this is more or less being ignored by the Clinic. The wall of silence is really striking. And it is that - the clinic itself - that I find most interesting.
None of this has changed.
Tenerife has a long history of a training venue for cyclists who train with Ferrari and whom are on sophisticated blood boosting drug programs. Period. That has been the base for a good 20 years.
Nothing has changed. Its a training ground for athletes masking their oxygen drug use.
You are very insistent that 'nothing has changed'. So what is this assertion based on? How do you, personally, know that nothing has changed? Things have clearly changed before (for example the move from EPO to blood doping a decade or so ago), so why is it impossible that they might have changed again? Is it a gut feeling? Is there something that 'the hog' knows that Ferrari doesn't?
Most data I've seen (whether timing climbs, or power estimates) suggest that the climbers are going slower than they used to. The blood passport has changed the parameters for how to manage your blood since the 50% days. The world's most successful doping Dr is privately recorded telling a rider in 2010 that riders are going slower because they can't take EPO any more. All of this suggests that some things certainly have changed. And yet you assert - with absolute confidence - that 'nothing has changed'.
Let me say this clearly, so there is no ambiguity. I am not saying that your assertion is right or wrong - because
I do not know whether your assertion is right or wrong. I am also certainly not saying that Sky is clean, case closed - clearly the question of what an 'optimal 2012' doping programme looks like is a separate conversation to whether team or rider x is applying that doping programme. I am asking you to provide some supporting evidence/reasoning for why your assertion is correct. Some evidence for why we should assume that the doping methodology of 2002 is exactly the same as the doping methodology of 2012 (given that if you compare 2002 to 1992, or 1982, or 1972 you're going to see big differences)? I'm not looking to 'win', or to 'prove' something.
But you started by asking me to take two steps back. Possibly, could you apply the same methodology to your own thinking? It's particularly striking - to me - that when I ask these questions (that I am absolutely aware mean nothing to Sky's possible guilt or not) you assume I'm asking them to prove that Sky is clean. Is it worth reflecting on why you make that assumption?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram