The Sidebar Thread

[martinvickers]

How can it not be trolling, if stating an unproven rider is a doper, whilst not stating it is an opinion = trolling?

Or do you think that stating a rider is a doper is not trolling?

Because you are ignoring the context of the post, which may well provide either the implication of opinion, or evidence of agreed facts.

Context, dear boy, context.

 

[Netserk]

Because you are ignoring the context of the post, which may well provide either the implication of opinion, or evidence of agreed facts.

Context, dear boy, context.

Here you have the link. Was it trolling?

 

[martinvickers]

Here you have the link. Was it trolling?

Having read the thread, absolutely not. He has referenced a whole series of interactions which directly go to whether he's manipulative, a liar, etc - the Tyler Hamilton epsiode, the threat to witnesses, etc.

I can't see how that possibly fits the defintiion, when read in context.

You're stretching, I fear.

 

[Netserk]

Having read the thread, absolutely not. He has referenced a whole series of interactions which directly go to whether he's manipulative, a liar, etc - the Tyler Hamilton epsiode, the threat to witnesses, etc.

I can't see how that possibly fits the defintiion, when read in context.

You're stretching, I fear.

He states he's a doper. I can't see anywhere where he either back it up that he is a doper or says it's just his opinion.

 

[King Boonen]

Good to see the cooling off period worked...

 

[gooner]

So everyone who before 2012 said Armstrong doped was trolling?

According to martin, yes. If they didn't make it clear that it was an opinion and not a fact, they would be trolling to state that he was a doper.

1) This is not a court

2) This is not an "Armstrong, the clean idol" fan website.

So the countless of times where it was stated here that Lance was a doper (before USADA) without stating that it was an opinion were trolling?

Guys there were rules brought in by Daniel Benson in this area and there is a clear distinction referring to scenarios like Lance.

Proof of point, opinions, and common knowledge: you can't just say "we know Bobby the Bod is doping" as a fact. You can't claim your post as a fact unless you provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. If, on the other hand, it is in the realm of "common knowledge", then it is acceptable to make an unverified statement. Be careful - common knowledge would apply, for instance, at the time of this posting, to Lance Armstrong. But allegations of current doping, and current riders, would not be "common knowledge" at this point. To be common knowledge, the "fact" has to have been published, widely read, and widely agreed with. This point is particularly applicable in The Clinic.

I welcomed this introduction but this has been breached on many occasions.

 

[red_flanders]

If stated simpliciter, with no reference to any evidence, and no 'admission' of opinion, at least implied? Yes, it could well be. Being true doesn't change that at all.

Edit : perhaps it would be better if this conversation was moved to the sidebar?

I assume you noticed that the moderators updated that rule to reflect the reality of how the site was being run. As such, your argument has already been decided upon, against your position.

Stating someone is a doper is assumed to be opinion unless explicitly stated otherwise. I think it's a wrap on that. It's not trolling.

 

[Granville57]

Guys there were rules brought in by Daniel Benson in this area and there is a clear distinction referring to scenarios like Lance.

To be common knowledge, the "fact" has to have been published, widely read, and widely agreed with.

I wonder if that could, or should, also be interpreted as:

To be common knowledge, the "fact" has to have been published, widely read, or widely agreed with.

?

 

[MarkvW]

Guys there were rules brought in by Daniel Benson in this area and there is a clear distinction referring to scenarios like Lance.

There were objective facts that would support a claim that Armstrong was doping before 2012 and the reasoned decision. Floyd's firsthand account of doping is another. You can't get much more direct evidence than direct evidence from a doping buddy. And, even before 2010, you had the cortisone-cream TUE backdating incident.

Benson's "common knowledge" exception isn't very well defined. I hope it isn't just a synonym for "groupthink."

 

[Netserk]

Guys there were rules brought in by Daniel Benson in this area and there is a clear distinction referring to scenarios like Lance.



I welcomed this introduction but this has been breached on many occasions.

"Be careful - common knowledge would apply, for instance, at the time of this posting, to Lance Armstrong. But allegations of current doping, and current riders, would not be "common knowledge" at this point."

So in 2010 it would *not* be common knowledge that Armstrong was a doper.

 

[gooner]

There were objective facts that would support a claim that Armstrong was doping before 2012 and the reasoned decision. Floyd's firsthand account of doping is another. You can't get much more direct evidence than direct evidence from a doping buddy. And, even before 2010, you had the cortisone-cream TUE backdating incident.

Agree and I think that's what he means.

On the other hand it's to stop the innuendo and baseless talk with no constructive debate to it. It's a small number that do it like coming in and saying out of nowhere that Dan Martin is a doper after his LBL win. Ask them to substantiate it and they're tongue tied and say "oh you must be believe in miracles". Similarly we have the fabrication that Leinders might still be working with Sky.

This is what I think was targeted by Benson and rightly so.

 

[gooner]

"Be careful - common knowledge would apply, for instance, at the time of this posting, to Lance Armstrong. But allegations of current doping, and current riders, would not be "common knowledge" at this point."

So in 2010 it would *not* be common knowledge that Armstrong was a doper.

Do you forget what was known well before 2010?

 

[Netserk]

Do you forget what was known well before 2010?

No. Did you read the part I quoted?

 

[martinvickers]

I assume you noticed that the moderators updated that rule to reflect the reality of how the site was being run. As such, your argument has already been decided upon, against your position.

Stating someone is a doper is assumed to be opinion unless explicitly stated otherwise. I think it's a wrap on that. It's not trolling.

I don't accept 'updating' - in other words reversing - the rule changes what it originally meant.

 

[gooner]

No. Did you read the part I quoted?

I read it but I also read this.

You can't claim your post as a fact unless you provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. If, on the other hand, it is in the realm of "common knowledge", then it is acceptable to make an unverified statement.

To be common knowledge, the "fact" has to have been published, widely read, and widely agreed with. This point is particularly applicable in The Clinic.

6 positives, secret relationship with Ferrari, hospital incident and the backdated prescription were well published and could be sourced all before 2010.

I say again, I think it was Benson's intention to stop the baseless innuendo like the examples provided with Martin and Leinders still working with Sky. None of these were ever published and can't be sourced in any way shape or form. Therefore it's not "common knowledge" except to just a few obsessives who think everyone dopes and love throwing the nonsense out there.

 

[Netserk]

I don't accept 'updating' - in other words reversing - the rule changes what it originally meant.

Maybe because it was a bs 'rule' to begin with. There's a reason why most mods didn't act on it.

 

[Netserk]

I read it but I also read this.





6 positives, secret relationship with Ferrari, hospital incident and the backdated prescription were well published and could be sourced all before 2010.

I say again, I think it was Benson's intention to stop the baseless innuendo like the examples provided with Martin and Leinders still working with Sky. None of these were ever published and can't be sourced in any way shape or form. Therefore it's not "common knowledge" except to just a few obsessives who think everyone dopes and love throwing the nonsense out there.

Before USADA it was all allegations.

So what did you get from what I quoted?

 

[MarkvW]

Agree and I think that's what he means.

On the other hand it's to stop the innuendo and baseless talk with no constructive debate to it. It's a small number that do it like coming in and saying out of nowhere that Dan Martin is a doper after his LBL win. Ask them to substantiate it and they're tongue tied and say "oh you must be believe in miracles". Similarly we have the fabrication that Leinders might still be working with Sky.

This is what I think was targeted by Benson and rightly so.

I'm somewhat surprised that the Sky debate has gone on so long. All sides to the argument exhausted the available facts a long, long time ago.

 

[martinvickers]

Maybe because it was a bs 'rule' to begin with. There's a reason why most mods didn't act on it.

Well, that's a different argument, to be fair.

 

[MarkvW]

I don't accept 'updating' - in other words reversing - the rule changes what it originally meant.

I get it! You are channeling your "Inner Maserati." Pretty funny!

 

[King Boonen]

I am moving this discussion here as it is off-topic for the thread it is in.

I don't think you are following my suggestion about publishing bio-marker data.

I fully follow it, but it's wrong. I has to involve WADA and their accredited labs or it is useless. This is the fundamental flaw in your idea. you cannot have the same standard of testing that is carried out in your local doctors surgery, it will not stand up to scrutiny and it is unfair on the riders to be subjected to sub-standard testing and then being forced to publish it.

You have to start with the fundamental fact that blood contains many constituent elements. So does urine. I agree you would need urine to test for testosterone. A very simple blood and urine test can tell us the constituency of a persons blood and urine. You do not need a lot of blood or urine to do this. Blood tests to determine what is in ones blood or urine have been around for years. They are simple and quick and not rocket science.

Again, please provide references to the "pin-***" method. This is the last time I will ask. Constituency? I routinely detect over 700 compounds when analysing RBC's, you seem to not understand what is actually done in anti-doping analysis and why it is done. It requires carefully validated equipment, even for these simple tests, to stand up to any kind of robust scrutiny.

These tests can measure the testosterone, hemoglobin and hematocrit levels normally found in a persons blood or urine. They are basic, routine tests done in doctors offices labs all the time. They are not time consuming or expensive. We are not talking about taking a sample to determine the existence of PEDs that would need all the controls and the expense that goes with it.

They are time consuming, they are invasive and they are expensive when being performed in the small numbers you are talking about by dedicated personnel. The teams could not afford to do it.

All we are talking about is a simple test to measure the normal constituent elements of a cyclists blood and urine. The sample can be drawn by anyone trained to withdraw blood. It takes no training to watch a cyclist pee and collect a pee cup. It takes less than say 2 minutes to do this for both blood and urine.

Actually it does take training, there are several methods that can be used to bias a doping control at the time of sampling, such as adding enzymes or masking agents. Anyone who can learn to do a coin trick can learn to slip something into a cup and this is why the people who take the samples have very specific training.

It is a simple matter for the blood technician to maintain chain of custody leading to the test of the content of a persons blood. It is a bag it and tag it method. Very simple. Cops do it all the time. Down the chain everyone who handles the sample signs and dates it. Basic stuff. They are trained to do this.

If you think that the chain of custody is anything like bagging evidence at a crime scene then there really is no point discussing it. Suffice to say sample storage and transport is strictly controlled and any deviation renders the results invalid.

The hemoglobin, hematocrit and testosterone results are then published. The test is done by an independent doctors lab. The baseline biomarkers are then compared with future blood and urine tests. Any discrepancies can indicate doping. Don Catlin refers to these results as biomarkers. And logically that is what they are. Again no rocket science involved here in spite of your thesis.

And here is the nub of this huge problem. Unless the the sampling and testing is carried out under strict controls the data you are suggesting they publish is useless. It would get thrown out in any arbitration and you've just wasted a huge amount of time and money along with opening up the UCI to law suits.

Reference to the Don Catlin quote please, biomarkers are specific, that is the whole point of them. Whether he calls them biomarkers or not is really irrelevant though, but just to make the point, what do you think and increased hematocrit is a biomarker of? Blood doping? Ok, what kind of blood doping? EPO? Autologous transfusion? It is no-specific, not a biomarker.

Now the point of all of this is to deter doping and in my opinion if a cyclist knows his biomarker data is being published it will deter him from doping.

It will not deter doping, it would just force cyclists to maintain those values long term, which is what is supposed the dopers are doing anyway.

You don't need WADA for this. All you need is for UCI to make this mandatory and for them to approve the technicians taking the blood and a local lab to do the tests. The teams would be responsible for publishing the data. My hunch is team doctors are already doing this anyways.

Yes you do. If you wish to open a doping case against a rider all sample analysis must be carried out under strict guidelines, otherwise it will be thrown out.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

No, you are making a completely unfeasible suggestion and I am explaining why.

There probably are no longitudinal studies conducted about hematocrit levels unless teams who during the acute doping era were prepared to give up their hematocrit data to a researcher. We know for example that Ferrari was a fastidious record keeper of the hematocrit levels of several USPS riders. I do not know if the Italian police seized his records. Or perhaps the records of Fuentes would do. But without this data your request for a longitudinal study is disingenuous.

Err, what? How is it disingenuous? You are claiming that cheap testing to a poor standard is robust enough to open doping cases against riders. You have to back that up with real research.

About cycling being poor! It is so poor that LA amassed about $130 million, Hincapie is not eating Kraft dinner. Sponsors are dumping millions into teams and according to the most recent sponsorship report the average sponsor is getting about $88.4 million in advertising value. It is estimated that Sky has received about $550 million in advertising value since its inception.

Sponsors can pay for bio-marking data.

Advertising value is not money. It is not money they have saved, it is perceived value. Compare cycling to any other major sport across the globe, it is poor.

I'm sure LA didn't make the bulk of his money from contracts to ride his bike, he made it from sponsorship deals, insurance and other avenues. The vast majority of cyclists on the world tour probably earn less than my wife, and she isn't that highly paid.



I have outlined clearly why what you suggest is both unfeasible and useless in the fight against anti-doping. The crux of the problem is that you don't seem to understand that any data used to open a doping case must be produced in accordance with the strict controls adhered to in WADA accredited labs. I'm stating this again here to make this clear and because this point really makes the rest of the discussion redundant. The data you suggest could actually harm doping cases, not help them.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I am moving this discussion here as it is off-topic for the thread it is in.

I fully follow it, but it's wrong. I has to involve WADA and their accredited labs or it is useless. This is the fundamental flaw in your idea. you cannot have the same standard of testing that is carried out in your local doctors surgery, it will not stand up to scrutiny and it is unfair on the riders to be subjected to sub-standard testing and then being forced to publish it.

How is it useless? Doctors daily and routinely take blood and urine samples and have them tested in local labs, or their own clinic labs to make life and death decisions. In taking these samples and performing these tests they do not need WADA protocols for the test results to be valid to make medical decisions. You are wrong when you state you need WADA like accredited labs to rely on the results of a standard blood and urine test for biomarker data. It is like using an atomic bomb to dig a ditch.

Again, please provide references to the "pin-***" method. This is the last time I will ask. Constituency? I routinely detect over 700 compounds when analysing RBC's, you seem to not understand what is actually done in anti-doping analysis and why it is done. It requires carefully validated equipment, even for these simple tests, to stand up to any kind of robust scrutiny.

I am not talking about anti-doping analysis. You are hung up on this. I am talking about as simple a blood test as it gets to determine the normal composition of a cyclists blood - hemoglobin, red cell per cent.


They are time consuming, they are invasive and they are expensive when being performed in the small numbers you are talking about by dedicated personnel. The teams could not afford to do it.

[I]They are not expensive when a trained technician withdraws the blood and collects the urine and then transports the samples to a local lab or doctors clinic lab. [/I]

Actually it does take training, there are several methods that can be used to bias a doping control at the time of sampling, such as adding enzymes or masking agents. Anyone who can learn to do a coin trick can learn to slip something into a cup and this is why the people who take the samples have very specific training.

Again you are referring to dope testing and not biomarker testing. The blood samples I am talking about are not used to test for EPO or autologous blood transfusions just for biomarker data of the kind I have referred to. Besides which if a local lab does the job properly the results would be cogent evidence if need be, [/I]


If you think that the chain of custody is anything like bagging evidence at a crime scene then there really is no point discussing it. Suffice to say sample storage and transport is strictly controlled and any deviation renders the results invalid.

Come on. As long as the chain of command is documented and the samples are stored properly there is not a problem. You are overestimating the skill level required for chain of command procedures. The RCMP crime lab in Canada uses a Chain of Command protocol that is simple and effective and takes a modicum of training to learn. Anyone with a bit of brains can do it.


And here is the nub of this huge problem. Unless the the sampling and testing is carried out under strict controls the data you are suggesting they publish is useless. It would get thrown out in any arbitration and you've just wasted a huge amount of time and money along with opening up the UCI to law suits.

I am not talking about using the biomarker data in arbitrations. This is where you are way off track. I am talking about a reliable system to take samples, and test it for hemoglobin, red blood cell percentage and publishing it as a deterrent to doping. This is where you are making this issue a mountain as opposed the molehill it really is.


Reference to the Don Catlin quote please, biomarkers are specific, that is the whole point of them. Whether he calls them biomarkers or not is really irrelevant though, but just to make the point, what do you think and increased hematocrit is a biomarker of? Blood doping? Ok, what kind of blood doping? EPO? Autologous transfusion? It is no-specific, not a biomarker.

An increased hematocrit level is among other things is an indication of blood doping. It does not matter what kind. Knowing that their hematocrit levels would be published would deter cyclists from doping. Increased hematocrit would indicate to the team and the public that maybe this rider is doping. Again it is all part of a deterrent campaign. Why do you think professional bodies publish the results of its discipline hearings. In part to deter others in the same profession from committing the same mistakes.

It will not deter doping, it would just force cyclists to maintain those values long term, which is what is supposed the dopers are doing anyway.

See above.


Yes you do. If you wish to open a doping case against a rider all sample analysis must be carried out under strict guidelines, otherwise it will be thrown out.

[I]We are not talking about opening doping cases. Why can you not get this through your head.


No, you are making a completely unfeasible suggestion and I am explaining why.

It is not unfeasible to do this if cycling really wanted to. Every critic of cycling has identified the lack of transparency as a huge problem leading to cycling's lack of credibility. I am talking about increasing transparency and you are a naysayer who cannot seem to grasp the import of publishing biomarker data as a deterrent to doping.

Err, what? How is it disingenuous? You are claiming that cheap testing to a poor standard is robust enough to open doping cases against riders. You have to back that up with real research.

We are not talking about doping testing - just biomarker testing. How many times do I need to say it.

Advertising value is not money. It is not money they have saved, it is perceived value. Compare cycling to any other major sport across the globe, it is poor.

Advertising value is money. What it means is that if a sponsor receives x amount of dollars in advertising value that in turn will translate that into y amount of income from various sources. A company advertises to earn income. That is the only reason they advertise. If every cycling team sponsor gets $88.4 million of advertising value that is going to generate a lot of income. It is not correlation, it is causation. Advertising value generates income.

I'm sure LA didn't make the bulk of his money from contracts to ride his bike, he made it from sponsorship deals, insurance and other avenues. The vast majority of cyclists on the world tour probably earn less than my wife, and she isn't that highly paid.

I am not talking about what the average cyclist earns. I am not suggesting the average cyclist or any cyclist pay for simple blood and urine testing for biomarker data. I am saying the sponsors can afford it from the additional income they earn from advertising value for sponsoring a team. Sponsors do not sponsor cycling teams for altruistic reasons. They sponsor to increase their bottom line and Sky for example has substantially increased its bottom line since sponsoring their team.


I have outlined clearly why what you suggest is both unfeasible and useless in the fight against anti-doping. The crux of the problem is that you don't seem to understand that any data used to open a doping case must be produced in accordance with the strict controls adhered to in WADA accredited labs. I'm stating this again here to make this clear and because this point really makes the rest of the discussion redundant. The data you suggest could actually harm doping cases, not help them.

Again I have clearly told you ad nauseam, I am not talking about blood tests for anti doping purposes. What is it you don't get about that? Biomarker testing is not "opening a doping case" It does not need strict WADA controls. Trained people in local labs can more than adequately do a proper blood test following lab protocols that have been in place for decades. The data is not going to be used to prove doping cases.

Surely a cyclist is going to think twice about doping if his biomarker data is being published. This is simple behavioural logic. It is going to be used to deter cyclists from doping. You are way off base.

And your suggestion to put more money into anti-doping while salutary does not do a thing to deter a cyclist from doping.

Since you don't get my point or the objective I suggest there is no further reason to debate the issue.

 

[King Boonen]

Again I have clearly told you ad nauseam, I am not talking about blood tests for anti doping purposes.

Yes, you are:

Don Catlin long ago suggested the public publication of bio-markers based on regular urine and blood tests to determine a biological profile against which future measurements or test results could be measured.

Then we might be able to predict who is or was doping.

Publicly reporting a cyclist's biomarkers will go a long way to cleaning up the sport and ending all the useless guessing about who is doping and who is not.

These are called bio-markers as in biology markers as in the study of living organisms as in the living organisms in blood. At the initial testing these bio-markers provide a baseline of the composition of a cyclist's blood.

In later tests, changes in the composition of the blood may indicate doping.

Unless you now want to move the goalposts? If these tests are not used to target anti-doping and as a baseline to accuse people what are you proposing them for? If they are then they MUST be done under the same scrutiny as all anti-doping.

 

[peloton]

I get it! You are channeling your "Inner Maserati." Pretty funny!

No, it's not funny at all.

I don't want another vortex, please Martin...

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Yes, you are:









Unless you now want to move the goalposts? If these tests are not used to target anti-doping and as a baseline to accuse people what are you proposing them for? If they are then they MUST be done under the same scrutiny as all anti-doping.

As a deterrent. You are the one who moved the goal posts from simple blood testing to determine biomarkers to incorrectly suggesting the results of these tests be used in blood doping cases, and thus all the protocols of WADA are required. I have consistently stayed on topic that the tests are not intended to be used as proof in blood doping cases. I am not saying they could not be, but that is not the purpose.

Cycling needs to do everything it can to deter cyclists from doping. Your suggestion of pouring more money into anti-doping, WADA, ADAs etc. will not do a thing to deter a cyclist from doping because cyclists already know that in spite of all the money already poured into anti-doping they can still beat tests For example micro dosing with EPO (The creation of WADA for example cost millions to establish and costs millions to keep running. But the creation of WADA did not stop doping.)

My suggestion for a public publication of biomarker results would and will deter cyclists from doping because cyclists are afraid that any significant changes in baseline testing would make them the subject of an investigation. Publishing this data forces a cyclist to be transparent.

I don't think you grasp the concept of deterrent very well. It is a common principle of behavioural psychology and it works.