The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I have argued before that comparing riders performances from different seasons is hugely inconclusive and this is another massive red herring. Different eras, different riders, different peloton, different weather, different bikes, different clothing, different training, different nutrition, different drugs too.

Cycling is a hotbed of innovation and everything evolves from year to year, don't ignore a basic truism because it fits your argument.

Good points Jimmy, that's why you just should use your eyes, also. Some people point the fingers to the believable w/kg, but forget who is kicking them in the cranks. When Ivan Basso is on the limit because Richie Porte is leading the bunch something does not add up in my book.

 

[red_flanders]

Absolutely -and very UNcomfortable defending it if they were not. Even uncomfortable mentioning it if they were not, surely.

So why would anyone voluntarily issue suspicious information if it were accurate numbers gained by non-legit means?

Why leave a trail of breadcrumbs?

I don't doubt they're accurate. That doesn't mean they were gotten legitimately. Everything I've seen and read over the last 15 years tells me these guys all have felt forever that their performances are "legit", as they all think they're doing the same thing as everyone else.

Proves nothing either way. Easy to argue that he's putting them out there because he's clean and I wouldn't argue with you.

For me the jury is out on Wiggins and Sky, but nothing they have said or done makes me think they're clean lately. It all makes me lean towards massive coverup. Just my opinion, and I'd not have much to argue with if someone thinks it's nonsense.

I do find the UK Sky fans in general have the same blinders on we all did in the US with Armstrong in the beginning. We'll see what happens.

 

[Franklin]

For me the jury is out on Wiggins and Sky, but nothing they have said or done makes me think they're clean lately. It all makes me lean towards massive coverup. Just my opinion, and I'd not have much to argue with if someone thinks it's nonsense.

Considering what we know about Leinders and how they try to whitewash his presence at Sky it surely doesn't look too good.

Which makes the accusation of "cover up" rather have the nasty circumstance to be based on facts. One way or the other, there is already evidence of a cover up. It just remains to be seen how big the mess is.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Says the guy who claimed Sky not riding as fast as Pantani equals clean.

but they aren't

 

[JimmyFingers]

Good points Jimmy, that's why you just should use your eyes, also. Some people point the fingers to the believable w/kg, but forget who is kicking them in the cranks. When Ivan Basso is on the limit because Richie Porte is leading the bunch something does not add up in my book.

The one thing I have learnt here is to take nothing at face value, so fair enough. BUT we know that Basso doped, and we suspect that since he gone from racehorse to donkey he is off the juice or the BB, so Porte's performance may come less of a gain on his part to a massive drop in performance on Basso's.

Unless you're saying Basso used to ride clean....

 

[JimmyFingers]

Considering what we know about Leinders and how they try to whitewash his presence at Sky it surely doesn't look too good.

Which makes the accusation of "cover up" rather have the nasty circumstance to be based on facts. One way or the other, there is already evidence of a cover up. It just remains to be seen how big the mess is.

+1 solid and objective analysis

 

[JimmyFingers]

I think that the assumption should be as time goes on, given advancements in science in both the technology of the equipment and the nutrition, tactis and training, that any sport should advance incrementally year by year. Old world records become more and more of an anomaly as the years advance owing less to prodigious talent and perfect conditions and more to the innovations of lab.

Of course the cynical assumption is that most sporting zeniths can be achieved by nefarious means, the mantra of believe nothing, accept nothing. Fair enough.

And 2007 times were still faster than 2012.....

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I think that the assumption should be as time goes on, given advancements in science in both the technology of the equipment and the nutrition, tactis and training, that any sport should advance incrementally year by year. Old world records become more and more of an anomaly as the years advance owing less to prodigious talent and perfect conditions and more to the innovations of lab.

Of course the cynical assumption is that most sporting zeniths can be achieved by nefarious means, the mantra of believe nothing, accept nothing. Fair enough.

And 2007 times were still faster than 2012.....

That's because the great achievement of the biopassport has been to place limitations on doping, so that those who choose to dope do not gain as extreme an advantage as before, which means clean riders are more capable of competing than before. But it also means that you require less doping to become an unstoppable force, because people are not capable of doping to the Pantani level now.

This does not mean that we can extrapolate from that that Sky did what they did clean, however. That requires a leap of faith that I find nigh on impossible to take given some of the names involved. It is more likely that they could do it clean than had they dominated the Tour in similar fashion 5 or 10 years ago, sure. But with all the other circumstances, we have to swallow that 4 riders from the same team - one with dodgy history, one a miracle transformer, and the team with a doctor with a shady past - just happen to be that much stronger than anybody else, and it's hard to do. Take Fränk Schleck as an example. Back in the days pre-biopassport he was still pretty successful - top 10 in the 2006 Tour with his Alpe d'Huez win - and was connected to Puerto; in 2012 he was doping (positive test at the Tour) and was still made to look like a fool by Sky. Is Fränk doping less than he was in 2006? Quite probably. But this is a guy who was dodgy then, is dodgy now, and has been overtaken by a bunch of guys who he should, palmarès-wise, be trampling all over on the climbs, and if the péloton is less doped you would then expect that the effects of doping should magnify the performances, just as Riccardo Riccò and Emanuele Sella stood out in 2008. Fränk Schleck is the same age, roughly, as Wiggins, and younger than Mick Rogers, and coming off the podium of the previous year's race. Seeing him dropped by these guys, clean, when he's doping, is tough to swallow, unless you really don't rate Fränk Schleck (and I personally think he has been overrated a lot at times) or you really have a high estimate of what the Sky quartet are capable of.

 

[thehog]

I think that the assumption should be as time goes on, given advancements in science in both the technology of the equipment and the nutrition, tactis and training, that any sport should advance incrementally year by year. Old world records become more and more of an anomaly as the years advance owing less to prodigious talent and perfect conditions and more to the innovations of lab.

Of course the cynical assumption is that most sporting zeniths can be achieved by nefarious means, the mantra of believe nothing, accept nothing. Fair enough.

And 2007 times were still faster than 2012.....

That was Armstrong's mantra for a long time.

He'd say the roads got smother, the bikes got lighter so naturally you'd see better improvements....

Track and Field records have gone backwards. In fact the IAAF are considering restarting women's WRs due to the Cold War doping era of USA v Eastern Bloc country.

Women's 400m is from 1987. Women's 100m is from 1988. Men's 200m stood from 1972 until 2000. Men's 800m stood from 1981 until around 2006.

Fiddlesticks Jimmy. Fiddlesticks.

The fact the Wiggins climbs at the same speed as Chicken Rassmussen speaks volumes.

Loud and clear.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think that the assumption should be as time goes on, given advancements in science in both the technology of the equipment and the nutrition, tactis and training, that any sport should advance incrementally year by year.

Not this again. This has been repeatedly refuted. In cycling terms, it's practically impossible to measure since most courses change, the rules change, and so on.

Meanwhile, the bio-passport has been repeated proven to be an IQ test. Revisit the phrase "never tested positive" and the meaning it has now.

Hog beat me to it.

 

[martinvickers]

That was Armstrong's mantra for a long time.

He'd say the roads got smother, the bikes got lighter so naturally you'd see better improvements....

I'm just going to let Godwins/Pharmstrong go for now...

Track and Field records have gone backwards. In fact the IAAF are considering restarting women's WRs due to the Cold War doping era of USA v Eastern Bloc country.

Ok. some fair stuff here.

Women's 400m is from 1987. Women's 100m is from 1988.

The reality is that the IAAF have long decided not to revise Koch's record, though it's clear how serious GDR doping was - just check out the lunacy of that world record here -it makes Armstrong and Pantani look positively sluggish.

It's a pretty good answer to those who think only cycling has questions to answer! Seriously - hitting 49.5 is now absolutely world class - only Richards ross did it this last Games - Koch hit 47.6 slowing up

as for Flo Jo, doped as she was, and by god she was, her insane WR is actually more to do with wacky wind gauges - some reckon she may acutally have had a wind as friendly as +4m.s - on top of the dope.

Men's 200m stood from 1972 until 2000.


Men's 800m stood from 1981 until around 2006.

True. but the Men's 100m record, the blue riband has been under contant attack right up until Bolt - admittedly, mostly by dopers, but not always.

Actually, 100m gives a good example of something else- ask anybody who is really into track and field to name a truly world class truly clean 100m sprinter pre bolt, and you will get one name repeated over and over - Ato Bolden, a 9.80 runner who hated doping with a visceral passion (evidence includes a private letter that bolden wrote to his coach, and was leaked by another one of his coaches athletes, where Bolden absolutely goes through his coach for looking the other way to allow boldon's friend Maurice Green to dope - the passion and anger is highly 'lemond-esque').

Now his times, and his nearest modern equivalent, Tyson Gay's times, on their own are completely red flag territory, historically, on doping. and while the jury is very much out on the jamaicans, and we know a series of others doped to the heavens, nobody in that sport has a bad word for boldon or Gay when it comes to drugs - unlike Blake, Greene, and the obvious ones like Gatlin and Chambers)

As for Coe, no evidence he doped. Plenty of evidence that his dragon of a father was possibly sports first modern sports scientist - at least west of the iron curtain.

But to come back to my early point, sometimes these things just aren't linear. But progress still takes place, when taken in the round.

 

[thehog]

I'm just going to let Godwins/Pharmstrong go for now...

Ok. some fair stuff here.

The reality is that the IAAF have long decided not to revise Koch's record, though it's clear how serious GDR doping was - just check out the lunacy of that world record here -it makes Armstrong and Pantani look positively sluggish.

It's a pretty good answer to those who think only cycling has questions to answer! Seriously - hitting 49.5 is now absolutely world class - only Richards ross did it this last Games - Koch hit 47.6 slowing up

as for Flo Jo, doped as she was, and by god she was, her insane WR is actually more to do with wacky wind gauges - some reckon she may acutally have had a wind as friendly as +4m.s - on top of the dope.



True. but the Men's 100m record, the blue riband has been under contant attack right up until Bolt - admittedly, mostly by dopers, but not always.

Actually, 100m gives a good example of something else- ask anybody who is really into track and field to name a truly world class truly clean 100m sprinter pre bolt, and you will get one name repeated over and over - Ato Bolden, a 9.80 runner who hated doping with a visceral passion (evidence includes a private letter that bolden wrote to his coach, and was leaked by another one of his coaches athletes, where Bolden absolutely goes through his coach for looking the other way to allow boldon's friend Maurice Green to dope - the passion and anger is highly 'lemond-esque').

Now his times, and his nearest modern equivalent, Tyson Gay's times, on their own are completely red flag territory, historically, on doping. and while the jury is very much out on the jamaicans, and we know a series of others doped to the heavens, nobody in that sport has a bad word for boldon or Gay when it comes to drugs - unlike Blake, Greene, and the obvious ones like Gatlin and Chambers)

As for Coe, no evidence he doped. Plenty of evidence that his dragon of a father was possibly sports first modern sports scientist - at least west of the iron curtain.

But to come back to my early point, sometimes these things just aren't linear. But progress still takes place, when taken in the round.

I agree with all that is stated. It's not liner. The 50% rule and bio-passport do limit doping they don't stop it.

I heard the FloJo wind gague story. She still ran some insane not normal times outside that particular race.

Even Jones couldn't top her times on the 'clear';

1 10.49 ±0.0 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1q1 Indianapolis 16.07.1988
2 10.61 +1.2 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1 Indianapolis 17.07.1988
3 10.62 +1.0 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1q3 Seoul 24.09.1988
4 10.64 +1.2 Carmelita Jeter USA 24.11.79 1 Shanghai 20.09.2009
5 10.65A +1.1 Marion Jones USA 12.10.75 1 Johannesburg 12.09.1998
6 10.67 -0.1 Carmelita Jeter USA 24.11.79 1 Thessaloníki 13.09.2009
7 10.70 +1.6 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1s1 Indianapolis 17.07.1988
7 10.70 -0.1 Marion Jones USA 12.10.75 1 Sevilla 22.08.1999

 

[The Hitch]

The one thing I have learnt here is to take nothing at face value, so fair enough. BUT we know that Basso doped, and we suspect that since he gone from racehorse to donkey he is off the juice or the BB, so Porte's performance may come less of a gain on his part to a massive drop in performance on Basso's.

Basso is 35 years old. He still came 5th in the giro last year just didn't dominate. At 32 he won the giro and at 33 nearly 34 he came 7th in the tour despite injury making his preparation non existent. Considering this all came.after 2 years out.of the sport i wouldn't be hasty to say he's been clean

 

[The Hitch]

I'm just going to let Godwins/Pharmstrong go for now...



Ok. some fair stuff here.




The reality is that the IAAF have long decided not to revise Koch's record, though it's clear how serious GDR doping was - just check out the lunacy of that world record here -it makes Armstrong and Pantani look positively sluggish.

It's a pretty good answer to those who think only cycling has questions to answer! Seriously - hitting 49.5 is now absolutely world class - only Richards ross did it this last Games - Koch hit 47.6 slowing up

as for Flo Jo, doped as she was, and by god she was, her insane WR is actually more to do with wacky wind gauges - some reckon she may acutally have had a wind as friendly as +4m.s - on top of the dope.



True. but the Men's 100m record, the blue riband has been under contant attack right up until Bolt - admittedly, mostly by dopers, but not always.

Actually, 100m gives a good example of something else- ask anybody who is really into track and field to name a truly world class truly clean 100m sprinter pre bolt, and you will get one name repeated over and over - Ato Bolden, a 9.80 runner who hated doping with a visceral passion (evidence includes a private letter that bolden wrote to his coach, and was leaked by another one of his coaches athletes, where Bolden absolutely goes through his coach for looking the other way to allow boldon's friend Maurice Green to dope - the passion and anger is highly 'lemond-esque').

Now his times, and his nearest modern equivalent, Tyson Gay's times, on their own are completely red flag territory, historically, on doping. and while the jury is very much out on the jamaicans, and we know a series of others doped to the heavens, nobody in that sport has a bad word for boldon or Gay when it comes to drugs - unlike Blake, Greene, and the obvious ones like Gatlin and Chambers)

As for Coe, no evidence he doped. Plenty of evidence that his dragon of a father was possibly sports first modern sports scientist - at least west of the iron curtain.

But to come back to my early point, sometimes these things just aren't linear. But progress still takes place, when taken in the round.

Good post.

 

[Alphabet]

The one thing I have learnt here is to take nothing at face value, so fair enough. BUT we know that Basso doped, and we suspect that since he gone from racehorse to donkey he is off the juice or the BB, so Porte's performance may come less of a gain on his part to a massive drop in performance on Basso's.

Unless you're saying Basso used to ride clean....

Basso, doped or clean, is (or at least was) an enormous talent, one of the best GT riders in the peloton. Far better than Porte or Rogers, at any rate. Even at 35, Porte should not be able to put him into serious difficulty.

 

[The Hitch]

http://cyclocosm.com/2012/12/a-new-years-resolution-for-cycling/

 

[blackcat]

Basso is 35 years old. He still came 5th in the giro last year just didn't dominate. At 32 he won the giro and at 33 nearly 34 he came 7th in the tour despite injury making his preparation non existent. Considering this all came.after 2 years out.of the sport i wouldn't be hasty to say he's been clean

and when he was posting his numbers, physiology metrics, the retics were oscillating like a funfair shooting parlour target

 

[blackcat]

I'm just going to let Godwins/Pharmstrong go for now...



Ok. some fair stuff here.




The reality is that the IAAF have long decided not to revise Koch's record, though it's clear how serious GDR doping was - just check out the lunacy of that world record here -it makes Armstrong and Pantani look positively sluggish.

It's a pretty good answer to those who think only cycling has questions to answer! Seriously - hitting 49.5 is now absolutely world class - only Richards ross did it this last Games - Koch hit 47.6 slowing up

as for Flo Jo, doped as she was, and by god she was, her insane WR is actually more to do with wacky wind gauges - some reckon she may acutally have had a wind as friendly as +4m.s - on top of the dope.



True. but the Men's 100m record, the blue riband has been under contant attack right up until Bolt - admittedly, mostly by dopers, but not always.

Actually, 100m gives a good example of something else- ask anybody who is really into track and field to name a truly world class truly clean 100m sprinter pre bolt, and you will get one name repeated over and over - Ato Bolden, a 9.80 runner who hated doping with a visceral passion (evidence includes a private letter that bolden wrote to his coach, and was leaked by another one of his coaches athletes, where Bolden absolutely goes through his coach for looking the other way to allow boldon's friend Maurice Green to dope - the passion and anger is highly 'lemond-esque').

Now his times, and his nearest modern equivalent, Tyson Gay's times, on their own are completely red flag territory, historically, on doping. and while the jury is very much out on the jamaicans, and we know a series of others doped to the heavens, nobody in that sport has a bad word for boldon or Gay when it comes to drugs - unlike Blake, Greene, and the obvious ones like Gatlin and Chambers)

As for Coe, no evidence he doped. Plenty of evidence that his dragon of a father was possibly sports first modern sports scientist - at least west of the iron curtain.

But to come back to my early point, sometimes these things just aren't linear. But progress still takes place, when taken in the round.

AtoBolden trained with Mo Greene. I say they all doped. Saying one is against doping, aint the same as being clean.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Not this again. This has been repeatedly refuted. In cycling terms, it's practically impossible to measure since most courses change, the rules change, and so on.

But that was my point: times from year to year are incomparable due to the many variables, technological advancements being only one of them

 

[JimmyFingers]

That was Armstrong's mantra for a long time.

He'd say the roads got smother, the bikes got lighter so naturally you'd see better improvements....

Track and Field records have gone backwards. In fact the IAAF are considering restarting women's WRs due to the Cold War doping era of USA v Eastern Bloc country.

Women's 400m is from 1987. Women's 100m is from 1988. Men's 200m stood from 1972 until 2000. Men's 800m stood from 1981 until around 2006.

Fiddlesticks Jimmy. Fiddlesticks.

The fact the Wiggins climbs at the same speed as Chicken Rassmussen speaks volumes.

Loud and clear.

Did you actually read what I posted? Because of this evidence it appears not. And yet you cry fiddlesticks at me.

 

[martinvickers]

I agree with all that is stated. It's not liner. The 50% rule and bio-passport do limit doping they don't stop it.

I agree 100%. The Passport is an improvement. It's not a cure. I believe it gives clean riders a chance - no more than that.

I heard the FloJo wind gague story. She still ran some insane not normal times outside that particular race.

Windy Indy became an in joke. But of course you are right on Flo Jo.

Even Jones couldn't top her times on the 'clear'

Ah, the 'clear' - There is a school of thought, no more than that, that the untold story of BALCO was what a sham the 'clear' was - that it provided nothing like the 'boost' it's makers claimed, and that it was the 'classic' cocktail of hGH and testosterone and a bit of masked steroid that did the work.

Certainly neither Chambers or Montgomery saw the insane times that they were promised, albeit they were makingi the high 9.8s.

Jones, oddly enough, is in another way a near IAAF equivalent of Armstrong - doped from the very start (high school some say), paranoid, dumping partners as they outlived their usefulness. Another of the 'functioning sociopaths'.

As for your list - the presence of Pharmacita Jeter, protoge of Mark Block, ain't no surprise. Much as I question the jamaicans, I'd be lying if i didn't admit being very glad that Fraser-Price (and Felix) took the golds in 2012 - Block is a ferrari-like red flag, and rather like armstrong, Jeter refuses to kick him to the kerb even now.

 

[martinvickers]

AtoBolden trained with Mo Greene. I say they all doped. Saying one is against doping, aint the same as being clean.

You should go find the letter before just making assumptions.

Boldon was in awe of Greene, almost a brotherly relationship - until he found out that Greene was a 'drug mule' for the coach (which greene has since admitted, while denying taking - Schleck anyone? ) -

Boldon has a long time friendship with Darren Campbell, another visceral anti-doper (though a really good runner, he wasn't absolutely world class, although he had a great big-game temprement), and as I understand it, Campbell urged him to dig further.

When he did, and was told that Greene indeed doped by another member of the group, he went 'postal' on the coach, broke off all ties, and (I am told) wrote to IAAF demanding action - which he never got.

One can never know for certain, but I'd put good money on Boldon being clean.

Like cycling, many athletes 'know' or have strong idea who's on the dope, who's not. No one was surprised when Valerie Adams was upgraded. No-one has really been surprised at he recent rash of east european positives. Noth this years 1500m were 'dodgy' and everyone in the sport 'knows' it - although proving it is another thing. On the other hand, despite his brilliance and red flag times, Bolt and Rudisha are not viewed as suspiciously - they're broadly (though not universally) considered simply a freak of nature.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Men's 200m stood from 1972 until 2000. Men's 800m stood from 1981 until around 2006.

A couple of minor corrections...

Mennea's 200m WR lasted from 1979 to 1996 (Michael Johnson). Prior to that it had lasted since the altitude of Mexico in 1968.

Coe's 1981 800m WR lasted until 1997 (Wilson Kipketer). The new WR is still only 0.7s faster than Coe's record, which shows how far ahead of the game Coe was in terms of talent/coaching/doping (take your pick!) Coaching is my guess. As the saying went at the time: "If Ovett had been coached by Coe's Dad, he'd have been unbeatable."

 

[The Hitch]

Noth this years 1500m were 'dodgy' and everyone in the sport 'knows' it - although proving it is another thing. On the other hand, despite his brilliance and red flag times, Bolt and Rudisha are not viewed as suspiciously - they're broadly (though not universally) considered simply a freak of nature.

Why would anyone view.makhloufi as suspicious but not bolt? Makhloufi iis winning races but he isn't breaking the world record or anything while bolt has created a new space the size of 10 world records where only he is allowed to post times in. I get that in 1500 the records don't necessarily come with a top performance because the early pace might not suffice, but still i don't see what Makhloufi has done to ride eyebrows that bolt has not.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Basso, doped or clean, is (or at least was) an enormous talent, one of the best GT riders in the peloton. Far better than Porte or Rogers, at any rate. Even at 35, Porte should not be able to put him into serious difficulty.

It would be interesting to see what Basso would do against Porte in the Tour without having ridden the Giro. The Giro reduced Berto to an also-ran in the 2011 Tour, so it would presumably have slowed up Basso by a fair amount in this year's Tour.

Besides, both Porte and Rogers only put Basso et al into difficulty by riding a "short" stage. The went hard for a while then sat up and coasted home, leaving the Big Dogs to bark on their own to the finish.