What constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping?

This is not just for Sky but there's a lot of talk of "no proof" or no "definitive proof"...

So what is proof of doping? A positive test, rider testimony etc.?

We all hear it a lot that there's "no proof" but cycling is littered with cyclists who've been doping and stating their innocence and cleanliness all along.

What does it take to prove doping to the general public that a rider or team are doping?

I would add that "not testing positive" or "passing all the tests" certainly doesn't mean "not doping".
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
thehog said:
This is not just for Sky but there's a lot of talk of "no proof" or no "definitive proof"...

So what is proof of doping? A positive test, rider testimony etc.?

We all hear it a lot that there's "no proof" but cycling is littered with cyclists who've been doping and stating their innocence and cleanliness all along.

What does it take to prove doping to the general public that a rider or team are doping?

I would add that "not testing positive" or "passing all the tests" certainly doesn't mean "not doping".
How about a thousand page report of incontrovertible, staggeringly credible evidence obtained by people who could not stand the bull**** a moment longer?
 
Jan 7, 2010
121
0
0
thehog said:
What does it take to prove doping to the general public that a rider or team are doping?
going from my experiences with the general public once they find out that i'm into cycling, it takes the fact that a cyclist is a cyclist to prove to them that a cyclist is doping.
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
Ferminal said:
But there was more than enough proof for ten years; at least for anyone informed, objective, and sane.
Sorry, I don't get your point. Tygart got on the case, and in 3 weeks (I think) sorted the problem.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Depends on a number of factors. For me, a reasoned decision that someone is 'doped' or 'not doped' can be reached via cognitive skills linking various elements.

Basically these types of people look at the scope of not just an individual, but an entire race, the peloton and then analyse and correlate discrepancies with past riders. So the rumours on the grapevine about doping or dopers holds a part, the positive tests, the actual performance on the road, the plethora of dopers on said team (riders or management) is examined and a benchmark is given. Each of these, plus the PR and media political mumbo jumbo cyclists say, are remembered for each individual iteration, thus covering the riders, the whole peloton, the media and thus season. It shows the trends, the habits and allows one to fully grasp the scope and detail omerta holds. Oh and a vast deep understanding of the UCI and all it's machinations over the years. Basically solid common sense, dosed with a strong dash and appreciation for history, human psychology and pattern recognition.

The above is about perspective and total knowledge base. Thus you can form the conclusion you did, that video footage is proof enough Sky are doping. Of course the 'other' type of poster who is the diametric opposite of the cognitive reasoned informed sceptic (the opposite would label this person a cynic and hater and conversely I'd name these ones fanboys) will read such a post and lose the plot. Because their brain doesn't operate under the above perameters. They need a smoking gun. A body, a corpse, the whole blood work run up. They only ever turn on their idols when it is common practice. They never question, do not doubt, but are sold in their beliefs by some external locus (mostly nationalism and patriotism). Words to the contrary from the horses mouth, even hypocritical stances from the horse (their idol) are cast aside such is the level of their misplaced conviction in the horses purity. They are believers. Watch the movie Serenity. Believers are dangerous people. The villain was a believer. Believers will die for their cause. It's a branch of fanaticism. It is also mostly cognitive. There is no balance in this approach. Only turmoil and confusion. The level of turmoil determines how long they hold onto their belief when it is disproven. Note with most people regarding LA, in August they were still saying it was crap. Then October 10 hits and the tide massively turns. Oh, yeah, there is all the evidence. I now have 'proof'.

No hog, they had enough to warrant proof before, it's just that they manner in which their brain is wired does not permit them to deem what was presented as proof. They will sit here and debate the meaning of proof. They will carry on like we are supposed to be WADA and nail everyone. Heck, ask them to clarify for us what a court would label as a reasoned intelligent man (they never say woman) would list as the expected behaviour of a clean rider. A clean competitive professional who is tempered with conviction, personal belief in accountability and ownership. Now get take that explanation and cross it with how people in the peloton behaves. There is always a massive difference between these fanboys idols stance and what should be happening.

For the record hog, I'm of the belief that these fanboys are so gullible, that if I was of the persuasion as their false doping idols are, they'd be in serious trouble. I could literally take them for everything. That's how clueless they are. They cannot read body language, they excuse everything and think that special privileges and rights are to be afforded to them simply because they aren't sceptical. Take Jimmy Fingers as an example...he's stated this numerous times. Personally, I think the mods should ban them. All of them. It'll save a lot of trouble. We know who they are. They are simply English versions of Polish. Tough love is needed. They think everyone is out to get their idols and them alone. So beyond ridiculous it isn't funny.

Proof? Yeah man, there are two contrasts, two extremes here. There are those who of course fall in between. Like Froome19 for example. They don't want to go all the way to the right. I understand that. I'd lump Fleur and ACF94 in there as well. They'll acknowledge their idol could have doped...but it isn't enough to warrant hurling them out. And no, proof is not needed on a public forum FFS. Those demanding as such should be dealt with by the mods and given a damn infraction for trolling. Look at the Clinic's definitions of disruptive posting, trolling and the purpose for the Clinic. That's why the Sky thread is disjointed. 50 pages in a week and most of it is people stating the purpose of the Clinic isn't legitimate. Just ban them and teach them a lesson FFS. And hog, one poster is reporting people non stop. Take a guess who they are?

PS: I'm thinking a meme page in the Clinic is in good taste. Anyone in?

As for proof officially. We all know where that stands. USADA and WADA have a different standard for what constitutes doping than say the UCI or individuals in the sport. It's well known omerta has it's own standard for what is acceptable. We don't play a part in that. The actual rules do not. The enablers and dopers know this and play this card. Albeit, we are talking about a collective group on intellectually unimpressive men. Hence you get people like Wiggins who has created quite a conundrum for himself. He provides evidence that people consider as minor proof, that he is untruthful. A smarter more canniving person would play their cards smarter. The casual fans do not possess this knowledge, nor do they understand how the science in testing works, how flawed it is and why the end result is merely just stating we tested you this level and according to it, you're clean, but we fail to state to the public that you could still be dirty. Hence Wiggins and others are not required to qualify or provide quantitative data for their personal bile. In short, the dopers have seen time and again, seasoned liars, like Armstrong play their cards and sway the gullible. Proof? In this case some charm, flair and charisma couple with a convincing poker face are enough proof to label the detractors and sceptics as haters. See...pattern recognition in play once again.

And no, this pattern recognition is a life skill. It's psychological. It relates to every area of life. It is not mutually exclusive to just cycling. Proof, or what a person deems as proof, comes down to the wiring in their brain. A lot of it is conditioning. And I'd label the subset of conditioning that results in rabid believers as a form of pure idiocy.

People are naive, uninformed and believe in absolutes. There are no absolutes with proof, and there are no absolutes with doping. There are merely differences in standards. Ours are higher than theirs and thus, we don't get conned. Those who have lower standard, well I've said it many times this year, they are the types of people who will come home and find their best mate/brother/dad/enemy balls deep in their missus and won't have seen a single sign. They'll be flabbergasted. As I said, they're believers and their behaviour is not conducive with the truth and what really is happening. Literally for them, is there ever proof? Depends on the individual, but most people are sheep. When the public opinion or status quo changes, they'll go with the tide to simply not be laughed at. Can't say I'm not already laughing at them...it's quite fun.
 
Oct 21, 2012
340
0
0
thehog said:
This is not just for Sky but there's a lot of talk of "no proof" or no "definitive proof"...

So what is proof of doping? A positive test, rider testimony etc.?

We all hear it a lot that there's "no proof" but cycling is littered with cyclists who've been doping and stating their innocence and cleanliness all along.

What does it take to prove doping to the general public that a rider or team are doping?

I would add that "not testing positive" or "passing all the tests" certainly doesn't mean "not doping".
Not read any of it yet but seems like a good thread to start seeing as what has been going on recently. Also takes it off - strictly Sky although I'm guessing where the motivation has come from. Still the link to it so guess it will be still stalked about mucho.
This actually could be the heart of the subject of the whole clinic . Anyway don't wAnt to big this up too much haven't read one item yet!
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Galic Ho said:
Depends on a number of factors.
...
Can't say I'm not already laughing at them...it's quite fun.
Galic, interesting post. I think I agree in principle with most of what you state, although suspect I am more tolerant/understanding/forgiving of human frailty than what I see you express, as well as personally still more gullible also I suspect. And I don't see this in myself, or anyone for that matter as something "weak" or "to be sneered at", although it has cost me at times, but also returned for me as trust invested in the right people gives great returns.

2 questions remaining:

- do you have anyone in the current peloton with reasonable results that you say warrants enough doubt to be "clean until proven otherwise"
- do you yourself trust anyone in life sufficiently to invest in this trust, ie make yourself vulnerable to them

As this is what worries me with your thesis. What's left to live in life if one can no longer invest in trusting anyone. It's a lonely life left on web forums sneering at naive trusting folk? Not having a go by the way, just illustrating.
 
Grandillusion said:
Sorry, I don't get your point. Tygart got on the case, and in 3 weeks (I think) sorted the problem.
Normal people aren't bound to the same requirements of proof as the authorities. There was more than enough proof for any normal person to be convinced long before USADA decided to find enough to have a case.
 
Jun 11, 2011
473
0
0
so dangerous when everybody has a different definition of clean, dope, cheating.
nobody is 100% clean, nobody knows every single molecular compound that enters their body. we use all kinds of drugs in everyday life, anybody that has had surgery has had EPO in them. nobody is clean.
did you know that according to the rules, blocking is illegal in cycling. everybody blocks, it is an intrigal part of team tactics, hiding your intentions is the art in blocking. everybody cheats. everybody lies.
the rules also state that in a sprint you have to ride a straight line, once again the art comes in how you hide your intentions. everybody cheats, everybody lies.
we, the fans, are the ones demanding attacking, crazy hard racing, then we b itch when they give it to us
 
Jun 11, 2011
473
0
0
Galic Ho said:
...Because their brain doesn't operate under the above perameters...
For the record hog, I'm of the belief that these fanboys are so gullible, that if I was of the persuasion as their false doping idols are, they'd be in serious trouble. I could literally take them for everything. That's how clueless they are... Personally, I think the mods should ban them. All of them. It'll save a lot of trouble. We know who they are. They are simply English versions of Polish...
Those demanding as such should be dealt with by the mods and given a damn infraction for trolling...
...Ours are higher than theirs and thus, we don't get conned. Those who have lower standard, well I've said it many times this year, they are the types of people who will come home and find their best mate/brother/dad/enemy balls deep in their missus and won't have seen a single sign. ...Can't say I'm not already laughing at them...it's quite fun.
wow, talk about trolling and someone that should be banned...
what exactly does 'English version of Polish' mean?
 
CobbleStoner said:
so dangerous when everybody has a different definition of clean, dope, cheating.
nobody is 100% clean, nobody knows every single molecular compound that enters their body. we use all kinds of drugs in everyday life, anybody that has had surgery has had EPO in them. nobody is clean.
did you know that according to the rules, blocking is illegal in cycling. everybody blocks, it is an intrigal part of team tactics, hiding your intentions is the art in blocking. everybody cheats. everybody lies.
the rules also state that in a sprint you have to ride a straight line, once again the art comes in how you hide your intentions. everybody cheats, everybody lies.
we, the fans, are the ones demanding attacking, crazy hard racing, then we b itch when they give it to us
If you want to start a thread on blocking and sprinting go ahead but these two things have nothing to do with doping.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
CobbleStoner said:
so dangerous when everybody has a different definition of clean, dope, cheating.
Doping = using PED's (as per definition of PED). Conceptually quite simple.

CobbleStoner said:
nobody is 100% clean, nobody knows every single molecular compound that enters their body. we use all kinds of drugs in everyday life, anybody that has had surgery has had EPO in them. nobody is clean.
Absolute nonsense. Not going to reply to this any more than that. Do some basic reading on human metabolism and apply this to "drugs". Any basic reading will do, or just ask, before spouting.
 
Aug 13, 2009
89
0
0
Proof in a legal sense? If so, who has jurisdiction, riders home country legal system, a World Court, someone else? Criminal or civil courts? Reason for asking is that historically, different countries have different standards for legal evidence. If the goal is to ban forever anyone convicted of doping, the process needs to be laid out a bit clearer as regards to jurisdiction, rules of evidence, provenance of samples, testing of said samples. As an engineer, one aspect of the testing that has always bothered me is that there seems to be too much interpretation of the results. All accredited labs should be able to get the exact same results from the same sample. Toss in B samples being tested by the same lab that tested the A sample and it's more of a problem. Pick a lab to be the gold standard (say a Swiss one), all B samples tested there, in the presence of both the rider's experts and the governing bodies experts (maybe toss in a randomly picked outside expert).

Proof that holds up in "the clinic" is a different story :eek: The crowdsourced experience seems to be pretty accurate, but perhaps a little unevenly applied.

Before I'm accused of being a fanboy, if you're talking about Gaul or Coppi, you may be right, otherwise, you're off your meds.
 
Jun 11, 2011
473
0
0
Tinman said:
Doping = using PED's (as per definition of PED). Conceptually quite simple.



Absolute nonsense. Not going to reply to this any more than that. Do some basic reading on human metabolism and apply this to "drugs". Any basic reading will do, or just ask, before spouting.
blood doping uses no PED's, and is still considered doping, maybe you should read up on some basic chemistry also. and who should ask? you? because your opinion are so much more valid than mine?
 
proof

proof...........something specific that can be verified

not............it looks like

................just join the dots

................data from an unconfirmed source

...............because (a) did it so if (b) make similar lifestyle choices they

...............must be doing it too

most definitely not stuff that the hog has made up
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Tinman said:
Galic, interesting post. I think I agree in principle with most of what you state, although suspect I am more tolerant/understanding/forgiving of human frailty than what I see you express, as well as personally still more gullible also I suspect. And I don't see this in myself, or anyone for that matter as something "weak" or "to be sneered at", although it has cost me at times, but also returned for me as trust invested in the right people gives great returns.

2 questions remaining:

- do you have anyone in the current peloton with reasonable results that you say warrants enough doubt to be "clean until proven otherwise"
- do you yourself trust anyone in life sufficiently to invest in this trust, ie make yourself vulnerable to them

As this is what worries me with your thesis. What's left to live in life if one can no longer invest in trusting anyone. It's a lonely life left on web forums sneering at naive trusting folk? Not having a go by the way, just illustrating.
This is professional sports we are talking about. I never stated the primary outlook I described as being void of trust, let alone being without faith. Actually I should requalify what I said. The primary knowledge base is about understanding. Without understanding one does not improve, one cannot prosper beyond a set point and ultimately one can be left in a futile struggle in life with no prospect.

When you have enough knowledge to read a system that is in place and discern it's reliability and safety which in regards to cycling pertains to it's cleanliness. It's kind of like doing a mental audit and being able to look at the whole picture and go, bang, bang, bang those things are there and these things which should be aren't.

Regarding understanding. Everyone has their limit. I cut slack for people...to a degree. Then I take into consideration knowledge base. Most people read like open books and play their cards poorly. It doesn't take long to determine where people sit. I'm more than prone to biting people's heads off unjustly, but I do apologise and have done many times on this forum. But mostly I don't single people out initially, to pick on them. Actually an initial reply by me is predominantly to re-qualify a position they may have taken that is based on naive thinking or totally incorrect data/knowledge, aka they are simply uninformed. Basically the first time it's educational. After that? Well if one wants to bang on and on and on...get the picture? I think the forum is here to discuss doping, not distract from discussion simply because one doesn't like the subject matter. For example, Ezio Auditore da Firenze said "the tenet of our creed is that everything is allowed and everything is permitted." How else does one attain understanding and universal truth if you don't permit every idea, stance and ideology to be tested? Again...the mental audit comes in. You test it and give it a rating. Good, ok, iffy, odd, dodgy and completely bogus would be one scale. As I said, there are degrees of understanding and no absolutes..

- do you have anyone in the current peloton with reasonable results that you say warrants enough doubt to be "clean until proven otherwise"
Hmmnnnn. That is a good question. I'd say Chavanel pre 2012. This year I think its pretty clear Quickstep profited from one of the Lotto doctors. Note Chavanel's chrono improved...suspicious IMO. Post 2010 Basso. Ivan gets my faith. He's either clean or close to it this year and last year. I had quite a bit of faith in Linus Gerdeman, was good in 2007 on T-Mobile and garbage afterwards for Milram. Then he signed for Radioshack I operate under the assumption you ride for Johan, you're either doing something or are prepared to if needed. Gerard Ciolek gets my faith and so does Tyler Farrar. I don't think they dope. Oscar Freire but he retired. Before he was at Garmin, Thor Hushovd. He was a little too good in 2011 at the Tour. But this year he and Gilbert were not as good. I put that down to changing doctors and programs. Too strong IMO when on form to warrant any belief they are clean. Kreuziger I have always liked. He's had decent results, but has come short quite a bit at Astana. I don't think he is doing what a lot of his rivals are.

This year has made me rethink some things, but that is just a by product of continually reassessing things. Cancellara...I'm not convinced he is on any super duper program this year or last year. 2010, yeah sure, but not this year. Daminao Cunego...decent enough that he can get wins when others stuff up, but not dominant enough that he is a marked threat when he races. Then again Lampre have been in the news in Italy way too often this year...I even heard his name mentioned in some CONI talk. You just don't know or if you have faith, one reference and the portion of faith you were willing to give or discretion's and hearsay you overlooked...well that reverses. Oh and pretty much all the Rabobank guys. Gesink, Mollema and Boom...if they are doping, they are doing it wrong. In terms of pointing fingers, they are worth bypassing IMO. I also like Dan Martin but not his cousin Nicholas Roche. Dan is the gifted one...good sporting genes on both sides of the family.

- do you yourself trust anyone in life sufficiently to invest in this trust, ie make yourself vulnerable to them
Are you suggesting I want a relationship with a pro cyclist? Because 'investing' in that trust mentioned above kind of implies this. Yeah not my type dude.:p My requirements for personal relationships that match your description are that the person (female of course) is not;

a) fake personality and disingenuous. I've met a few fake people and learnt my lesson the first time, thus I can spot them a mile away in heavy fog >>> pattern recognition and yes I can spot them well. Actually, the few I've met have hated me treating them like they aren't the bees knees and calling out their BS. Absolutely hated it and thus I became dispensable. The person I'm thinking of was egocentric...you can live with an egotist but not an egocentric individual. They are users. Don't fret, I know them when I see them. Some are harder to spot but I've gotten the weeding out down to a good art form:D

b) somewhat intelligent by my standards of what constitutes smart. Look I won't insult anyone nor demand people be of a certain IQ, heck at uni I did tons of friends work and helped people out because I find most things pretty easy, but as I said, if I were a scheming diabolical sociopath with egocentric tendencies I would have no moral compass and would do whatever I could get away with. Short story, if you're not at a set IQ, we wouldn't be on equal footing and they'd have no idea what I was doing or clue of the level I was operating on. At all. And it would annoy the other person because I'd hold my standard and they'd have trouble keeping up cognitively. I'm not talking book smarts, there are many forms of intelligence.

c) Backbone and mental toughness. I don't sugar coat the truth.

d) Non smoker and physically active. Because I don't smoke and I am fit.

Does that mean I'll trust a person? Hell no. That's where personality, beliefs and your own personal ethos come into play. And I can't write that bit down, you've got to do it yourself and another person has to believe it. If a person is upfront and honest, well that sets a good starting point and future tone IMO.

BTW as it stands, I trust my dogs. We have a few dogs in my family. I trust them unconditionally. They're malamute and husky. I trust some of my relatives...my brothers and sisters. One of my parents...to a degree. The other I trust, but also I understand how they operate and they are conflicted and at heart a drama queen. Other close family members? Yeah I have one family member I trusted who went bat *** crazy 2 years back...don't trust them anymore for a damn good reason. Have another who is completely senile. Have a lot of friends I trust. I'm not complaining, I could be a lot worse off. For the most part I am self reliant. Kind of learnt to be.

I thought you might like this tid bit. My sisters boyfriend was in my grade at school but in a town 60km away. He went to school with a very well known Aussie cyclist. This guy currently races and everyone knows his name locally. I'd have been in his grade if I lived in that town. You'd have heard of him. Probably the one Aussie cyclist you wouldn't pick a fight with, because of his unpredictability and size. His mum worked at the uni I went to. Doping aside and yes I talk to my sister and her boyfriend about it when I see them, the bf gave me the low down on this guy. He was straight to the point, the guy is a do#chebag. Absolute tool. Disliked by a lot of people at school. A lot. So he didn't even flinch when I suggested the guy this dude protected on the road was a doper. Heck I'd wager there are some guys in that town who'd know for sure if he doped. Small town reps hold true for the most part in my experience, especially where I come from. The grapevine knows all. As for pro cyclists...look I ran the doping side past my friends in early 2009 at Easter in Newcastle. They said straight up, that they thought most of the top cyclists were dopers and these people are smart, educated well paid guys who know squat about cycling. I didn't need to go into detail...people know dude, it's just whether they can be concerned to care or acknowledge what is going on. It's about how your brain is wired and conditioned. People kind of need a USADA type event to go through the process where they fall into line and go "yeah, I see they were doping now." And yes, most hush up and conveniently forget how just a moment ago they were of the opposite train of thought.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
CobbleStoner said:
wow, talk about trolling and someone that should be banned...
what exactly does 'English version of Polish' mean?
Yeah...if you need it explained in very detailed wording what it was that Polish did, then I suggest you reacquaint yourself with his posting style and dry your eyes and down a wheel barrow full of cement. You'll need it.

As for the banning part. The weakness of human condition knows no bounds. On this forum, there is an inevitability about certain personalities. No matter how kind and lovey dovey one is to the types like Polish, the end result is only every going to go one way. It is inevitable. They are here to troll. Pure troll, that is their purpose. No posting in threads across the forum. No watching race threads during the busy part of the season. Just here to disrupt and disengage and it is always in the context of the person of their devotion; their idol.

So when I say it's best just to ban them, I mean it. Because that's how this ends. The fact you have to ask tells me this is well beyond you. As I said, do a query or search for Polish. Read the hundreds of posts and get back to me. The pattern is clear. Oh and one last thing...at least Polish could be funny at times. He had that going for him. Same with Arbiter. Was a funny ****** at times...the post 2012 Tour additions from the UK don't have that going for them. As I have said and so have others, there are plenty of uber pro British forums out there but they came here! You do the math and get back to me. Or better yet, actually comment on the OP like you should be.:p

PS: regarding attacking riding. Yes that is desired. Of course before it happens the prerequisite around here is you be clean. Order of operations dude. Order of operations. One before the other. The clean part always trumps attacking. Carry on with that reasoning and someone will lump you in Hein Verbruggen's corner and with good reason.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
First, let us be clear that there is a difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.

Second, let us be accurate - to 'prove' something does not mean to be 'certain of it - it means to reach an agreed or accepted level of credibility and persuasiveness. In criminal law that is often "beyond a reasonable doubt" - in civil law it is usually "on the balance of probabilities" i.e. more likely than not, > but not = 50%, etc

1. Doping tests -

-have a high level of probitive value ('proving value') - they are objective, verifiable and broadly difficult to influence.

But WHAT they prove is not 'innocence', at all. They prove only that certain products did not leave certain traces in a certain liquid in a certain timeframe.

So, in short, Dope tests - excellent for proving guilt, exceptionally poor for proving innocence. A clean test means relatively little. A dirty test means rather lot.

Or to use an analogy - if at the scene of the murder the police don't find you over the body holding a gun, it doesn't prove your innocence at all. But if they DO find you over the body holding a gun, its pretty bad for you!

2. Eye witness evidence

- second only to doping tests, and subject to the same basic rules - with the exception that they are arguably less objective, and less immune from influence - hence the increased need to rely on 'verification' i.e. corroboration from other eye witness sources.

In short, one failed a + B dope test is enough to be broadly confident of guilt. One eye witness accusation alone however is much more difficult to hang a whole case on - though, for example in Lance's case, we passed the 1 witness threshold very quickly (Emma & Betsy) at which stage you'd have thought the evidence pretty persuasive. 26 witnesses even moreso.

But also subject to problems of false reporting. Eye witness evidence has to be identified and verified as much as possible.

Hearsay, and anonymous accusations, are virtually useless in probitive terms. They may be good enough to set off investigations, but rarely if ever enough to have any confidence of guilt on their own. See rumours, below.


3. Indirect analysis of metrics (blood passports -> VAM values -> Clinic VO2 Max discussions!)

- superficially as attractive as dope tests for their scientific nature, but relying very much more on confidence in the analyst's objectivity and ability. Hence the importance of use of bodies like WADA, and others, trusted for both their objectivity (fairness) and scientific abilities and knowledge (reliability). When done thoroughly, professionally and verifiably, arguably even better than dope testing, as much harder (though by no means impossible) to 'fool' longterm.

But they are also more difficult to explain to a lay public, and more difficult to analyse quickly. they are open to quackery and shamateurism, as well as showboating.

4. Rumours, innuendo and personal animus

No probitive value whatsoever.
 
Dec 27, 2010
6,674
0
0
Tinman said:
Doping = using PED's (as per definition of PED). Conceptually quite simple.
C'mon man, there's a nice clear definition in the WADA code, there's no need to get this one wrong...
 
Galic Ho said:
Depends on a number of factors. For me, a reasoned decision that someone is 'doped' or 'not doped' can be reached via cognitive skills linking various elements.

Basically these types of people look at the scope of not just an individual, but an entire race, the peloton and then analyse and correlate discrepancies with past riders. So the rumours on the grapevine about doping or dopers holds a part, the positive tests, the actual performance on the road, the plethora of dopers on said team (riders or management) is examined and a benchmark is given. Each of these, plus the PR and media political mumbo jumbo cyclists say, are remembered for each individual iteration, thus covering the riders, the whole peloton, the media and thus season. It shows the trends, the habits and allows one to fully grasp the scope and detail omerta holds. Oh and a vast deep understanding of the UCI and all it's machinations over the years. Basically solid common sense, dosed with a strong dash and appreciation for history, human psychology and pattern recognition.

The above is about perspective and total knowledge base. Thus you can form the conclusion you did, that video footage is proof enough Sky are doping. Of course the 'other' type of poster who is the diametric opposite of the cognitive reasoned informed sceptic (the opposite would label this person a cynic and hater and conversely I'd name these ones fanboys) will read such a post and lose the plot. Because their brain doesn't operate under the above perameters. They need a smoking gun. A body, a corpse, the whole blood work run up. They only ever turn on their idols when it is common practice. They never question, do not doubt, but are sold in their beliefs by some external locus (mostly nationalism and patriotism). Words to the contrary from the horses mouth, even hypocritical stances from the horse (their idol) are cast aside such is the level of their misplaced conviction in the horses purity. They are believers. Watch the movie Serenity. Believers are dangerous people. The villain was a believer. Believers will die for their cause. It's a branch of fanaticism. It is also mostly cognitive. There is no balance in this approach. Only turmoil and confusion. The level of turmoil determines how long they hold onto their belief when it is disproven. Note with most people regarding LA, in August they were still saying it was crap. Then October 10 hits and the tide massively turns. Oh, yeah, there is all the evidence. I now have 'proof'.

No hog, they had enough to warrant proof before, it's just that they manner in which their brain is wired does not permit them to deem what was presented as proof. They will sit here and debate the meaning of proof. They will carry on like we are supposed to be WADA and nail everyone. Heck, ask them to clarify for us what a court would label as a reasoned intelligent man (they never say woman) would list as the expected behaviour of a clean rider. A clean competitive professional who is tempered with conviction, personal belief in accountability and ownership. Now get take that explanation and cross it with how people in the peloton behaves. There is always a massive difference between these fanboys idols stance and what should be happening.

For the record hog, I'm of the belief that these fanboys are so gullible, that if I was of the persuasion as their false doping idols are, they'd be in serious trouble. I could literally take them for everything. That's how clueless they are. They cannot read body language, they excuse everything and think that special privileges and rights are to be afforded to them simply because they aren't sceptical. Take Jimmy Fingers as an example...he's stated this numerous times. Personally, I think the mods should ban them. All of them. It'll save a lot of trouble. We know who they are. They are simply English versions of Polish. Tough love is needed. They think everyone is out to get their idols and them alone. So beyond ridiculous it isn't funny.

Proof? Yeah man, there are two contrasts, two extremes here. There are those who of course fall in between. Like Froome19 for example. They don't want to go all the way to the right. I understand that. I'd lump Fleur and ACF94 in there as well. They'll acknowledge their idol could have doped...but it isn't enough to warrant hurling them out. And no, proof is not needed on a public forum FFS. Those demanding as such should be dealt with by the mods and given a damn infraction for trolling. Look at the Clinic's definitions of disruptive posting, trolling and the purpose for the Clinic. That's why the Sky thread is disjointed. 50 pages in a week and most of it is people stating the purpose of the Clinic isn't legitimate. Just ban them and teach them a lesson FFS. And hog, one poster is reporting people non stop. Take a guess who they are?

PS: I'm thinking a meme page in the Clinic is in good taste. Anyone in?

As for proof officially. We all know where that stands. USADA and WADA have a different standard for what constitutes doping than say the UCI or individuals in the sport. It's well known omerta has it's own standard for what is acceptable. We don't play a part in that. The actual rules do not. The enablers and dopers know this and play this card. Albeit, we are talking about a collective group on intellectually unimpressive men. Hence you get people like Wiggins who has created quite a conundrum for himself. He provides evidence that people consider as minor proof, that he is untruthful. A smarter more canniving person would play their cards smarter. The casual fans do not possess this knowledge, nor do they understand how the science in testing works, how flawed it is and why the end result is merely just stating we tested you this level and according to it, you're clean, but we fail to state to the public that you could still be dirty. Hence Wiggins and others are not required to qualify or provide quantitative data for their personal bile. In short, the dopers have seen time and again, seasoned liars, like Armstrong play their cards and sway the gullible. Proof? In this case some charm, flair and charisma couple with a convincing poker face are enough proof to label the detractors and sceptics as haters. See...pattern recognition in play once again.

And no, this pattern recognition is a life skill. It's psychological. It relates to every area of life. It is not mutually exclusive to just cycling. Proof, or what a person deems as proof, comes down to the wiring in their brain. A lot of it is conditioning. And I'd label the subset of conditioning that results in rabid believers as a form of pure idiocy.

People are naive, uninformed and believe in absolutes. There are no absolutes with proof, and there are no absolutes with doping. There are merely differences in standards. Ours are higher than theirs and thus, we don't get conned. Those who have lower standard, well I've said it many times this year, they are the types of people who will come home and find their best mate/brother/dad/enemy balls deep in their missus and won't have seen a single sign. They'll be flabbergasted. As I said, they're believers and their behaviour is not conducive with the truth and what really is happening. Literally for them, is there ever proof? Depends on the individual, but most people are sheep. When the public opinion or status quo changes, they'll go with the tide to simply not be laughed at. Can't say I'm not already laughing at them...it's quite fun.
You are revealing all sorts of mental, in that last paragraph alone.

You have the knowledge and intellect. "people" don't?:eek:
You can see what "people" can't?:eek:


Clearly "people" are weak. Its probably a good thing you seek to distance yourself from them. It will focus your mind to look out for anything that could be trying to fool you.

As long as you NEVER get fooled.......thats the imprtant thing right there ;)
 
ebandit said:
proof...........something specific that can be verified

not............it looks like

................just join the dots

................data from an unconfirmed source

...............because (a) did it so if (b) make similar lifestyle choices they

...............must be doing it too

most definitely not stuff that the hog has made up
If two people were working with members of the Escobar family and travelling to Mexico on a regular basis - questions would be asked? It would be a fair and reasonable assumption to make that they're involved in drug trafficking.

Person x, Person y, Escobar family members -> Mexico -> Drugs.

Wiggins/Froome -> Rogers/Yates/Julich (LANCE) -> Tenerife -> Extremem weight loss -> Absurd Tour performances - Ferrari.

What's unconfirmed in regards to this? Sounds like critical reasoning based on fact.

I mean you thought Ferrari was banned worldwide! Not sure how astute your critical reasoning is going. Sounds skewed to me!
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
Ferminal said:
Normal people aren't bound to the same requirements of proof as the authorities. There was more than enough proof for any normal person to be convinced long before USADA decided to find enough to have a case.
The authorities are normal people too. Difference is they can actually do something about the incredibly obvious, it's supposed to be their job.

Travis Tygart just happens to be the first person to actually do his job. And it only took him a few weeks. Using intelligence and lateral thinking.

If the hardcore fans were so certain for so long and so disturbed by it all, why weren't they lobbying at the most influential level in the loudest voice?
 
Grandillusion said:
The authorities are normal people too. Difference is they can actually do something about the incredibly obvious, it's supposed to be their job.

Travis Tygart just happens to be the first person to actually do his job. And it only took him a few weeks. Using intelligence and lateral thinking.

If the hardcore fans were so certain for so long and so disturbed by it all, why weren't they lobbying at the most influential level in the loudest voice?
So you're saying that if a rational observer is able to conclude someone is doping, that should be enough for the authorities to bring about a sanction?

Why then are Menchov, Klöden, Scarponi, Horner etc still riding?

That would go really well in front of CAS.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY