What constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping?

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
mountainrman said:
Walsh has repeated it several times!! In Video interviews too.

Why dispute it?
Not disputing what Walsh said, but disputing your spin on it.
mountainrman said:
"lance did" was a direct response to the question as to whether Hincapie would ride again after retirement. Cycling is in the blood. I would be very surprised if Hincapie does not enter some more minor events, just as Lance cannot live without competition.

As for Tygart "understanding" - his ideas of sentence are all over the map.
Which is one of the reasons he is unfit to judge. He just banned a triathlete for 4 years for EPO - where is similar "compassion" there? - Yet Hincapie 6 months for the decade of doping.

He wants to "blame" lance and Bruyneel for the whole affair and pretend the others were "victims" somehow pressured into it, but to do so is rewriting history: it does not stack up (hincapie was doping before armstrong returned from cancer, and continued after he left as did others, this was a career choice). This was never about "clean cycling" for Tygart, it was about "get Armstrong" - that was evident enough for Judge Sparks to remark in his judgement on the questionable motives of the agencies pursuing Armstrong.

Hincapie did not "snitch": granting of immunity preventing his silence, and a gun at his head (presumably the same as leipheimer) forced him into confession to the grand jury, and it was then reasonable for him to suppose that the testimony would come out in public in time, either by leak or court cases, so it was a no brainer for him to confess to Tygart because it was only a matter of time. He was a rat that deserted a sinking ship, so little credit should be given for that.

The time he should have come clean is when the worst of the excesses were being inflicted on emma and betsy, all in the media so he clearly knew, and he knew they were telling the truth! So he should then either have confessed or at least should have left to distance himself from what then took place. That he stayed showed he was neither unknowing or unwilling to form a part of the web of deceit from then on. And he only owned up when there was little other choice.

That does not deserve a massive reduction of sentence in my book!
One last time - George got a reduction because he implicated people.
It is a standard that is used in laws throughout the World.

Your Lance could have got a reduction too if he had co-operated. He didn't.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
peterst6906 said:
I'm not disputing it.

However, your original statement that he has written it in several articles and that is poor journalism is still at issue, particularly as you linked to a different authro's article.

Irrespective, your view that it is poor journalism is your view. No-one else has yet supported that position and simply repeating it many times over isn't going to change anyone's view of that.

However, one thing I am interested in is, why is it poor journalism? As far as I can see, there is nothing particularly wrong with one journalist sticking to his convictions and calling Lance out for cheating when the rest of the media were too scared for whatever reason.

Walsh seems to me, to have shown the best aspects of journalism rather than a poor approach.
I did not suggest that Walsh should change his view.
He should have changed the approach to that interview.

Since Lance would never have stated to Walsh that he doped, Walsh had to use the interview to get what useful background he could, he could have asked about the new faster times of climbing the in history, about Pantani, about watts per Kg, about why Lance thought the tour had "speeded up" if not dope, about Lances attitude to other dopers.

Interviews are a two way thing that needs to do something for lance as well, and he should have respected that. He could have asked about other interesting topics to do with that tour, tour preparation and so on, and written good articles on those without being a fan with typewriter. Which would have kept the door open.

Like Kimmage stating that Lance was "cancer" - which was a crass thing to say - and probably did more to get sympathetic response for Lance than it ever did to get fans to question, Walsh should have not have deliberately alienated his quarry.

Just like "Doorstepping on camera" may make good television. It never makes for good investigative journalism. Neither does telling Lance "you are a doper, and thats all I will ask you"

Sure - Walsh did manage to open a number of doors, and well done to the man. But alienating Lance by that attitude to a one on one interview was not helpful, and that almost certainly never achieved anything for the investigation.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
mountainrman said:
I did not suggest that Walsh should change his view.
He should have changed the approach to that interview.

Since Lance would never have stated to Walsh that he doped, Walsh had to use the interview to get what useful background he could, he could have asked about the new faster times of climbing the in history, about Pantani, about watts per Kg, about why Lance thought the tour had "speeded up" if not dope, about Lances attitude to other dopers.

Interviews are a two way thing that needs to do something for lance as well, and he should have respected that. He could have asked about other interesting topics to do with that tour, tour preparation and so on, and written good articles on those without being a fan with typewriter. Which would have kept the door open.

Like Kimmage stating that Lance was "cancer" - which was a crass thing to say - and probably did more to get sympathetic response for Lance than it ever did to get fans to question, Walsh should have not have deliberately alienated his quarry.

Just like "Doorstepping on camera" may make good television. It never makes for good investigative journalism. Neither does telling Lance "you are a doper, and thats all I will ask you"

Sure - Walsh did manage to open a number of doors, and well done to the man. But alienating Lance by that attitude to a one on one interview was not helpful, and that almost certainly never achieved anything for the investigation.
So, Walsh should have played nice........... am, why?
Maybe ask Lance what his favorite color is and then slip in a did you take much EPO this morning?
If you checked the detail of the piece you quoted - it says that Walsh let them know that inviting him for a one-on-one was not going to stop him asking the questions that needed asking.

Kimmage was correct to call Lance a cancer. He was, and now he has been removed.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
mountainrman said:
I did not suggest that Walsh should change his view.
He should have changed the approach to that interview.
To get the background on Lance's doping as you suggested, he would have had to raise questions about Lance's practices, movements, programs, etc.

Do you really think the outcome would have been any different? Lance would have known exactly what he was up to and the outcome would have been exactly the same.

Walsh showed a lot more ethics in declaring up front exaclty what he was interested in. If Lance wasn't doping, there should have been no reason to become upset and he could have put all of Walsh's concerns to rest at the time.
 
no!

mountainrman said:
Ebandit, you ignore the substance and continue to pick irrelevant nits.
no! it is yourself picking nits

you quote 'big george and levi have escaped scot free'

i reply the obvious 'they are banned / lost results'

and you started picking detail..............but it's just 6 months?

get real............big george is retired + cyclists that play ball deserve lighter

sentences

lance has been proven by evidence that indeed he was 'the cancer in

cycling' i would have been proud to come up with that quote and would

glady repeat it to lance personally
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
ebandit said:
no! it is yourself picking nits

you quote 'big george and levi have escaped scot free'

i reply the obvious 'they are banned / lost results'

and you started picking detail..............but it's just 6 months?

get real............big george is retired + cyclists that play ball deserve lighter

sentences

lance has been proven by evidence that indeed he was 'the cancer in

cycling' i would have been proud to come up with that quote and would

glady repeat it to lance personally
It is a shame that the clinic either does not understand or does not support equitable justice, without which cycling will go from bad to worse - if that is possible.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
mountainrman said:
It is a shame that the clinic either does not understand or does not support equitable justice, without which cycling will go from bad to worse - if that is possible.
You are the only one struggling here.
In every proper justice system there are higher penalties for those that break the rules more (or more rules) - which is what LA did.
And there is also a system of relief for those that co-operate.

Cycling is in a mess because the UCI did not apply the rules that were available to them.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
mountainrman said:
It is a shame that the clinic either does not understand or does not support equitable justice, without which cycling will go from bad to worse - if that is possible.
We understand a fanboy when we see one though ;)
 
mountainrman said:
It is a shame that the clinic either does not understand or does not support equitable justice, without which cycling will go from bad to worse - if that is possible.
Nobody speaks for 'the clinic'. We all speak for ourselves.

On this subject, however, there is plenty of precedence elsewhere.

Personally, I think that doping in professional sport is fundamentally criminal fraud. I am probably not alone. So if you want to talk about equitable justice, then there should be treble damages applied to every fraudulent win.

The rider, the team, and fellow teammates should all be jointly and severally liable.

If you are looking for equitable justice, then let's consider other justice systems.

Witness testimony is valuable and witnesses should be respected, witness protection should be honored, and protection from self-incrimination should be considered.

Do you oppose or support initiatives like witness protection, protection from self-incrimination and whistleblower protection like the Federal Whistleblower Act?

We don't have to debate these things. Just looking for your general sentiment.

Dave.
 
shame

mountainrman said:
It is a shame that the clinic either does not understand or does not support equitable justice, without which cycling will go from bad to worse - if that is possible.
the shame is that your posts are so economical with the truth

any good points raised in your posts are likely to be dismissed through

incredibility

again the forum is the platform for you to express your thoughts but please

stick to the facts
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
1
0
ebandit said:
the shame is that your posts are so economical with the truth

any good points raised in your posts are likely to be dismissed through

incredibility

again the forum is the platform for you to express your thoughts but please

stick to the facts
if people would do that here, there would be no more clinic left :rolleyes:
 
Re: the Sky thread;

That there is a difference between real world legal proof, and argumentative proof?

Why is it that some believe speculation, suspicion shouldn't be discussed? Is that censorship?

Suspicion plays a very important role in determining ultimate guilt. It's the gestation and should not be suppressed.

Why are so many here refusing to talking about Sky and Lienders? Like we need a positive test before discussion can even begin.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
thehog said:
Re: the Sky thread;

That there is a difference between real world legal proof, and argumentative proof?

Why is it that some believe speculation, suspicion shouldn't be discussed? Is that censorship?

Suspicion plays a very important role in determining ultimate guilt. It's the gestation and should not be suppressed.

Why are so many here refusing to talking about Sky and Lienders? Like we need a positive test before discussion can even begin.
Yeah, it is amazing how they all cheer for Wiggins, who in 2007 wanted all the suspicious docs to be thrown out of the sport. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

My how he has slipped, now he calls anyone with a suspicious mind a "bone idle wan*er". Chapeau Wiggins, you really have immatured as you aged.
 
Oct 17, 2012
331
0
0
thehog said:
Re: the Sky thread;

That there is a difference between real world legal proof, and argumentative proof?

Why is it that some believe speculation, suspicion shouldn't be discussed? Is that censorship?

Suspicion plays a very important role in determining ultimate guilt. It's the gestation and should not be suppressed.

Why are so many here refusing to talking about Sky and Lienders? Like we need a positive test before discussion can even begin.
What exactly is "argumentative proof"? There are standards of proof, beyond reasonable doubt or balance of probabilities, but I've never heard of "argumentative proof". Unless you're meaning your claims that Wiggins is working with Ferrari or Froome was going to take a blood bag on the second rest day of the vuelta.:D

Nowt wrong with suspicion, but suspicion without proof means nothing in the real world.

Nobody talking about Sky & Lienders? Over 13,000 posts tells you something different.

Yes Sky have employed people with dodgy pasts and had some stellar performances, but, as yet, there is no hard evidence to link the two. Doesn't stop anybody talking about it though.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Digressing a bit I think that they need to look at the whole issue of team doctors/physicians and what they are doing on professional cycling teams.

I would imagine that the average person goes to their doctor once or twice a year? Some of these teams have 3-4 doctors (that you know about from their websites) on a full time basis so what are they doing? I dont know what the wages for Doctors are the world over but I do know that to tempt a Doctor from private practice to work on a professional sporting team would be a pretty costly investment but for what exactly?

Lets assume that Sky are a "clean team"- all that means is that they are not doing anything on the banned list. However one can assume that any manipulation done which is not on the banned list is considered clean and can be incorporated into the "marginal gains" plan. This is the problem I have with the whole claim of being a clean team.

The other issue is that with all the talk of physiology, numbers, power/weight ratio's, vo2 max etc etc etc in modern cycling:

(a) this method will always require some medical assistance/expertise to interpret the values
(b) if you are achieving 95% by way of "clean" medically assisted methods, that 5% you are short becomes ever the more tempting to make up with PED, particularly if you have 100% paid up full time medical staff on hand.

I suppose you could argue that if you didnt have team doctors then the riders would just end up doing a Riccardo Ricco on themselves.

Is the way forward Doctors allocated by race organisers or the governing body to a team? I hasten to add not the current governing body in its current format

I think what I am getting at is - Perhaps its time to move away from Pro Cycling being a science experiment, performance enhanced or otherwise
 
Netserk said:
Read the line above ;)

It is argumentative proof, which is what matters in the clinic. The clinic is *not* a court of law, and therefore the criteria for proof isn't the same.
It is not even proof in a debate, nevermind a court of law, all it is is a reason to ask questions like Dave Walsh has done
 
B_Ugli said:
Digressing a bit I think that they need to look at the whole issue of team doctors/physicians and what they are doing on professional cycling teams.

I would imagine that the average person goes to their doctor once or twice a year? Some of these teams have 3-4 doctors (that you know about from their websites) on a full time basis so what are they doing? I dont know what the wages for Doctors are the world over but I do know that to tempt a Doctor from private practice to work on a professional sporting team would be a pretty costly investment but for what exactly?

Lets assume that Sky are a "clean team"- all that means is that they are not doing anything on the banned list. However one can assume that any manipulation done which is not on the banned list is considered clean and can be incorporated into the "marginal gains" plan. This is the problem I have with the whole claim of being a clean team.

The other issue is that with all the talk of physiology, numbers, power/weight ratio's, vo2 max etc etc etc in modern cycling:

(a) this method will always require some medical assistance/expertise to interpret the values
(b) if you are achieving 95% by way of "clean" medically assisted methods, that 5% you are short becomes ever the more tempting to make up with PED, particularly if you have 100% paid up full time medical staff on hand.

I suppose you could argue that if you didnt have team doctors then the riders would just end up doing a Riccardo Ricco on themselves.

Is the way forward Doctors allocated by race organisers or the governing body to a team? I hasten to add not the current governing body in its current format

I think what I am getting at is - Perhaps its time to move away from Pro Cycling being a science experiment, performance enhanced or otherwise
I think that there was an article in the Guardian that suggested that doctors like to have their names connected with pro sport for the prestige value alone, so I am not sure about the wage arguments
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Therein lies the problem: argumentative proof? Does that actually mean anything? Are merely meaning debating skills? Or producing more hearsay and circumstantial than the person your debating against?

I think certain posters are trying to create a narrative were suspicion alone is enough to condemn a rider or team without having to resort to scientific method or anything remotely concrete like eye-witness reports. It's based on the 'we've seen it all before' principle, which may have a certain truth but can't be used as proof, neither can the 'walks like a duck' quacks like a duck' mantra employed so often here.

This is a forum for debate, a frank exchange of opinion. I think people would be wise to remember that rather than allotting themselves more importance than they actually have. Pronouncements of 'Not Normal' have a ring of 'burn the witch' about them
 
JimmyFingers said:
Therein lies the problem: argumentative proof? Does that actually mean anything? Are merely meaning debating skills? Or producing more hearsay and circumstantial than the person your debating against?

I think certain posters are trying to create a narrative were suspicion alone is enough to condemn a rider or team without having to resort to scientific method or anything remotely concrete like eye-witness reports. It's based on the 'we've seen it all before' principle, which may have a certain truth but can't be used as proof, neither can the 'walks like a duck' quacks like a duck' mantra employed so often here.

This is a forum for debate, a frank exchange of opinion. I think people would be wise to remember that rather than allotting themselves more importance than they actually have. Pronouncements of 'Not Normal' have a ring of 'burn the witch' about them
It's mostly a counter-reaction to the 'Where's the proof! There is no proof!' line that a lot of posters have used to try and shut down debate. This isn't a court of law, so we shouldn't restrict ourselves to positive tests and eyewitness reports.
 
Netserk said:
It's mostly a counter-reaction to the 'Where's the proof! There is no proof!' line that a lot of posters have used to try and shut down debate. This isn't a court of law, so we shouldn't restrict ourselves to positive tests and eyewitness reports.

I agree.

The UCI have set up a doping hotline.

What they request that if you "suspect" doping then to call.

That's suspicion is it not? They're not requesting proof but 'information' that might lead to finding dopers.

Suspicion is good.
 
There are problems with the "established by argument & multiple posting" = "proof"
One is the different time-zones posters live in, and the fact that many (though not all!) posters have a life away from the clinic.
So you wake up and find its all changed, and to reply to a post 40 posts ago just seems churlish
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Netserk said:
It's mostly a counter-reaction to the 'Where's the proof! There is no proof!' line that a lot of posters have used to try and shut down debate. This isn't a court of law, so we shouldn't restrict ourselves to positive tests and eyewitness reports.
+1

and as you pointed out in the sky thread, suspicion-based speculation very often aids or leads to the uncovering of evidence, as e.g. the lance case has beautifully shown.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS