What constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping?

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 19, 2013
431
0
0
I think a lot of misunderstanding on this subject comes from the fact that so many people are unwilling to admit degrees of uncertainty. There are 1000s of comments to the effect that 'person X or team Y is DEFINITITELY dirty and you'd have to be insane not to agree with me' ... and on the other hand people saying that it's pointless to even speculate and raise doubts until you have the rider himself confessing or a cast-iron positive test (and sometimes not even then).

Also, 'connect the dots' has its uses but it's not always right:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/connecting-the-dots

RIP Xavier Tondo
 
mattghg said:
I think a lot of misunderstanding on this subject comes from the fact that so many people are unwilling to admit degrees of uncertainty. There are 1000s of comments to the effect that 'person X or team Y is DEFINITITELY dirty and you'd have to be insane not to agree with me' ... and on the other hand people saying that it's pointless to even speculate and raise doubts until you have the rider himself confessing or a cast-iron positive test (and sometimes not even then).

Also, 'connect the dots' has its uses but it's not always right:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/connecting-the-dots

RIP Xavier Tondo
So in 2005 you wouldn't say that you was certain that Riis doped in '96? Where's the proof!
 
mattghg said:
I think a lot of misunderstanding on this subject comes from the fact that so many people are unwilling to admit degrees of uncertainty. There are 1000s of comments to the effect that 'person X or team Y is DEFINITITELY dirty and you'd have to be insane not to agree with me' ... and on the other hand people saying that it's pointless to even speculate and raise doubts until you have the rider himself confessing or a cast-iron positive test (and sometimes not even then).

Also, 'connect the dots' has its uses but it's not always right:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/connecting-the-dots

RIP Xavier Tondo
+1

Thanks for that link
 
Feb 19, 2013
431
0
0
Netserk said:
So in 2005 you wouldn't say that you was certain that Riis doped in '96? Where's the proof!
You're putting words in my mouth. I don't know what I *would* have said in 2005 if I'd been on the clinic then and had people sharing information and evidence with me.

I'm just saying it's reasonable in most cases, given what we know, to say stuff like 'X is possibly / probably / likely / almost certainly (not) doping, and here's why'. But people seem to just want to dive in at 100% confidence in their own binary opinion about whether X is clean or dirty.
 
mattghg said:
You're putting words in my mouth. I don't know what I *would* have said in 2005 if I'd been on the clinic then and had people sharing information and evidence with me.

I'm just saying it's reasonable in most cases, given what we know, to say stuff like 'X is possibly / probably / likely / almost certainly (not) doping, and here's why'. But people seem to just want to dive in at 100% confidence in their own binary opinion about whether X is clean or dirty.
Honest question then, did you have any doubt prior to his admission that he doped?
 
Feb 19, 2013
431
0
0
Netserk said:
Honest question then, did you have any doubt prior to his admission that he doped?
I wasn't really following road cycling then. So I didn't have much of an opinion about it. I guess I thought 'huh that was a couple of years before Festina so it's within the dodgy period' but yes, I would personally have had doubts that he was doping only because I didn't take enough interest in the question to find out the information relevant to it. Sorry that's an unsatisfactory answer but it's the truth.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
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
Jeez, Jimmy you are all over the place here.

This is simple - this is a forum.
What constitutes 'proof' for people is entirely up to that individual. I have no problem with that but what is often noticeable is how people apply different standards for different teams or riders.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
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.
I agree, hence why I described it as a 'frank exchange of opinions'.

However the thread asks 'what constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping?'

It doesn't ask 'what is good enough for the clinic 12' or the like, which as I said often amounts to a flat 'Not Normal'.

This isn't a court of law you're right, which means there is no need for proof, which renders the subject of the thread moot, doesn't it?

However this is a debate that has continued on from the Sky thread where the question was asked what was the extent of proof beyond mere suspicion for the likes of Ullrich and Rasmussan that resulted in their censure. The insinuation was suspicion is good enough to suspend or fire riders without resorting to scientific proof or eye-witness reports because of what happened to them [deep breath]

This bought the humorous response from acoggan suggesting we dunk suspects in a lake, those that drown are clean, those that swim away are dopers.

There's seems to be some backtracking from that position, suddenly its just a forum and we don't need proof (which I wholeheartedly agree with, this is all just opinion, some informed, some not) and also people getting involved not understanding the full context, eh, Maserati?
 
JimmyFingers said:
I agree, hence why I described it as a 'frank exchange of opinions'.

However the thread asks 'what constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping?'

It doesn't ask 'what is good enough for the clinic 12' or the like, which as I said often amounts to a flat 'Not Normal'.

This isn't a court of law you're right, which means there is no need for proof, which renders the subject of the thread moot, doesn't it?

However this is a debate that has continued on from the Sky thread where the question was asked what was the extent of proof beyond mere suspicion for the likes of Ullrich and Rasmussan that resulted in their censure. The insinuation was suspicion is good enough to suspend or fire riders without resorting to scientific proof or eye-witness reports because of what happened to them [deep breath]

This bought the humorous response from acoggan suggesting we dunk suspects in a lake, those that drown are clean, those that swim away are dopers.

There's seems to be some backtracking from that position, suddenly its just a forum and we don't need proof (which I wholeheartedly agree with, this is all just opinion, some informed, some not) and also people getting involved not understanding the full context, eh, Maserati?
From OP:
thehog said:
What does it take to prove doping to the general public that a rider or team are doping?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
JimmyFingers said:
I agree, hence why I described it as a 'frank exchange of opinions'.

However the thread asks 'what constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping?'

It doesn't ask 'what is good enough for the clinic 12' or the like, which as I said often amounts to a flat 'Not Normal'.

This isn't a court of law you're right, which means there is no need for proof, which renders the subject of the thread moot, doesn't it?

However this is a debate that has continued on from the Sky thread where the question was asked what was the extent of proof beyond mere suspicion for the likes of Ullrich and Rasmussan that resulted in their censure. The insinuation was suspicion is good enough to suspend or fire riders without resorting to scientific proof or eye-witness reports because of what happened to them [deep breath]

This bought the humorous response from acoggan suggesting we dunk suspects in a lake, those that drown are clean, those that swim away are dopers.

There's seems to be some backtracking from that position, suddenly its just a forum and we don't need proof (which I wholeheartedly agree with, this is all just opinion, some informed, some not) and also people getting involved not understanding the full context, eh, Maserati?
Where have I backtracked.
Please be very clear where or how you came to that opinion.

I have been here much longer than you so you may not realize I have been entirely consistent.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
And? We are the general public aren't we?

As I said, my points were a continuation of the discussion on the Sky thread, which had switched to here, suggesting that suspicion was sometimes enough to censure individuals, citing Rasmussan and Ullrich as examples.

I'm not saying people need proof to say what they say here, but I do believe if riders are to be censured there is need.

Not sure how many other ways I need to say it.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Where have I backtracked.
Please be very clear where or how you came to that opinion.

I have been here much longer than you so you may not realize I have been entirely consistent.
Considering you weren't part of the debate I was stating people were backtracking from, seems slightly egomaniacal to believe that was this was referencing you. It was the second part, not understanding the full context, followed by the 'eh, Maserati', which was the clue.

Take a lesson from Pistorius: always make sure you know who you are shooting at before you pull the trigger
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
mattghg said:
I wasn't really following road cycling then. So I didn't have much of an opinion about it. I guess I thought 'huh that was a couple of years before Festina so it's within the dodgy period' but yes, I would personally have had doubts that he was doping only because I didn't take enough interest in the question to find out the information relevant to it. Sorry that's an unsatisfactory answer but it's the truth.
What a funny sentence. We are all glad that period is gone, even scientists couldn't tell Riis was doping at that time.
 
Some people.are trying to play down the case against sky on this thread by dismissing it as a few questionmarks being exaggerated.

The fact is that with sky are clean- there are a million unanswered questions, for.some of.which not even the wildest imagination can create a sensible answer.

Why did Bailsford lie. Why did wiggins lie. Why did they openly idolize Us postal even as an investigation was about to take us postal down. Why did.wiggins love lance. Why did he praise lance for his victories. Why did he take lances side on the doping. Why did Geraint Thomas and Alex Dowsett defend lance.If he's not doping what on earth caused wiggins'new found hatred of people sceptical of cycling:confused: Why has Wiggins moved on every level away fom an anti doping position since he found.out he could ride gts?

Why did so many riders improve so much at sky. How did 4 riders who have ridden.entire.tdfs in the gruppeto end up owning the entire Tour de France from start to finish. Why was multiple doper rogers posting lifetime pb numbers. How did richie porte who even in his great giro performances while defending the pink jersey, was being dropped for.minutes on mountains end up as superdom.Why did the new great gt rider of his generation Chris Froome appear no better than a Sunday ride bottle.carrier before he joined sky?

What in the blue hell was lienders doing on the team. Why was it specifically him hired. And why oh why did bailsford who.claims to be Mr transparency choose the guilty mans tactic of.ignoring it and burying the story 6 months later. How did supposed genius Bailsford end up not knowing that much of his team and staff had doping histories. How did he not.know about barry even as Barry was named by landis?
Why has a team which blows their trumpet about transparency offered absolutely nothing.
If you are clean, why not just be transparent?

Etc.

On the other hand if they are doping there are no questions. Just another group of people who swore on everything they hold dear that they were clean, but offered no.transparency, looked up to.dopers played it all.out.in pr, while doping to massive success.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
JimmyFingers said:
Considering you weren't part of the debate I was stating people were backtracking from, seems slightly egomaniacal to believe that was this was referencing you. It was the second part, not understanding the full context, followed by the 'eh, Maserati', which was the clue.

Take a lesson from Pistorius: always make sure you know who you are shooting at before you pull the trigger
But I am just like Pistorious, I know it isn't a burglar behind the door. I know what I am hitting. Cowering behind a scientist will not save you.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
But I am just like Pistorious, I know it isn't a burglar behind the door. I know what I am hitting. Cowering behind a scientist will not save you.
Depends entirely how corpulent he is
 
Feb 19, 2013
431
0
0
The Hitch said:
On the other hand if they are doping there are no questions.
Why did they give David Walsh carte blanche to surprise visit them? Why did they hire Edvald Boassen Hagen? If Wiggins is such a lump who's been transformed into a Frankenstein GT rider by Sky, then how did he manage 4th in the TdF while riding for Garmin?

Anyway, I thought this thread wasn't supposed to be all about Sky.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
mattghg said:
Why did they give David Walsh carte blanche to surprise visit them? Why did they hire Edvald Boassen Hagen? If Wiggins is such a lump who's been transformed into a Frankenstein GT rider by Sky, then how did he manage 4th in the TdF while riding for Garmin?

Anyway, I thought this thread wasn't supposed to be all about Sky.
There's generally question marks over Wiggins at Garmin. I suggest you go back deep into the Sky thread for the various arguments. You're asking questions which have been generally addressed, and this is the wrong thread.

Cheers
 
Feb 19, 2013
431
0
0
Then a further question is: why did Wiggins release his blood data in 2009?

To say that there are NO questions if Sky are doping is exactly the kind of overstatement I was referring to earlier.
 
The Hitch said:
Some people.are trying to play down the case against sky on this thread by dismissing it as a few questionmarks being exaggerated.

The fact is that with sky are clean- there are a million unanswered questions, for.some of.which not even the wildest imagination can create a sensible answer.

Why did Bailsford lie. Why did wiggins lie. Why did they openly idolize Us postal even as an investigation was about to take us postal down. Why did.wiggins love lance. Why did he praise lance for his victories. Why did he take lances side on the doping. Why did Geraint Thomas and Alex Dowsett defend lance.If he's not doping what on earth caused wiggins'new found hatred of people sceptical of cycling:confused: Why has Wiggins moved on every level away fom an anti doping position since he found.out he could ride gts?
Firstly you need to be more specific about Brailford's lie?

As far as Wiggins goes, he can be deliberately obtuse with journalists, are you referring to his when he rode against lance, it seems to be he was referring to his 7 tdf victories and he should have known better in his statements about Lance after his time with Garmin.

I am not sure on the relevence of Thomas or Dowsett's statements though, young cyclists not really involved with Lance, whose main thing was riding a bike, not investagive journalism

The Hitch said:
Why did so many riders improve so much at sky. How did 4 riders who have ridden.entire.tdfs in the gruppeto end up owning the entire Tour de France from start to finish. Why was multiple doper rogers posting lifetime pb numbers. How did richie porte who even in his great giro performances while defending the pink jersey, was being dropped for.minutes on mountains end up as superdom.Why did the new great gt rider of his generation Chris Froome appear no better than a Sunday ride bottle.carrier before he joined sky?
Valid explanatons for both Froome and Wiggins improvements have been given, you choose to ignore them.

I don't think Rodgers rode in the grupetto on a regular basis, his numbers has been dealt with many times, as for Richie Porte, he could not defend the pink Jersey so what, he could not improve since then seems to be your argument.


The Hitch said:
What in the blue hell was lienders doing on the team. Why was it specifically him hired. And why oh why did bailsford who.claims to be Mr transparency choose the guilty mans tactic of.ignoring it and burying the story 6 months later. How did supposed genius Bailsford end up not knowing that much of his team and staff had doping histories. How did he not.know about barry even as Barry was named by landis?
Why has a team which blows their trumpet about transparency offered absolutely nothing.
If you are clean, why not just be transparent?

Etc.

On the other hand if they are doping there are no questions. Just another group of people who swore on everything they hold dear that they were clean, but offered no.transparency, looked up to.dopers played it all.out.in pr, while doping to massive success.
When you make a mistake in hiring someone, you don't want to go around making it high profile, but Leinders name was still on Sky's website so it was not buried to that extent, just not publicised more.

With Barry, what could he do, sack him on Landis's word against Barry's?

The facts are these questions have reasonable answers, you just don't accept the answers.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS