What constitutes proof that a cyclist/team are doping?

[Dr. Maserati]

The Clinic is not separate from real life - it exists within it, and is subject to it, including its laws...

What?
Who said it was separate from real life (what does that even mean?).

It is a Internet forum - not a Court of Law. No one passes sanctions or judgements.

Of course I do. As It happens, i think they should be jailed.

"I constitute doping" makes absolutely no sense.

Perhaps you could reword this.

Constitute = establish.
What do you use to establish if someone has doped. What is your threshold?

 

[Grandillusion]

What?
Who said it was separate from real life (what does that even mean?).

It is a Internet forum - not a Court of Law. No one passes sanctions or judgements.



Constitute = establish.
What do you use to establish if someone has doped. What is your threshold?

"Because in the real, non-clinic world, riders have both legal rights and lawyers"

I think Martin himself seems to have said it was separate from real life. Then changed his mind in the next post.

 

[armchairclimber]

If that was your point all along - then why bring legalize in to it?

To the highlighted - proof is proof in a court, in a forum "proof" is entirely individual. I have no problem if a poster remain skeptical or believing, it's a forum - I do have a problem when they apply different standards to different riders or teams.

Ah right. A "positive test" and "witness testimony" is legalese. Ok, if you say so.

My view on doping changed during the 2011 tour. Personally, I wouldn't have needed much convincing that anyone in the peleton was doping prior to that.
For nigh on 30 years I'd taken the view that most were...Armstrong in particular.

Then, in 2011, I started to pay attention to the performance numbers a little bit. I felt that what I was seeing was closer to "real"....the numbers backed that up. The voices saying that the peleton was cleaner were louder and, crucially, coming from places that I trusted. As a consequence, I, as a citizen of this here clinic, want to see more than a string of flimsy "circumstantial" or worse "made-up" evidence. Frankly, that's exactly what I see most of.

 

[martinvickers]

"Because in the real, non-clinic world, riders have both legal rights and lawyers"

I think Martin himself seems to have said it was separate from real life. Then changed his mind in the next post.

I'm afraid you have misinterpreted my meaning .

The Clinic is not separate from 'real life' - the good Dr seems to feel it should be; that people can say what they like regardless of evidence. My point was that in the real world, outside the Clinic bubble, that it doesn't work that way, and if Clinicians think it does, they are badly mistaken. And that this being the Clinic gives no protection from that real life.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Whatever happened to Quickstepper?

 

[martinvickers]

What?
Who said it was separate from real life (what does that even mean?).

It is a Internet forum - not a Court of Law. No one passes sanctions or judgements.

Poppycock. the Clinic is all about passing judgements.

Constitute = establish.
What do you use to establish if someone has doped. What is your threshold?

Thank you.

Firstly, there is a difference between someone doping, and establishing that someone is doping. The latter should always be smaller than the former; otherwise innocent people are smeared.

As to what I consider conclusive proof? I set that out already - Blood and urine test positives; robust and verifiable eye witness evidence; other reliable scientific evidence backed up by trustworthy science in a robust and verifiable way.

What is not conclusive proof - rumour, innuendo, clinic 'join-the-dots', animus, unpleasant rider personality, team origin, success.

Now, there will be occasions where I have suspicions, or concerns. inappropriate and self-serving rider comments; bizarre behaviour; certain outlandish individual feats.

But it is vitally, and I repeat VITALLY, important to remember, that is all they are - they are not in any way 'proof'. And to my mind far too many clinicians, rather than actually support investigation, are content to say - "I don't like that rider/believe that performance - that's all the proof i need! And my opinion is the be all and end all"

Frankly, a someone who fervantly wants doping eradicated, i find that tiresome. It seems an awful lot more to do with the ego of the clinician than actually cleaning up the sport.

A lot of Clinicians are under the impression that riders and teams are always ten steps ahead of the anti-dopers, and always will be. That is an opinion, and can be genuinely held - but it's not verifiable.

I take some minor comfort in the fact that Armstrong got caught; as did Vinikorov, Zulle, Riis, Valverde, Ulrich, Pantani, Franck Schleck, Millar, Hamilton, Landis, Contador and by extension the rest of the US Postal. It took years to catch Armstrong. It took days to catch Landis. But both were caught. That's progress, I suppose.

Now, if you want 'idle' speculation, I can do that for you.

I'm not all that worried by Wiggins, much, no doubt, to fellow clinicians disgust. His tour win this year was not a dominating tour de force - it was a Big Deisel behind a superstar team on a very very friendly parcours with a weak field. Armstrong, Ulrich, Contador, Andy Schleck on form would all have destroyed him.

Nor do i think Sky has a team doping structure. I just see no evidence of it.

Froome, however, in my opinion, requires very close scrutiny. As does Jon T-Locke. And I am very glad Yates is gone. For the record, I think the zero tolerence policy is sponsor driven, and bonkers - i feel Brailsford's own instincts are much closer to Garmin.

I have no real reason to doubt Vaaghter's sincerity. He's a former doper, and clearly full of himself, but again 'unlikeable' rider personality trait -> fraud.

Dave Millar is an interesting personality - again, much to Clinician's disgust, no doubt, I think, on the balance of probabilities that he is now genuine. He strikes me (pop psychology alert) as someone whose self-identity was completely broken when he was caught - and his new self-identity, the redeemed anti-doping crusader, is very dear to him for that reason - he seriously overplays it, and says stupid things regularly - it doesn't mean, however, that's its fraudulent.

I wouldn't however let him near power in the UCI - he doesn't strike me as suited to that role.

The dirtiest race currently, in my personal and uneducated view, is the Vuelta. I simply don't think the spanish authorities are serious about doping control, and culturally, there is simply far, far too much forgiveness of it.

The 2012 Vuelta troubled me intensely. Of the top three, Valverde is the rider I have most difficulty with. Entirely personal.

The French and italians were once as bad, but events appear to have changed their broad feelings somewhat - not totally, but somewhat. I await the italian case coming up with interest, however.

Some parts of the world have worse 'cultural' problems re: doping than others; that's not racism, it's just the facts. Doesn't mean that riders from that country are clean, or dope.

But if we leave cycling for a second, and look at athletics, for example - only the wilfully blind would not accept that parts of eastern europe, particularly some of the former soviet states, have an endemic doping culture in certain events. The trail of middle distance russian women, running unbelievable times in Russia, and the wilting overseas; the systemic problems of doping in Belarus; the long history of East German women doping (koch, anyone?); the long and tainted history of american sprinting.

In cycling, there appear to be some parts of the globe where the disgust with doping simply doesn't run as strong. That's just reality. How we tackle that is an an interesting question.

Enough idle speculation for ya?

 

[M Sport]

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".

Another way to look at it is let the pro riders prove they're clean. The sooner we get some independent testing body that starts out with the basic assumption that they are all guilty and therefore put in place a testing regime to prove that the better off and cleaner cycling will be.

Otherwise define proof, legal proof is obviously very difficult, just look at how long it took to get Lance. Scientifically the experts had him long ago, it's an easier standard of proof. And don't confuse needing a positive test to prove use, a positive test result and scientific proof of use are quite different.

Could proof be the top 35 times up Alpe D'Huez? Arguably yes. Once you understand natural physiological limitations then the dirty results stand out like an elephant in the room.

Anyway, back to my first point. Let them prove they're clean, the last 25 years of deception demands that.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

1. Always getting angry at being asked about it.
2. Never open to criticism of it.
3. Hire known banned people outside the team to train you.
4. Employ others to run propaganda on your behalf.
5. Hide under the cloak of a cause.
6. Always looking to the future and wanting to forget the past.
7. Can never answer a question about it to a reporter.
8. Claim to know nothing about it when the average fan knows what it is or what is going on.
9. Require a lawyer even when you've never tested positive.
10. Claim some homeopathic remedy is the root of your new found performance. (get it root )
11. Train in extremely remote locations away from home or the race schedule where the UCI/WADA testers have a tough time getting to.


Imagine if anyone of you's could get away with that your current school/work place?

LOL. Works for me.

 

[peterst6906]

Another way to look at it is let the pro riders prove they're clean. The sooner we get some independent testing body that starts out with the basic assumption that they are all guilty and therefore put in place a testing regime to prove that the better off and cleaner cycling will be.

I agree, and particularly for Australia, that approach should be extended to society in general.

Authorities should start with a premise that all citizens are convicts and put in a regime of property and personal searches until there is proof that the citizens are not criminals. After all, 224 year old history of European settlement suggests the population are a bunch of thieves.

Oh no, wait. That's just compete rubbish. Just the same as the suggestion to invade the privacy of all riders to any length just to please some observers.

Maybe a more balanced approach involving multiple approaches to reduce the incentives to dope, backed by a reasonable level of intrusion and harsher penalties for breaches is a more realistic.

It's only sport after all, not a murder investigation.

 

[del1962]

I agree, and particularly for Australia, that approach should be extended to society in general.

Authorities should start with a premise that all citizens are convicts and put in a regime of property and personal searches until there is proof that the citizens are not criminals. After all, 224 year old history of European settlement suggests the population are a bunch of thieves.

Oh no, wait. That's just compete rubbish. Just the same as the suggestion to invade the privacy of all riders to any length just to please some observers.

Maybe a more balanced approach involving multiple approaches to reduce the incentives to dope, backed by a reasonable level of intrusion and harsher penalties for breaches is a more realistic.

It's only sport after all, not a murder investigation.

The biggest question about anti-doping control is who is going to pay for it.

 

[martinvickers]

The biggest question about anti-doping control is who is going to pay for it.

The answer is those who profit from the sport.

If you profit from the sport, part of that profit should go to ensuring the integrity of the sport.

So professional teams profit,riders profit, uci profit, TV profit - they can all pony up as far as i'm concerned

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

The biggest question about anti-doping control is who is going to pay for it.

those that benefit from a clean sport, sponsors, organisers

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ah right. A "positive test" and "witness testimony" is legalese. Ok, if you say so.

It is a legal standard, which is unusual for someone to have to form an opinion.

My view on doping changed during the 2011 tour. Personally, I wouldn't have needed much convincing that anyone in the peleton was doping prior to that.
For nigh on 30 years I'd taken the view that most were...Armstrong in particular.

Then, in 2011, I started to pay attention to the performance numbers a little bit. I felt that what I was seeing was closer to "real"....the numbers backed that up. The voices saying that the peleton was cleaner were louder and, crucially, coming from places that I trusted. As a consequence, I, as a citizen of this here clinic, want to see more than a string of flimsy "circumstantial" or worse "made-up" evidence. Frankly, that's exactly what I see most of.

Interesting - so your view has changed recently - changed from "little convincing" needed to a legal standard, all because you now "trust" the voices.

Who in cycling do you trust? And what happened in 2011 for you to earn that trust?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Poppycock. the Clinic is all about passing judgements.

Ok then - who has the Clinic passed judgement on and how long of a sanction did we give?
(and where do I send my claims forms too?)

You appear to confuse people having an opinion on an Internet forum with a court.

Thank you.

Firstly, there is a difference between someone doping, and establishing that someone is doping. The latter should always be smaller than the former; otherwise innocent people are smeared.

As to what I consider conclusive proof? I set that out already - Blood and urine test positives; robust and verifiable eye witness evidence; other reliable scientific evidence backed up by trustworthy science in a robust and verifiable way.

What is not conclusive proof - rumour, innuendo, clinic 'join-the-dots', animus, unpleasant rider personality, team origin, success.

Now, there will be occasions where I have suspicions, or concerns. inappropriate and self-serving rider comments; bizarre behaviour; certain outlandish individual feats.

But it is vitally, and I repeat VITALLY, important to remember, that is all they are - they are not in any way 'proof'. And to my mind far too many clinicians, rather than actually support investigation, are content to say - "I don't like that rider/believe that performance - that's all the proof i need! And my opinion is the be all and end all"

Frankly, a someone who fervantly wants doping eradicated, i find that tiresome. It seems an awful lot more to do with the ego of the clinician than actually cleaning up the sport.

A lot of Clinicians are under the impression that riders and teams are always ten steps ahead of the anti-dopers, and always will be. That is an opinion, and can be genuinely held - but it's not verifiable.

I take some minor comfort in the fact that Armstrong got caught; as did Vinikorov, Zulle, Riis, Valverde, Ulrich, Pantani, Franck Schleck, Millar, Hamilton, Landis, Contador and by extension the rest of the US Postal. It took years to catch Armstrong. It took days to catch Landis. But both were caught. That's progress, I suppose.

Now, if you want 'idle' speculation, I can do that for you.

I'm not all that worried by Wiggins, much, no doubt, to fellow clinicians disgust. His tour win this year was not a dominating tour de force - it was a Big Deisel behind a superstar team on a very very friendly parcours with a weak field. Armstrong, Ulrich, Contador, Andy Schleck on form would all have destroyed him.

Nor do i think Sky has a team doping structure. I just see no evidence of it.

Froome, however, in my opinion, requires very close scrutiny. As does Jon T-Locke. And I am very glad Yates is gone. For the record, I think the zero tolerence policy is sponsor driven, and bonkers - i feel Brailsford's own instincts are much closer to Garmin.

I have no real reason to doubt Vaaghter's sincerity. He's a former doper, and clearly full of himself, but again 'unlikeable' rider personality trait -> fraud.

Dave Millar is an interesting personality - again, much to Clinician's disgust, no doubt, I think, on the balance of probabilities that he is now genuine. He strikes me (pop psychology alert) as someone whose self-identity was completely broken when he was caught - and his new self-identity, the redeemed anti-doping crusader, is very dear to him for that reason - he seriously overplays it, and says stupid things regularly - it doesn't mean, however, that's its fraudulent.

I wouldn't however let him near power in the UCI - he doesn't strike me as suited to that role.

The dirtiest race currently, in my personal and uneducated view, is the Vuelta. I simply don't think the spanish authorities are serious about doping control, and culturally, there is simply far, far too much forgiveness of it.

The 2012 Vuelta troubled me intensely. Of the top three, Valverde is the rider I have most difficulty with. Entirely personal.

The French and italians were once as bad, but events appear to have changed their broad feelings somewhat - not totally, but somewhat. I await the italian case coming up with interest, however.

Some parts of the world have worse 'cultural' problems re: doping than others; that's not racism, it's just the facts. Doesn't mean that riders from that country are clean, or dope.

But if we leave cycling for a second, and look at athletics, for example - only the wilfully blind would not accept that parts of eastern europe, particularly some of the former soviet states, have an endemic doping culture in certain events. The trail of middle distance russian women, running unbelievable times in Russia, and the wilting overseas; the systemic problems of doping in Belarus; the long history of East German women doping (koch, anyone?); the long and tainted history of american sprinting.

In cycling, there appear to be some parts of the globe where the disgust with doping simply doesn't run as strong. That's just reality. How we tackle that is an an interesting question.

Enough idle speculation for ya?

See, you just gave a personal viewpoint - I am not even going to comment on its content, just merely highlight that it is your standard - not The Clinics, not anyone else's. Which was my point, there is no group standard here, it is an assortment of opinions.

 

[No_Balls]

The "no proof" line could be throwned out of the window given the responsible are under scrutiny. There is no way "never tested positive" could be a valid ground during the current state of affairs. Everyone discussin in a "no proof" or "never tested positive" manner is themselves upholding Omertá. Yes, even fans can be part of a culture.

From were i am sitting it is cleary not hard detecting which the suspicuous are. Everyone sticking to the PR-scripted, carefully chosed of words, manual in the Armstrong-affair as well as doping in general, should be considered suspicious. There is no way clean riders/clean teams would´ve even thought twice about what could come out for them in a clean environment. Upholding a doping culture is preventing themselves from success. This should be crystal clear for every cyclingfan with a tiny amount of knowledge.

But the only way of proving the broader doping culture would be if the USADA-report went further, UCI:s whereabouts gets revealed to the world, more former riders speaking out against the current riders, throwing out the peloton to the wolves for real. The Omertá today are very keen of looking in the past and does quickly want to open the next chapter so they can get along with it. Fanboys are taking comfort in this and are prepared to quickly forgive and forget.

Cycling, as we see it today, must be destroyed.

 

[martinvickers]

The "no proof" line could be throwned out of the window given the responsible are under scrutiny. There is no way "never tested positive" could be a valid ground during the current state of affairs. Everyone discussin in a "no proof" or "never tested positive" manner is themselves upholding Omertá. Yes, even fans can be part of a culture.

From were i am sitting it is cleary not hard detecting which the suspicuous are. Everyone sticking to the PR-scripted, carefully chosed of words, manual in the Armstrong-affair as well as doping in general, should be considered suspicious. There is no way clean riders/clean teams would´ve even thought twice about what could come out for them in a clean environment. Upholding a doping culture is preventing themselves from success. This should be crystal clear for every cyclingfan with a tiny amount of knowledge.

But the only way of proving the broader doping culture would be if the USADA-report went further, UCI:s whereabouts gets revealed to the world, more former riders speaking out against the current riders, throwing out the peloton to the wolves for real. The Omertá today are very keen of looking in the past and does quickly want to open the next chapter so they can get along with it. Fanboys are taking comfort in this and are prepared to quickly forgive and forget.

Cycling, as we see it today, must be destroyed.

You should make your signature "Birotatio Delenda Est."

 

[martinvickers]

Ok then - who has the Clinic passed judgement on and how long of a sanction did we give?
(and where do I send my claims forms too?)

You appear to confuse people having an opinion on an Internet forum with a court.

See, you just gave a personal viewpoint - I am not even going to comment on its content, just merely highlight that it is your standard - not The Clinics, not anyone else's. Which was my point, there is no group standard here, it is an assortment of opinions.

But people aren't looking for 'viewpoints', they're looking for 'proof' - see title of thread.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But people aren't looking for 'viewpoints', they're looking for 'proof' - see title of thread.

And when I asked what constitutes proof you gave your definition or viewpoint.

 

[martinvickers]

And when I asked what constitutes proof you gave your definition or viewpoint.

No. I gave a definition of proof - the only one that makes sense.

I THEN gave a separate viewpoint on my suspicions- but that was not by any stretch a definition of proof.

Go back and read what i wrote - I very clearly separated what was proof from what was conjecture.

Maybe some people not being able to tell the difference highlights one of the key problems at the clinic...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No. I gave a definition of proof - the only one that makes sense.

Yes, you gave a definition of proof.
Is it the Clinic definition? My definition?
No - its a definition that would be used in a Court or legal setting - this is a forum, nothing more.

I THEN gave a separate viewpoint on my suspicions- but that was not by any stretch a definition of proof.

Go back and read what i wrote - I very clearly separated what was proof from what was conjecture.

Maybe some people not being able to tell the difference highlights one of the key problems at the clinic...

Indeed, you clearly struggle with what an online forum actually is.

 

[martinvickers]

Yes, you gave a definition of proof.
Is it the Clinic definition? My definition?
No - its a definition that would be used in a Court or legal setting

i.e the correct one.

Indeed, you clearly struggle with what an online forum actually is.

No,I just know where it's limits are - or ought to be.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i.e the correct one.




No,I just know where it's limits are - or ought to be.

Great - can you clearly articulate what that limit is (or ought to be ) for an online forum.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Viewpoints and opinions aren't just based on "proof"
Until the USADA investigation there was no proof Armstrong doped either. When Landis came out I personnally thought it wouldn't lead anywhere either. Not because I thought Armstrong was clean, simply because I thought Landis simply wasn't credible enough. That although he very likely said the truth on many things, even the main things, but not on necessarily on every detail, so it would be possible to prove him wrong on some stuff, and because discrediting Landis wasn't even necessary, he had discredited himself enough already.
So my opinion before Landis, after Landis until USADA report:
Armstrong dopes, but there is no proof.
Just because I think that somebody is doped, I don't regard the things that lead me to that belief as "proof". Proof is what Martinvickers and others mentioned before. At least as I understood it, maybe as a non native I don't get the exact meaning of the word....
But proof for me is not just the things that lead you to an opinion, but things that.. prove something beyond a doubt.

 

[DirtyWorks]

i.e the correct one.

This test for truth fails. As Ashenden pointed out in one of his interviews, there is scientific proof of doping, and then there is the legal case where the scientific evidence is used for making and possibly winning the case.

According to your comments, we're supposed to just rely on the IOC and UCI to police their own matters and communicate with some reliability. Do you prefer being treated a fool? Because if you take the UCI and IOC at their word, then YOU ARE A FOOL for doing it.

I get that docile people rely on an authority structure to lead them, but when it comes to IOC sports like cycling and doping, demanding legal proof, (whatever that means) is a particularly dishonest tactic used to delay and deny change.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Until the USADA investigation there was no proof Armstrong doped either.

It looked like a duck, walked like a duck, had feathers like a duck, sounded like a duck, spent a great deal of time by water like a duck, weighed the same as other ducks, other ducks were calling it a duck for over a decade and it wasn't a duck? Wow. Really?