When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 96 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
zigmeister said:
I concur. Ashenden learned everything he knows about doping in cycling from Floyd Landis.

Otherwise, he doesn't have anymore a clue than any other person as to what might be going on today. He still basis his ideas/thoughts, including on what he used as a "theory" about Contador, due to Landis.

So he is no expert on doping in cycling, he just has "theories" and "opinions", and no facts.

Until we get profiles of all athletes for the Bio posted publicly, then we can start to make some better comparisons and understanding on what "normal" looks like.

Particularly with guys we KNOW are clean. Then the theories/opinions can at least be somewhat more convincing, or cloud the issue, who knows. There is so much subterfuge with all this nonsense, lab testing, values and lack of information in general, nobody can say for sure. The UCI/McQuack likes it this way for now.
i was seated at the same table in Geelong when Ash asks Floyd about clen. the next day, l'Equipe have the story on the Contador positive. I think Floyd's answer was, yeah, it works, but could not sleep for two days so i never took it again. And Ash said he learnt more in those two days having access to Floyd than he knew previously on doping.

btw, Ash never mentioned Contador's name. But he was on the UCI's medical committee so he knew of the positive, just was privy to confidentiality clause
 
Dear Wiggo said:
I have no problem with the hypothesis that normal athletes experience plasma volume expansion due to intense exercise. This is not in dispute.

If you read the posts to which I am replying, however, the premise is painful to read. Essentially Von Mises is extrapolating the results of a study to say that

1. Ashenden and Mokberg see all riders profiles
- I don't think Mokberg is even on a BP panel
2. Ahenden and Mokberg are saying all riders are clean coz they experience plasma volume expansion
- neither of them see all profiles, so how could they possible know or claim this? Only profiles flagged *by the system* are presented for further scrutiny.
3. The BP is working because of the previous 2 points
- a conclusion that cannot be reached based on the sandy soil of its supporting arguments
Conclusion was mine, I do not want to make an impression it was Ashenden and Morkeberg. Also, I admit that my wording was not precise enough.

But, it is not entirely true that UCI panel (Ashenden was part of it) will see only suspicious values, they will review also randomly picked profiles. If you remember last year there was a mini-scandal about Ashenden and his evaluation of Armstrong 2009 blood values. UCI said that everything was okey with Armstrong, that panel (including Ashenden) looked at his values and declared clear. What UCI "forget" was that Ashenden and his colleagues did not see Armstrong values from TdF, they only reviewed his values from November 2008 to May 2009. Basically Armstrong happened to be one of these random samples what panel gets all the time - Ashenden confirmed it later.
Secondly, blood values from cyclists have been systematically collected from at least 2001, not every parameter what today is part of ABP, but haemoglobin and retics have been part of collection from 2001. So there have been lot of data available for a long time already (more or less this knowledge has been later used to establish ABP). I know at least one paper from 2005 by Zorzoli (so even before Damsgaards work with CSC or Morkebergs 2007 study) where he shows (based on thousands of test from 2001-2004) how normal and suspicious blood values act during grand tour. Zorzoli speculates there also that blood data shows change in EPO (he talks about microdosing) and that data also shows introduction of blood tranfusions.
Overall and considering how small blood expert community is, many of them have been each other co-authors, have worked together, have sat in UCI panel, assessed ABP and so, I am pretty sure that they have all seen directly or indirectly hundreds of different blood profiles.
But again, conclusions above where mine and I freely admit, that they are speculative.
 
Jul 15, 2010
464
0
0
nomapnocompass said:
You are quite correct, it is unreasonable to sample blood every day of a stage race.

The current bio-passport protocol is here;

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=Nzc2ODA&LangId=1

It entails collection of 2x3ml, 2x3ml and 2x5ml samples, so 22ml is total minimum required to be taken.

The major problem to the athlete comes from repeated trauma to the sampling site and athletes wouldn't be too happy riding around with a cannula in their arm all day.
You don't have to do the full battery of test every time. You could test more frequently and make what you test for random. Or you could just test and watch the blood markers everytime. It isn't exactly a high price for being able to compete fairly.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
Zweistein said:
You don't have to do the full battery of test every time. You could test more frequently and make what you test for random. Or you could just test and watch the blood markers everytime. It isn't exactly a high price for being able to compete fairly.
premise therein is cycling (ever/forever) had "compete fairly" as one of its core values
 
Von Mises said:
...But from another point of view, reason why Ashenden and Mørkeberg can say that normally blood values go down during GT comes from the fact that they have seen hundreds of passports and seen that for vast majority of peloton blood values act normally (= go down). Basically it indicates that vast majority of peloton is clean (at least clean of blood doping) and this can be regarded as a success of BP.
All it means is exactly what it says: rider blood values are following the expected trends. Which could mean they have adjusted their doping programmes to avoid the detections the BP was intended to provide.

One of the take-aways of the Pharmstrong era is that the dopers perpetually are searching for methods to skirt the doping rules, adjusting tactics to game the system. I have seen no evidence -- zero, zip, zilch, nada -- these practices have ended.

This is one reason (among many) I remain dubious of all the claims of 'cleanness:'


Speed shown for multi winners is an average of all their wins.

There was an inexplicable jump in TDF winner's average speeds between Lemond and Indurain, which coincides (roughly) with the arrival of EPO in the pro peloton. If that had been because Indurain was an outlier, a freak of nature, the speeds after should have normalised. Except they haven't. The only TdF winner since Indurain who was slower than Indurain's fastest was Contador in 2007. To borrow a quote from one famous cycling pundit, one who intimately knows the ins and outs of a clandestine doping programme, this is "Not normal."

Show me speeds closer to Lemond (he of the 92.5 VO2max) and I'll show you a cleaner peloton.
 
StyrbjornSterki said:
All it means is exactly what it says: rider blood values are following the expected trends. Which could mean they have adjusted their doping programmes to avoid the detections the BP was intended to provide.

One of the take-aways of the Pharmstrong era is that the dopers perpetually are searching for methods to skirt the doping rules, adjusting tactics to game the system. I have seen no evidence -- zero, zip, zilch, nada -- these practices have ended.

This is one reason (among many) I remain dubious of all the claims of 'cleanness:'


Speed shown for multi winners is an average of all their wins.

There was an inexplicable jump in TDF winner's average speeds between Lemond and Indurain, which coincides (roughly) with the arrival of EPO in the pro peloton. If that had been because Indurain was an outlier, a freak of nature, the speeds after should have normalised. Except they haven't. The only TdF winner since Indurain who was slower than Indurain's fastest was Contador in 2007. To borrow a quote from one famous cycling pundit, one who intimately knows the ins and outs of a clandestine doping programme, this is "Not normal."

Show me speeds closer to Lemond (he of the 92.5 VO2max) and I'll show you a cleaner peloton.
The big jump between Roche & Delgado was partly due to the shortening of the tour, 4,231km to 3,286km whilst still being 3 weeks. The start of the EPO era would have something to do with it too.
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
StyrbjornSterki said:
There was an inexplicable jump in TDF winner's average speeds between Lemond and Indurain, which coincides (roughly) with the arrival of EPO in the pro peloton. If that had been because Indurain was an outlier, a freak of nature, the speeds after should have normalised. Except they haven't. The only TdF winner since Indurain who was slower than Indurain's fastest was Contador in 2007. To borrow a quote from one famous cycling pundit, one who intimately knows the ins and outs of a clandestine doping programme, this is "Not normal."

Show me speeds closer to Lemond (he of the 92.5 VO2max) and I'll show you a cleaner peloton.
Things influencing average speeds

- tech advance
- GT course
and a lot more i cba

mostly course

Dates July 4–July 27, 1986
Stages 23+Prologue
Distance 4,094 km (2,544 mi)
Winning time 110h 35' 19" (37.020 km/h or 23.003 mph)

Dates 30 June–22 July 1990
Stages 21+Prologue
Distance 3,403.8 km (2,115 mi)
Winning time 87h 38' 35" (38.621 km/h or 23.998 mph)

Dates 30 June 2012–22 July 2012
Stages 20+Prologue
Distance 3,496.9 km (2,173 mi)
Winning time 87h 34′ 47″ (39.9 km/h or 24.8 mph)

Lemond 1990 is 2% slower than Wiggins 2012

I guess 22 years of tech advance in all fields can justify that

For a statistical approach there are to few input datas

Otherwise, it's just a wild speculation without any cover.
 
StyrbjornSterki said:
All it means is exactly what it says: rider blood values are following the expected trends. Which could mean they have adjusted their doping programmes to avoid the detections the BP was intended to provide.

One of the take-aways of the Pharmstrong era is that the dopers perpetually are searching for methods to skirt the doping rules, adjusting tactics to game the system. I have seen no evidence -- zero, zip, zilch, nada -- these practices have ended.

This is one reason (among many) I remain dubious of all the claims of 'cleanness:'


Speed shown for multi winners is an average of all their wins.

There was an inexplicable jump in TDF winner's average speeds between Lemond and Indurain, which coincides (roughly) with the arrival of EPO in the pro peloton. If that had been because Indurain was an outlier, a freak of nature, the speeds after should have normalised. Except they haven't. The only TdF winner since Indurain who was slower than Indurain's fastest was Contador in 2007. To borrow a quote from one famous cycling pundit, one who intimately knows the ins and outs of a clandestine doping programme, this is "Not normal."

Show me speeds closer to Lemond (he of the 92.5 VO2max) and I'll show you a cleaner peloton.
I think that the average speed today is similar to the dark era for many factors. Variations to one year to another could be for many factors as well, the wind i.e.

But from Landis to these days some thing have changed. First: parcours, 2003 was a very hard route, and very hot, but the average was hight. If you have a lot of plane stages and there is tailwind in most of them, the average is going to be hight, like this year.

Anyway there was an increasing that today have stopped, even the record are in the past an in harder tours.

Bikes, technology, globalization,... lot of things have changed that could help to increase the average speed, but that is not the case.
40 average is posible in a clean peloton, even more if there are a lot of flat stage, less kms, and the weather and wind helps.

But yes, you dont get an evidende of cleanliness in the currents average speed, that is right.
 
Apr 14, 2010
1,368
0
0
Since we've decended into speed discussions. Was there ever a time in the Lemond era where there was a situation like this year where you had several teams full of big northern Europeans chasing nothing but sprint stages? You throw Argos, Lotto, and Quik Step at a flat stage and its going to go fast.
 
wansteadimp said:
The big jump between Roche & Delgado was partly due to the shortening of the tour, 4,231km to 3,286km whilst still being 3 weeks. The start of the EPO era would have something to do with it too.
My chart is a bit misleading because (for sake of compactness) the multi winners are shown in the order of their first win. Lemond's 2° & 3° wins were after Roche and Delgado.

Indurain's slowest TdF still was faster than Lemond's fastest.


EDIT:
To my original point, the trend in "normal-looking" BP values is as much evidence that the dopers are remaining one step ahead of the testers as it is that the peloton is clean.

And if advances in technology, sports nutrition, globalization, global warming and Froome's doped bike get credit for the increase, why haven't we seen the same trend in rising speeds in the one day classics as we have in the Grand Tours? Do they switch to 1980s bikes, and go back to pasta and olive oil when then ride LBL and Paris-Roubaix?

EDIT II:
Lemond's 1989 win was the 2° shortest since HdG allowed the derailleur (1937), but it's the 27° fastest.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
EnacheV said:
Lemond 1990 is 2% slower than Wiggins 2012

I guess 22 years of tech advance in all fields can justify that.
Yep, there were no carbon frames in 1990. Even Herrera had a carbon frame in 1987. So aome research you ....

But, do you realise what 2% over 3449 km is? About one and a half hour. Do you really think chumps like Horner and you british hero Sir Wiggins would gain one and a half hour on Greg LeMond?

LeMond rode a carbon bike of 8.5 - 9 kilo in 1990, Look pedals et all. Only a motorised bike would give your hero a chance against that LeMond.

This site is getting funnier by the day.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Yep, there were no carbon frames in 1990. Even Herrera had a carbon frame in 1987. So aome research you ....

But, do you realise what 2% over 3449 km is? About one and a half hour. Do you really think chumps like Horner and you british hero Sir Wiggins would gain one and a half hour on Greg LeMond?

LeMond rode a carbon bike of 8.5 - 9 kilo in 1990, Look pedals et all. Only a motorised bike would give your hero a chance against that LeMond.

This site is getting funnier by the day.
2% more power in no way equates to 2% reduction in time.
 
Mar 12, 2010
545
0
0
Taxus4a said:
But I am agree, an expert must analyse the data... I understand that UCI analise the data with experts already anyway, that is the biopassport.
Not Quite. Experts analyse the data IF it is flagged by the computer as needing investigation. If the computer doesn't flag it, the experts likely don't look at it.

Does the computer work?
 
StyrbjornSterki said:
My chart is a bit misleading because (for sake of compactness) the multi winners are shown in the order of their first win. Lemond's 2° & 3° wins were after Roche and Delgado.

Indurain's slowest TdF still was faster than Lemond's fastest.


EDIT:
To my original point, the trend in "normal-looking" BP values is as much evidence that the dopers are remaining one step ahead of the testers as it is that the peloton is clean.

And if advances in technology, sports nutrition, globalization, global warming and Froome's doped bike get credit for the increase, why haven't we seen the same trend in rising speeds in the one day classics as we have in the Grand Tours? Do they switch to 1980s bikes, and go back to pasta and olive oil when then ride LBL and Paris-Roubaix?
Some of us have 1980s bikes, or have ridden them. Some folks are still buying them, or their direct descendents.

The move to Carbon everything, including tapered top tubes, has simplified the bike frame business considerably. This shift has catalyzed off-shore production leveraging scale economies - and presumably increased selling margins. At the same time, marketing pitches to the contrary, there has not been a material change in speed that could be related directly to bike frames.

There have been improvements, of course, to TT bikes. But the biggest problem in TT'ing has always been the flat blob on top of the bike.

Especially with the 3:1 ratio, some of the newer frames are so FAT that I would be interested in wind tunnel data against old steel frames.

LeMond just announced a return to the bike business with a frame that is pretty much the same as he rode in ~1990.

The fastest road wheel combination is a HED Tri-Spoke with a lenticular disc. Specialized (now HED) tri-spoke wheels were available in the 1980s, and lenticular discs available before that. Mavic even had a tri-spoke in the early 1990s if not before.

In the 1980s bicycles even had cogsets. AND front and rear derailleurs. You could even ride an '11' tooth cog if you were a real man/woman. Still don't see anyone out there with a 10.

Dave.
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
so they were riding 9kg bikes back then ? if true, why you wonder they were slower by 2% ?

in the eyes of a dopeborg anything can be twisted in to a doping proof

to paraphrase Jan Ulrich, if you can't understand 2% increase, only taking in to account heavier bikes, you are beyond my help.

as for parix roubaix, when comparing a 1 day event, the data sample is so reduced that you can't even compare. only wind can mess up a lot, meteo condition, race tactics, etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris–Roubaix#Fastest_editions
it's a mess

even averaging over 21 days you still don't have any decent statistical pool.
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Yep, there were no carbon frames in 1990. Even Herrera had a carbon frame in 1987. So aome research you ....

But, do you realise what 2% over 3449 km is? About one and a half hour. Do you really think chumps like Horner and you british hero Sir Wiggins would gain one and a half hour on Greg LeMond?

LeMond rode a carbon bike of 8.5 - 9 kilo in 1990, Look pedals et all. Only a motorised bike would give your hero a chance against that LeMond.

This site is getting funnier by the day.
They could gain an hour and a half on LeMond easily - but not if they were in the same race - which, when comparing average speeds, they aren't. You see, for most of the Tour the GC guys are sitting comfortably in the bunch - the pace they are going is nothing to do with them - they aren't sitting on the front tapping out the pace on flat stages, you know. For at least 60% of a Tour the winner is in the same group as the Lantern Rouge.

If you are comparing average speeds, you are not comparing Wiggins to LeMond, you are comparing the 2012 peloton with the 1990 peloton. Do they go four and a half minutes quicker per day? Sure they do - not least because there is longer TV coverage so breaks go earlier (they used to amble along until the helicopters showed up), there is a greater strength in depth across the peloton and there are dedicated sprinters teams thundering along in the last 30km.

Using average speeds as an indication of doping is completely pointless.
 
Parker said:
They could gain an hour and a half on LeMond easily - but not if they were in the same race - which, when comparing average speeds, they aren't. You see, for most of the Tour the GC guys are sitting comfortably in the bunch - the pace they are going is nothing to do with them - they aren't sitting on the front tapping out the pace on flat stages, you know. For at least 60% of a Tour the winner is in the same group as the Lantern Rouge.

If you are comparing average speeds, you are not comparing Wiggins to LeMond, you are comparing the 2012 peloton with the 1990 peloton. Do they go four and a half minutes quicker per day? Sure they do - not least because there is longer TV coverage so breaks go earlier (they used to amble along until the helicopters showed up), there is a greater strength in depth across the peloton and there are dedicated sprinters teams thundering along in the last 30km.

Using average speeds as an indication of doping is completely pointless.
I agree with you, you have explained quite well that is the average than the peloton, but I dont think is completely pointless, if there is a trend growing that average or a trend falling, you can take that in account, but only if you look if there are as well other trends in cycling as Kms, mountains, better training,...

It is not pointless, but it is not a good point.
 
TheGame said:
Not Quite. Experts analyse the data IF it is flagged by the computer as needing investigation. If the computer doesn't flag it, the experts likely don't look at it.

Does the computer work?
Thanks for the explanation.

Anyway there are lot of things to clarify. I hope that if Cookson win, do that, but Pat have more supporters.
 
Netserk said:
It's not proof when your DS and several teammates tell you that they know for a fact that he was a doper?
It is not a proof even today, but when you have so many evidence it is like a proof.

When you are fan and when someone is not sactioned, and when a santioned man talk as Landis, it is not so strage what Wiggo said, but he was clear after in his opinion, the same of all dopers.

Horner, I dont know if better or not, but he has another opinion, as Contador, Samu, Rubiera, and another riders from my country, etc...

I rely more on people who have an clear ethic againts doping since the begining, although there are cases that are cheaters as well...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY