StyrbjornSterki said:If the winner isn't doping, the dopers aren't doing it very well.
Bad dope.
Dave.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
StyrbjornSterki said:If the winner isn't doping, the dopers aren't doing it very well.
Von Mises said: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.
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?
StyrbjornSterki said:If the winner isn't doping, the dopers aren't doing it very well.
Taxus4a said:http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-legal-scientific.html
Here it says 110. And even more that 110 could be not doping
Dehydratation it could be a factor to take in account, despite you say no.
I read yerterday again this interview:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/armstrongs-bio-passport-critic-speaks
It is interesting, and of course, as Damsgaard says as well could be a blood transfusion, Lance in that Tour is quite suspicious acording to the Giro, but it is not sure.
I know riders that are riding clean doing well, but, there is a possibility that some riders are using still microdosing or small transfusions, but even in that case I think the progress in antidoping would be important. The zero neddle policy, the Adams program, the sorpresive controls, and some things you can read to the current cyclist make in my opinion difficult that case, but anyway is possible.
Would make that riders unbeatable as in the dark era? No.
I dont trust Horner a lot becouse he dont have an antidoping ethic as Wiggo have, he defended Armstrong, and he consider that if you win without positives you are clean, but he could be clean and for the moment there isnt anything that make me think the oposite.
Galic Ho said:As for the sportsscience boys did you know they never had an opinion on whether Contador's Verbier time from 2009 was legitimate? They provide excuses. Just like Andrew Coggan does on this forum in the power threads. They exist to market their expertise and skills. It's not in their agenda to champion the truth and actually step out and say something is doping. They're not as useful as they appear. Oh and the fact one of them works as a consultant for South African Rugby Union...well that hypocrisy says it all. Massive drug problem in that sport. Especially in South Africa.
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.
Parker said: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
I agree the average speeds is a terrible comparator. But don't make the 1990 event somehow less, or even compare it to a 2012 event. It's a different event. Different incentives, different race.Parker said:(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.
vrusimov said:Ross Tuckers analysis has always bothered me but I guess he would rather not be deemed a psuedo-quack like Vayer is in some circles. But straight up. If Contador is climbing at a higher VAM than Riis then how can this not be called on the carpet? Answer? No positive doping test, per Coggan. Even Lemond was looked at derisively for his VO2 max claims on Contador [a value of 99 iirc]. At the time, Contador was testing clean and the chief explanations, predictably, were drafting and tailwinds, even though we both know that the road does not traverse the mountain in a straight line from base to summit.
zigmeister said:Seems like things have gone off track a touch here.
We want to know who/what/when/where is the smackdown coming down on Horner?
I for one have to assume that all this other talk means, not anytime soon, even with Cookson now as part of the UCI.
The usual syllogism employed by supporters of suspect performances is that detractors simply label every winner a doper. The fallacy in that sophistry is that it is not merely a question of said rider winning but how said rider is winning and if said rider's performance juxtaposed against his own history passes muster in physiological reality.red_flanders said:I would tend to agree the usefulness of comments from guys like this is limited and in fact often counter-productive. Laregely, they tend to state whether a performance is within bounds of believable human performance. What they don't (because they can't) address is whether the performance of a particular human is believable.
In other words, in too many cases what is said is (to paraphrase), "Yes, a human could have done this without dope". What is not said, because it can't be, is "Yes, Rider X could have done this without dope."
The problem is that almost no one is at the outer limit of human performance. That is by definition, even in the top level of sport, the far outlier. The rare, once-a-generation talent even amongst elite athletes.
It is very, very unlikely (to say the least) that anyone could approach the outer limits of human achievement.
So when I see some pack rider all of a sudden hitting the outer limits (as all too often happens), I can't say it's not possible. But I can say it's BS.
As such, these kinds of references are often counter-productive in getting us to any kind of truth.
vrusimov said:.....
a psuedo-quack
happychappy said:Maybe after he wins all 3 GTs next year.
That would depend on the predisposition to believe the guilt or innocence of the rider in question. The double-negative, as you so punctiliously point out, is proffered as a purely polemic pejorative not particularly predicated on anything but a psuedo-prosaic pronouncement. Call it vernacular, a vapid votive or simply a vestige of verbiage meant to venerate negatively the various positions of those claiming veracity! ... and you may call me "V"!Le breton said:A pseudo-quack?
Hmm,
That's a bit like a double negative isn't it?
So, is it a compliment to designate a competent person?
or is it supposed to describe some sort of sub-quack?
Good response to my pretty bad previous post on this subject. I agree, average speeds are not a definite indication of doping, we can only conclude that the fastest Tours/Giro's/Vuelta's were ridden as fast thanks to doping. If these speeds are equalled or bettered by the current crop of riders we cant say it is because of dope, just because there is no proof. But the probability these speeds are reached through dope is quite high.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.
See the above.Von Mises said:Parker already correctly noted that 1-2% advancement in this case is not so much about Wiggins vs LeMond, but 2013 peloton vs 1990 peloton.
Point is - there are so many changes that we are not even able to name them all, we are not even count them all and we are definitely able to estimate their influence.
I couldnt have said it better than this, as English is not my native language.red_flanders said:In other words, in too many cases what is said is (to paraphrase), "Yes, a human could have done this without dope". What is not said, because it can't be, is "Yes, Rider X could have done this without dope."
The problem is that almost no one is at the outer limit of human performance. That is by definition, even in the top level of sport, the far outlier. The rare, once-a-generation talent even amongst elite athletes.
It is very, very unlikely (to say the least) that anyone could approach the outer limits of human achievement.
So when I see some pack rider all of a sudden hitting the outer limits (as all too often happens), I can't say it's not possible. But I can say it's BS.
As such, these kinds of references are often counter-productive in getting us to any kind of truth.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:Good response to my pretty bad previous post on this subject. I agree, average speeds are not a definite indication of doping, we can only conclude that the fastest Tours/Giro's/Vuelta's were ridden as fast thanks to doping. If these speeds are equalled or bettered by the current crop of riders we cant say it is because of dope, just because there is no proof. But the probability these speeds are reached through dope is quite high.
What we can do is take a trip into memory lane with some of the best climbers of the eighties and compare them with now. How do Delgado, Herrera, Wilches, Hampsten, Fignon, Millar, Fuerte, Parra et all correlate to the climbers of now? How is it for instance possible a guy like Jelle Vanendert climbing five and a half minutes faster than Delgado in 1988 up to Luz Ardiden? Or six minutes on Herrera in 1987, notably his best year in his carreer? Better equipment. Sure, but Lucho also had carbon at his disposal at that time. Better training? Sure. But, lets face it, someone like Vanendert putting six minutes on Herrera is ludicrous. Even taking into account for the differences in the stages, no equipment makes up for differences like that.
1-2% faster due to equipment, okay, lets assume that is right. Delgado rode up on Luz Ardiden in 1988 in 43 minutes 18 seconds ~. Jelle Vanendert in 2011 did the same climb in 37 minutes 36 ~. 2% of 43.18 minutes is ~52 seconds. 43.18 minutes minus 52 seconds = 42 minutes 26 seconds. Still missing 4 minutes and 49 seconds. Better roads? Better nutrition? Better weather? Better talent?
Funniest thing. Delgado's fastest time up Luz Ardiden was done in the Vuelta 1992: 37 minutes 56 seconds. How did HE gain almost six minutes on that climb in comparison to 1988? Well, he had better equipment, better nutrition, better everything, but I bet it was just dear old Edgar allen PO.
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1992/05/05/pagina-31/1260046/pdf.html#&mode=fullScreen
[sorry for Hein V. there]
I quote:
* Portillon
* Peyresourde
* Aspin
* Tourmalet
* Luz Ardiden
144 km, 70 kilometres of climbing
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1992/05/06/pagina-6/1260070/pdf.html#&mode=fullScreen
[Ferrari versus Fuentes, for the good analists]
36 Herrera(CoI/Postobon) at 15.40
I bet Lucho just didnt have the right equipment like Amaya Seguros...
He subsequently hung up his bike and quit cycling.
I am not saying Lucho was the best climber ever, but when we take him as a reference point I think it is hard to believe the peloton of now would have him too on 15 minutes.
Yes, the parametres are not the same, but the pattern is there: the peloton of now would destroy natural climbers like the Herrera's of the past. Herrera on the Angliru? He would be in the autobus.
See the above.
I couldnt have said it better than this, as English is not my native language.
What we are seeing is BS.
Good post. Espescially the bolded parts. The insult was not needed though. I guess that one was just free of charge.Master50 said:What about the tactical situation? I was on the Luz Ardiden in 1988 about 2km from the finish line and From what I remember (1)Delgado was not under great tactical pressure that day. If I remember it was (2)Fabio Parra that won the stage and Delgado was not at the front. He was racing for GC so his rivals were not up the road, but around him. He did not have a need to go faster so he rode tempo or hard enough to discourage attacks. (3)Race Dynamics often set the pace more than the person. If every climb was done as a TT we would still see a lot of variablity in times just by putting the climb in early or late in the stage. or early and late in the event. Number of days climbing in advance and a lot of other things determine climbing times for many of the climbs. Even when raced as a tt many conditions change from year to year. (4) Wind direction, ambient temperature, fitness of the rider, fatigue of the rider, and a dozen other factors. Straight time comparisons are not especially significant in proving whether a rider is boosted without also quantifying the conditions under which they are tested.
Mostly this is just another exercise in doping masturbation, The main activity in the clinic.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:Good post. Espescially the bolded parts. The insult was not needed though. I guess that one was just free of charge.
Nevertheless I will respond to you.
(1)
Of course not. Delgado had his GC win bagged and sealed, Rooks was already 3 and a half minutes back on him on GC. No threat at all.
But, a rider who does this or is able to do this is just miles ahead of his competition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3ZoYshnI3KI#t=2631
(2)
It was another Spanish rider, Laudelino Cubino. Fuentes client, edit, and a Ferrari client. Parra won Morzine if I am correct.
(3)
I totally agree, but, it is a strange pattern, riders who know they are so much better than those around them have the need to demonstrate their superiority. See Pantani, see Armstrong, see Robo Basso, see fill in any name there. The only exception here I can recall is Indurain. He left the leftovers to the ´little ones´.
(4)
Of course. I love wind! But Delgado going five minutes faster in 1992 in comparison to 1988 where he showed his topform, nah. Cubino too means only one thing, doping.
Good thing the boys of now can do that kinda performance clean!
PS
Werent you there at Val Louron too.
PS2
Dont you think it is ridiculous Lucho would be b' slapped right left and centre by Christopher Horner. Not saying Horner isnt a talented rider, I just dont think he is at age of 41 able to better performances of born climbers like Lucho. Even with better equipment it does not make sense.
Master50 said:Sorry for the insult but it is what is mostly going on here.
Delgado crossed the line about 25 to 30 seconds ahead of the group he spent most of the time up Luz Ardiden. It looked like a devastating attack but I think he lost a bit of it before the finish.
Herrera climbs on his feet as did many of these riders. Gert Tunesse (sp) was a pretty good climber for a flatlander
1988 doped as compared to now clean?
Is that the foundation for this post?
2013 clean kicks the Stuffing out of 1988 clean or dirty? Yes!
Aside from all the legal and fair methods to maximize performance the race is different. Stage races of the day were plenty hard enough to race full gas and without the TV audience until the last 1 to 2 hours who are they performing for?
Race calendars for many riders had 150 days on them. Like today the only really important race on the calendar was the Tour and if they needed results this was the place we also saw the worst of the doping which was still mostly pain management and fatigue with the most effective performance drug as testosterone.
A lot of things have reduced the total workload of pro riders over the entire calendar year and fewer riders take long off seasons. They race fewer days but are expected to ride harder when they do and yes I see the demand for results are always there. But the peloton has changed a lot in only the last few years. I have been following pelotons (physically right behind) for 25 years and there has been a big change. These riders are the best road racers on the planet and they look more human than I have seen since the 1980s.
No more than anyone here I cannot say that CH rode the Vuelta sans but I do believe he is capable of the result and I will stick my neck out even more by saying his win is the most evidence I have seen that his opponents raced clean too. Another TT and CH would not have won. He got into a race he was the best fit to win and he was ready for it. Age? Just explain the 73 year old that kicks your **** on the club ride
zigmeister said:This Horner thread has become a complete train wreck mods...get with it. Actually, that applies to most threads in the clinic.
............
SpeedWay said:But that's the beauty of the clinic. The slow descent into utter madness as the thread progresses. Long amyloid beta levels - short tau levels.
BroDeal said:The best thing about Armstrong going down is knowing that his apologists are still bitter about it.