Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[blackcat]

Ding-ding. Winner! We have a winner!

Dave.

beeyitch tits

 

[Electress]

So that's all fine, if you really think those guys are clean I don't know what to say. Riding as fast as the times during the height of doping has no explanation to me other than doping.

I am very ambivalent about even the point of the discussions in the clinic, but this interests me as an approach, because it seems to give no room for improvement in the sport, or for natural ability / nutrition / whatever legal means to outweigh doping.*

Such a thesis is not well-supported by history. Indeed, the history of virtually all sport is continuous improvement. I will admit the timescale is a factor which needs to be considered here, but saying 'any one going faster than anyone around during 'the doping era' must be doping' seems an extreme and questionable stance.

I've said elsewhere - though not in regard to doping - that this always calls to mind Rheinhold Messner, the climber. He was told that climbing Everest without oxygen was physiologically impossible by countless doctors. It took him climbing Everest to show it wasn't. He then climbed every other 8000 m peak without oxygen too. Now loads of other people are doing it in weird and wonderful ways.

The same sort of things seems to apply here - the implication being that the guys who were doping had reached beyond what it is possible for an undoped athlete to attain. Is there any evidence for this whatsoever? Have natural limits been established? Is is beyond the realms of possibility that some guy can come along and just be naturally that good???? Or train that hard???

Perhaps I am not cynical enough, but I don't carry the burden of 'everyone is a cheat' with me. I'm no naive fool; I suspect there are a lot that still do. But to question everyone merely on the basis of the fact that you are better than others that have historically cheated seems unjust. There needs to be more evidence than just that.

*please don't mistaken this as some kind of pleas for the marginal gains ethos. I have about as much faith in marginal gains as I do in Santa Claus. This is a general point, not any kind of defence of Sky (who, it may already be clear from other posts on the forum, I do not have a lot of time for).

 

[blackcat]

I am very ambivalent about even the point of the discussions in the clinic, but this interests me as an approach, because it seems to give no room for improvement in the sport, or for natural ability / nutrition / whatever legal means to outweigh doping.*

Such a thesis is not well-supported by history. Indeed, the history of virtually all sport is continuous improvement. I will admit the timescale is a factor which needs to be considered here, but saying 'any one going faster than anyone around during 'the doping era' must be doping' seems an extreme and questionable stance.

no one has contested an improvement. But the human evolution has hit an apogee in the previous decades, evolution has been over multitude millennia, million years,

nutrition, training, etc, these are diminishing marginal returns, that had been exhausted on a material measure, a decade back.

as D-Queued's pithy epigram goes, marginal gains aint even a rounding error on a comprehensive doping program.

when good doping gets a FSP improvement of 20%, you are telling us, that without this 20% from the hight of the EPO era, that cycling is now recruiting from a different base of talented athletes, and those like Hinault and Lemond in the previous era, were naturally genetics-wise, mediocre athletes, and the sport drew from a very narrow and small pool of potential athletes?

yeah, sounds legit

good grief

 

[oldcrank]

....... this always calls to mind Rheinhold Messner, the climber. He was told that climbing Everest without oxygen was physiologically impossible by countless doctors. It took him climbing Everest to show it wasn't. He then climbed every other 8000 m peak without oxygen too.......

With a VO2 max of 48.8 according to some sources.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I've said elsewhere - though not in regard to doping - that this always calls to mind Rheinhold Messner, the climber. He was told that climbing Everest without oxygen was physiologically impossible by countless doctors. It took him climbing Everest to show it wasn't. He then climbed every other 8000 m peak without oxygen too. Now loads of other people are doing it in weird and wonderful ways.

And I have had a doctor tell me I'd never be able to raise my arm fully vertically after an accident I had. And more than a few people have had their lives or livelihood placed in jeopardy by these same doctors.

The breakthrough was not with the climber beating what doctors told him. The breakthrough is finding out doctors are not the gods we once thought, but human entirely and utterly. No better or smarter than you or I.

Your example is also very useful. As a climber looking to climb oxygen poor altitudes, EPO and the like would have helped tremendously. Just as we believe it has helped Froome, climb and time trial.

If your climber had failed to ascend Mt Fuji, for example, sans oxygen, and then succeeded to ascend Everest et all unaided, we would be approaching an analogy that matches Froome's pre and post-2011 Vuelta change in performance.

If your climber then came out and said, "I had bilharzia" or any other excuse... well.. I hope you see what I am getting at.

 

[cyc_oh]

And I have had a doctor tell me I'd never be able to raise my arm fully vertically after an accident I had. And more than a few people have had their lives or livelihood placed in jeopardy by these same doctors.

The breakthrough was not with the climber beating what doctors told him. The breakthrough is finding out doctors are not the gods we once thought, but human entirely and utterly. No better or smarter than you or I.

Your example is also very useful. As a climber looking to climb oxygen poor altitudes, EPO and the like would have helped tremendously. Just as we believe it has helped Froome, climb and time trial.

If your climber had failed to ascend Mt Fuji, for example, sans oxygen, and then succeeded to ascend Everest et all unaided, we would be approaching an analogy that matches Froome's pre and post-2011 Vuelta change in performance.

If your climber then came out and said, "I had bilharzia" or any other excuse... well.. I hope you see what I am getting at.

For some reason I haven't bothered reading this *** thread. How can you consider suffering "bilharzia" is a an excuse for PEDs? Is aids also good cover? what about cancer? how low will you go, so lame.

 

[daveyt]

How is it better? The sports federation is still in charge and can choose not to open sanctions. The UCI is the same org it was under McQuaid.

Please may I see your evidence against cookson?

 

[daveyt]

So what now? Is discussion forbidden for lack of daveyt-level proof?

No... as I said I am not 100% convinced the riders now are clean and I watch this forum as this is where any evidence will be reported. I've read peoples reasoning as to why they think this generation is as bad as the last and of course I poke at it to see how solid it is. The answer is usually that it is paper thin.

But some of the questions asked are difficult to answer, like Froome's transformation, just like there are questions you guys can't answer like what you think they are taking or why the total lack of whistleblowers.

 

[daveyt]

So that's all fine, if you really think those guys are clean I don't know what to say. Riding as fast as the times during the height of doping has no explanation to me other than doping.

The burden of proof is not on the defense. I have more than enough evidence to satisfy myself of what's going on, I won't get into it again here. What I am saying is that it's bull**** to ask people to demonstrate how they're doping as a defense against doping. I thought that was very clear in my post.

That I or anyone else do not know how specifically how they're doping is not an argument. I have more than enough evidence they are doping to satisfy myself that it's a fact. If I had the how it would simply bolster what I already understand. I have not been able to prove how anyone was doping ever, and it changed nothing about all the dopers which have been obvious to me. I could speculate, but it's not important and likely far off base.

It will all come out at some point and then I'll understand the how. It will not change the fact that I currently understand guys like Froome, Contador and Nibali are doping.

It's a shame you don't go into your reasoning, it is pretty much impossible to find the full reasoning and the full thought process of the more sensible posters on here vs how easy it is to find someone harping on about horse steroids.

 

[daveyt]

You disagree. That's fine. You can offer evidence of cleans, yet refuse. Here's a clue. Consistency, performance history, age.

Be the exception to the norm and give it a shot. Or not.

Why do you say cleans rather than clean?

They are causes for concern, yes. But those things alone aren't damning.

 

[daveyt]

nutrition, training, etc, these are diminishing marginal returns, that had been exhausted on a material measure, a decade back.

That's a very strong statement, what is it based on?

 

[the sceptic]

With a VO2 max of 48.8 according to some sources.

Incidentally that is exactly the same VO2 max as the Dawg.

 

[red_flanders]

It's a shame you don't go into your reasoning, it is pretty much impossible to find the full reasoning and the full thought process of the more sensible posters on here vs how easy it is to find someone harping on about horse steroids.

I've done so many times, as have many others. The crux of it is performance and rider history. Neither Froome nor Wiggins can do what they did clean.

 

[red_flanders]

I am very ambivalent about even the point of the discussions in the clinic, but this interests me as an approach, because it seems to give no room for improvement in the sport, or for natural ability / nutrition / whatever legal means to outweigh doping.*

Such a thesis is not well-supported by history. Indeed, the history of virtually all sport is continuous improvement. I will admit the timescale is a factor which needs to be considered here, but saying 'any one going faster than anyone around during 'the doping era' must be doping' seems an extreme and questionable stance.

You tell me how a couple of guys who climbed in the grupetto for years ended up winning the Tour, riding as fast as the top champions, doped to the gills a few years ago did it. As we see on the forum, you have to believe so much unsubstantiated PR, so many twists of logic, and be so willing to ignore a series of unbelievable performances with more unlikely explanation than seems possible. Or you could simply acknowledge that they doped, which is the most likely explanation which neatly fits all of what we've seen.

Human performance moves forward. It does not leap forward from doping as it didn't the 90's and then stay at the same level, perfectly because of one team that had no results figuring out all of a sudden how to eclipse all previous clean human performance in one year.

The "doping era" doesn't exist.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The "doping era" doesn't exist.

Or is omnipresent and has never not existed.

 

[Benotti69]

Please may I see your evidence against cookson?

See the Cookson thread

 

[Bronstein]

I am very ambivalent about even the point of the discussions in the clinic, but this interests me as an approach, because it seems to give no room for improvement in the sport, or for natural ability / nutrition / whatever legal means to outweigh doping.*

Such a thesis is not well-supported by history. Indeed, the history of virtually all sport is continuous improvement. I will admit the timescale is a factor which needs to be considered here, but saying 'any one going faster than anyone around during 'the doping era' must be doping' seems an extreme and questionable stance.

Look at the women's world records in athetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_athletics). Why haven't the records for 100m-400m been broken in over 25 years? All but one of middle distance records are still from the mid 90s.

If 'the history of all sport is continuous improvement', please explain why any of these records haven't been broken? Do current athletes lack the necessary talent? Don't train as hard as the East Germans did?

 

[Benotti69]

Incidentally that is exactly the same VO2 max as the Dawg.

Wow who knew it would be so high......

 

[Benotti69]

Why are sky fans being permitted to rehash the same BS again and again in the sky threads?

Why are they not being told to read the threads before rehashing arguments that have been dismissed countless times already?

The only answer is trolling.

 

[daveyt]

See the Cookson thread

I have, there is nothing but speculation and back slapping

 

[Benotti69]

I have, there is nothing but speculation and back slapping

There is plenty of coherent and reason discussion. Cookson is not much different from his predecessors.

 

[daveyt]

Why are sky fans being permitted to rehash the same BS again and again in the sky threads?

Why are they not being told to read the threads before rehashing arguments that have been dismissed countless times already?

The only answer is trolling.

Sorry, what else can I do when directly asked why I think they are clean?

 

[Benotti69]

Sorry, what else can I do when directly asked why I think they are clean?

re read the sky threads.

Only the blind think Wiggins and Froome were clean.

 

[daveyt]

re read the sky threads.

Only the blind think Wiggins and Froome were clean.

When asked a direct question I should go back and read? How does that make sense?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Why are sky fans being permitted to rehash the same BS again and again in the sky threads?

Why are they not being told to read the threads before rehashing arguments that have been dismissed countless times already?

The only answer is trolling.

Beno, you also have the option not to respond to the 'newest' influx....

On topic; wouldnt it be cool if Wiggo took a dig at the hour record with Gert Lienders as his performance director? A la Rominger et ya know.