Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

[BenGr]

The only people who can make me feel sympathy for dopers are the ranters who accuse people of doping without evidence. Sometimes I think there's a conspiracy among conspiracy theorists to drive the rest of us mad....

Sure, there are cheats, but to throw such accusations around on such slim evidence, as some do, is abhorrent. I bet those who love to accuse others of cheating would howl like dingoes if they were ever accused of anything on such evidence. And whining on an internet forum never stopped doping - proper investigations using proper evidence to a proper standard of proof stops doping.

I don't get this, so people are meant to just keep quiet and not talk about doping until proper investigations nab someone? Most of the time the testing agencies won't catch a doper, Indurain is a great example of this, 5 time Tour winner who was as doped up as they come. I shouldn't be annoyed that people call him a great champion of the sport and shouldn't speak up about the fact he was a fraud just because there never was a positive test. I can fully understand why cycling fans vent there frustrations on cycling forums about doping, the testers will always be behind the eight ball on this and with such a weak and corrupt governing body more worried about looking like they are fighting doping than actually fighting doping then why shouldn't people complain. I agree that some are way over the top and make stupid comments but there is nothing wrong about speaking up against something that is wrong, I'd love to believe that Froome, Contador, Valverde are clean but it's not easy to come to that conclusion.

Witch hunts are bad for everyone involved, and that is what allegations with the only evidence is they performed well are.

[toolonglegs]

Witch hunts only happen in certain countries to certain people.

[wombatK]

Witch hunts only happen in certain countries to certain people.

And when people are rich enough and lawyered-up enough, the opposite happens. THe
ugly truth about Lance got suppressed for an extraordinarily long time.

Like we've seen with Essendon (AFL) and Cronulla (NRL), it's very difficult to prosecute alleged dopers.
And as Lance showed, it's ridiculously easy to avoid the doping controls of the day .... for a long time.

Ross Tucker takes great pains that the power estimates and question it poses are not sufficient proof
of doping. But when looked at in the context of other elements of behavior quite similar to US Postal,
there's reason to be asking more questions than we see from the TV and other commentators with
serious track records of fawning praise on Armstrong and other proven dopers.

His claim that 6.1W/kg = a VO2max of mid 90s is nonsense.

6.1W/kg for 40+ minutes would be attainable for a rider with average gross efficiency of 22.5% (by average I mean most fit club riders would be at this level), sustaining 88% of VO2max for 40 minutes or so (again fit cat 1 riders would be able to do that, indeed there are masters riders that can do that and some can hold even higher), and a VO2max of under 88ml/kg/min.

Did nobody else turn up wanting to win ? If it's so attainable, how come Froome rode away from everyone else so unchallenged ?

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Did nobody else turn up wanting to win ? If it's so attainable, how come Froome rode away from everyone else so unchallenged ?

I think you misunderstood. I was pointing out the nonsense of Tucker's mid-90s VO2max claim.

As to the differences in power of the top contenders, there is not a lot in it. They are not really any more or less plausible. There will always be a winner.

[wombatK]

Did nobody else turn up wanting to win ? If it's so attainable, how come Froome rode away from everyone else so unchallenged ?

I think you misunderstood. I was pointing out the nonsense of Tucker's mid-90s VO2max claim.

As to the differences in power of the top contenders, there is not a lot in it. They are not really any more or less plausible. There will always be a winner.

Sorry I did misread it - thought you were questioning both sides of the "=" sign, rather than the implication (=> ?). Thanks for clarifying.

[Chris249]

The only people who can make me feel sympathy for dopers are the ranters who accuse people of doping without evidence. Sometimes I think there's a conspiracy among conspiracy theorists to drive the rest of us mad....

Sure, there are cheats, but to throw such accusations around on such slim evidence, as some do, is abhorrent. I bet those who love to accuse others of cheating would howl like dingoes if they were ever accused of anything on such evidence. And whining on an internet forum never stopped doping - proper investigations using proper evidence to a proper standard of proof stops doping.

I don't get this, so people are meant to just keep quiet and not talk about doping until proper investigations nab someone? Most of the time the testing agencies won't catch a doper, Indurain is a great example of this, 5 time Tour winner who was as doped up as they come. I shouldn't be annoyed that people call him a great champion of the sport and shouldn't speak up about the fact he was a fraud just because there never was a positive test. I can fully understand why cycling fans vent there frustrations on cycling forums about doping, the testers will always be behind the eight ball on this and with such a weak and corrupt governing body more worried about looking like they are fighting doping than actually fighting doping then why shouldn't people complain. I agree that some are way over the top and make stupid comments but there is nothing wrong about speaking up against something that is wrong, I'd love to believe that Froome, Contador, Valverde are clean but it's not easy to come to that conclusion.

1 - The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is one of the hallmarks of a decent society - do you really want to live in a society where rumour is considered enough of a basis to call someone a criminal? Have you ever become involved with anyone who has had to bear the cost of false accusations? Have you ever seen the financial problems it brings, the depression, the trauma for self, friends and family? Are you aware of the suicides that false accusations have caused?

Are you happy to cause this level of harm to other people on the basis of the sort of evidence that is presented? Would you like it happening to you or those you love?

And what's the benefit of cyclists being slandered and defamed by anonymous posters on a forum? Nada, nothing, zilch, it seems. I've only worked for a professional regulatory body* for a couple of years but that experience indicated that it is unlikely that authorities will react to internet complaints. Travis Tygart indicated that all the years of articles and rumours about Armstrong may have lead to nothing if it wasn't for the unrelated Rock Racing enquiry.

Whatever may be gained by calling people cheats and criminals on this sort of evidence is not enough to make up for the damage to the people and to the basics of a decent society.


2 - The sort of "evidence" that is being used as support for these claims is often crap. The most basic logical steps involved in assessing the worth of the 'evidence" are not being followed. The stage 1 TT was a classic example of that. The claim of record speed gets down, at the most basic level, to two things - the time and the distance. People were calling Dennis a criminal without knowing how the distance was calculated. I know for a fact that the course length is not always given correctly in the programmes for major sporting events - I was editor of one in a former career and I know that the organising body changed what it believed the official course length (which was set by geography) on several occasions. The question of exactly how the course length was obtained doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of the lynch mob, which shows how shallow their critical thinking skills are.

We now know that the TT may well have been shorter than claimed and yet people had used the earlier figure to call Dennis a cheat and a criminal! The fact that some people imply that others are criminals because of such dubious 'evidence" is why some of us speak out against the lynch mob mentality.


3 - A lot of the other "evidence" for doping is arguably just as bad as the above example, or worse. There's a huge amount of circular logic - dubious claims are used as evidence of other dubious claims. And then there's the simply dumb stuff, like the guy on CN who claimed that teams were so good they couldn't make a mistake about training, motivation or any other factors involved in sporting performance, therefore this very same team of error-free perfectoids must have made an error with the doping mix. Hmmm...so the teams cannot make an error, unless it's an error that supports the theory of a member of the lynch mob....yep, nice logic there. Same thing with the claims for speed and power that ignore or simplify the effects of wind as if it was some sort of steady stream even in the lee of buildings and mountains.

Even among experts, as Alex has pointed out, there is no agreement and the science is not settled. Ross Tucker, who is often cited as providing evidence for cheating claims, says himself that sporting excellence is "the combination of innumerable factors, which interact with one another in a poorly understood but complex manner to mould a talented athlete into a champion." He repeatedly says that performance figures do not prove doping, so why should we believe those who try to do so?

By the way, being dubious and cynical is fine - but then surely we must also be equally dubious and cynical about the fact that people like Vayer and Tucker (who advertises that you can book him for talks) get some very valuable publicity by their claims and therefore they have a motive to talk about doping, just as cyclists have a motive to dope. And we have to be as sceptical and cynical about the motivations and claims of those on forums who are calling people dopers as they are about cyclists.


4 - Yes, I know SOME sportspeople cheat - as well as reading all the usual stuff, I've had personal experience of a former Olympic team member who was happy to admit he cheated by "professionally fouling" me in national amateur championships in another sport. But that is no excuse for labelling people who may well be innocent as cheats and criminals.

Hell yes, cheats p*ss me off (and reputedly they've robbed me of a national amateur championship against ex-Olympians in another sport) - but possibly abusing the innocents is worse, and so is definitely destroying one of our most basic rights and freedoms. The history of doping in sport is dark - but the history of witch hunts and lynch mobs is a lot darker.



* in an area that has nothing to do with sport. My views, by the way, are influenced by the fact that I found out very quickly that I didn't like being a "normal" lawyer and therefore spending about 20 years as an investigator, which shows the problems with trial by media, how complex it is to carry out proper investigations, and how horribly people suffer from false accusations.

[Xplora]

well said Chris. Although I must hold concern about your dubious claims of multiple sport glory

[Chris249]

Cheers....probably shouldn't have put in the personal background but sometimes you've got to show you're not naive about cheats and investigations.

Pics of trophies and links to results are available to those who have proper scepticism!

[jules21]

people have been trying for a while to prove Froome is doped. the strength of evidence against him is still weak and not getting stronger. no proof either way but if he's doping, he's doing a good job of covering his tracks.

[tallywhacker]

an interesting article in rouleur about Laurens tan Dem and the reporter who shadowed him for a year

[Chris249]

/\ Great article! Thanks for the link.

[Strydz]

The only people who can make me feel sympathy for dopers are the ranters who accuse people of doping without evidence. Sometimes I think there's a conspiracy among conspiracy theorists to drive the rest of us mad....

Sure, there are cheats, but to throw such accusations around on such slim evidence, as some do, is abhorrent. I bet those who love to accuse others of cheating would howl like dingoes if they were ever accused of anything on such evidence. And whining on an internet forum never stopped doping - proper investigations using proper evidence to a proper standard of proof stops doping.

I don't get this, so people are meant to just keep quiet and not talk about doping until proper investigations nab someone? Most of the time the testing agencies won't catch a doper, Indurain is a great example of this, 5 time Tour winner who was as doped up as they come. I shouldn't be annoyed that people call him a great champion of the sport and shouldn't speak up about the fact he was a fraud just because there never was a positive test. I can fully understand why cycling fans vent there frustrations on cycling forums about doping, the testers will always be behind the eight ball on this and with such a weak and corrupt governing body more worried about looking like they are fighting doping than actually fighting doping then why shouldn't people complain. I agree that some are way over the top and make stupid comments but there is nothing wrong about speaking up against something that is wrong, I'd love to believe that Froome, Contador, Valverde are clean but it's not easy to come to that conclusion.

Witch hunts are bad for everyone involved, and that is what allegations with the only evidence is they performed well are.

I would hardly call what I write a witch hunt, I raise questions and if they get answered then that's great. There is nothing wrong with that

[Strydz]

The only people who can make me feel sympathy for dopers are the ranters who accuse people of doping without evidence. Sometimes I think there's a conspiracy among conspiracy theorists to drive the rest of us mad....

Sure, there are cheats, but to throw such accusations around on such slim evidence, as some do, is abhorrent. I bet those who love to accuse others of cheating would howl like dingoes if they were ever accused of anything on such evidence. And whining on an internet forum never stopped doping - proper investigations using proper evidence to a proper standard of proof stops doping.

I don't get this, so people are meant to just keep quiet and not talk about doping until proper investigations nab someone? Most of the time the testing agencies won't catch a doper, Indurain is a great example of this, 5 time Tour winner who was as doped up as they come. I shouldn't be annoyed that people call him a great champion of the sport and shouldn't speak up about the fact he was a fraud just because there never was a positive test. I can fully understand why cycling fans vent there frustrations on cycling forums about doping, the testers will always be behind the eight ball on this and with such a weak and corrupt governing body more worried about looking like they are fighting doping than actually fighting doping then why shouldn't people complain. I agree that some are way over the top and make stupid comments but there is nothing wrong about speaking up against something that is wrong, I'd love to believe that Froome, Contador, Valverde are clean but it's not easy to come to that conclusion.

1 - The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is one of the hallmarks of a decent society - do you really want to live in a society where rumour is considered enough of a basis to call someone a criminal? Have you ever become involved with anyone who has had to bear the cost of false accusations? Have you ever seen the financial problems it brings, the depression, the trauma for self, friends and family? Are you aware of the suicides that false accusations have caused?

Are you happy to cause this level of harm to other people on the basis of the sort of evidence that is presented? Would you like it happening to you or those you love?

And what's the benefit of cyclists being slandered and defamed by anonymous posters on a forum? Nada, nothing, zilch, it seems. I've only worked for a professional regulatory body* for a couple of years but that experience indicated that it is unlikely that authorities will react to internet complaints. Travis Tygart indicated that all the years of articles and rumours about Armstrong may have lead to nothing if it wasn't for the unrelated Rock Racing enquiry.

Whatever may be gained by calling people cheats and criminals on this sort of evidence is not enough to make up for the damage to the people and to the basics of a decent society.


2 - The sort of "evidence" that is being used as support for these claims is often crap. The most basic logical steps involved in assessing the worth of the 'evidence" are not being followed. The stage 1 TT was a classic example of that. The claim of record speed gets down, at the most basic level, to two things - the time and the distance. People were calling Dennis a criminal without knowing how the distance was calculated. I know for a fact that the course length is not always given correctly in the programmes for major sporting events - I was editor of one in a former career and I know that the organising body changed what it believed the official course length (which was set by geography) on several occasions. The question of exactly how the course length was obtained doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of the lynch mob, which shows how shallow their critical thinking skills are.

We now know that the TT may well have been shorter than claimed and yet people had used the earlier figure to call Dennis a cheat and a criminal! The fact that some people imply that others are criminals because of such dubious 'evidence" is why some of us speak out against the lynch mob mentality.


3 - A lot of the other "evidence" for doping is arguably just as bad as the above example, or worse. There's a huge amount of circular logic - dubious claims are used as evidence of other dubious claims. And then there's the simply dumb stuff, like the guy on CN who claimed that teams were so good they couldn't make a mistake about training, motivation or any other factors involved in sporting performance, therefore this very same team of error-free perfectoids must have made an error with the doping mix. Hmmm...so the teams cannot make an error, unless it's an error that supports the theory of a member of the lynch mob....yep, nice logic there. Same thing with the claims for speed and power that ignore or simplify the effects of wind as if it was some sort of steady stream even in the lee of buildings and mountains.

Even among experts, as Alex has pointed out, there is no agreement and the science is not settled. Ross Tucker, who is often cited as providing evidence for cheating claims, says himself that sporting excellence is "the combination of innumerable factors, which interact with one another in a poorly understood but complex manner to mould a talented athlete into a champion." He repeatedly says that performance figures do not prove doping, so why should we believe those who try to do so?

By the way, being dubious and cynical is fine - but then surely we must also be equally dubious and cynical about the fact that people like Vayer and Tucker (who advertises that you can book him for talks) get some very valuable publicity by their claims and therefore they have a motive to talk about doping, just as cyclists have a motive to dope. And we have to be as sceptical and cynical about the motivations and claims of those on forums who are calling people dopers as they are about cyclists.


4 - Yes, I know SOME sportspeople cheat - as well as reading all the usual stuff, I've had personal experience of a former Olympic team member who was happy to admit he cheated by "professionally fouling" me in national amateur championships in another sport. But that is no excuse for labelling people who may well be innocent as cheats and criminals.

Hell yes, cheats p*ss me off (and reputedly they've robbed me of a national amateur championship against ex-Olympians in another sport) - but possibly abusing the innocents is worse, and so is definitely destroying one of our most basic rights and freedoms. The history of doping in sport is dark - but the history of witch hunts and lynch mobs is a lot darker.



* in an area that has nothing to do with sport. My views, by the way, are influenced by the fact that I found out very quickly that I didn't like being a "normal" lawyer and therefore spending about 20 years as an investigator, which shows the problems with trial by media, how complex it is to carry out proper investigations, and how horribly people suffer from false accusations.

Thank you for taking the time with such a detailed reply, it's always nice to have a back story and even if I don't agree with everything you certaunly make a well thought out argument which is great. Cheers matey

[biker jk]

Second positive for Team Androni. A drug still in clinical trials! Also two South American cyclists failed doping tests at the Pan Am games. There was also a 20-year Canadian cyclist caught recently. It's endemic.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/taborre ... g-fg-4592/

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/two-sou ... -am-games/

http://www.sportsnet.ca/cycling/cyclist ... or-doping/

[wombatK]

Second positive for Team Androni. A drug still in clinical trials! Also two South American cyclists failed doping tests ...

Whoa, biker jk, them's way too strong words. Those hard-working cyclists have done nothing more than encounter a not distant experiences with non-negative test outcomes

[Strydz]

Second positive for Team Androni. A drug still in clinical trials! Also two South American cyclists failed doping tests at the Pan Am games. There was also a 20-year Canadian cyclist caught recently. It's endemic.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/taborre ... g-fg-4592/

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/two-sou ... -am-games/

http://www.sportsnet.ca/cycling/cyclist ... or-doping/

Savio has been walking a fine line for a while now with his Androni squads, no surprise to see another positive come from them.

[biker jk]

An interesting analysis by Vayer. Contador down 10% on power, while Nibali was down 5%. Quintana the standout climber.

http://www.lemonde.fr/tour-de-france/ar ... 16918.html

[Alex Simmons/RST]

An interesting analysis by Vayer. Contador down 10% on power, while Nibali was down 5%. Quintana the standout climber.

http://www.lemonde.fr/tour-de-france/ar ... 16918.html

I'd take anything from Vayer with a very large grain of salt.

[Strydz]

An interesting read on Juan Pablo Villegas
http://www.alpsandes.com/posts/2015/7/2 ... -to-retire

[Chris249]

Great interview, thanks. It was nice to read that the biggest newspaper in Columbia announced that it would be watching for anyone trying to penalise him for speaking out about doping.

He's the sort of guy who I feel so sorry for when people on CN etc say "they are all doping". He is losing his passion and his career because of doping. It just seems so wrong when he has to suffer the additional burden of being called a doper just because some people think they all dope.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Great interview, thanks. It was nice to read that the biggest newspaper in Columbia announced that it would be watching for anyone trying to penalise him for speaking out about doping.

He's the sort of guy who I feel so sorry for when people on CN etc say "they are all doping". He is losing his passion and his career because of doping. It just seems so wrong when he has to suffer the additional burden of being called a doper just because some people think they all dope.

He's not alone. I've worked with people around the world and the same things happen elsewhere, although not as much direct threats to safety, rather mostly other negative consequences.

[Xplora]

Its the old mafioso accident... Can't tell if a car hits him intentionally or if his wheel gets cut in the bunch.

Do you really want to work with such people anyway?

[biker jk]

Great interview, thanks. It was nice to read that the biggest newspaper in Columbia announced that it would be watching for anyone trying to penalise him for speaking out about doping.

He's the sort of guy who I feel so sorry for when people on CN etc say "they are all doping". He is losing his passion and his career because of doping. It just seems so wrong when he has to suffer the additional burden of being called a doper just because some people think they all dope.

I don't believe there are many who believe "they are all doping". This sounds like a straw man. Juan Pablo Villegas' quantification of a "very, very high number" doping is a more commonly held view. And not without justification.

First, the expected returns to doping far exceed the expected costs of doping. Successful dopers earn millions of dollars. The expected costs of doping are trivial in comparison. This reflects the tiny chance of being caught and the still not career ending consequences of being caught.

Second, the Athlete Biological Passport is deeply flawed. There is an unacceptably high hurdle set for the markers to trigger suspicion. I'm not comfortable with a 1% chance of concluding a pro is doping when they are not. It's stacked well in favour of the rider. Micro dosing of EPO is still possible and the much heralded after hours testing wasn't even implemented at the TdF.

Third, the TUE system is heavily abused.

Fourth, we have the problem of a massive conflict of interest in the UCI both running the sport and being responsible for drug testing.

Fifth, a long history of doping suggest a high probability of doping today when this prior probability is updated with current information (such as dodgy doctors and DS still in the sport, climbing speeds close to the EPO etc, etc.)

So it's perfectly rational to hold the view that a very high number of the pro peloton are doping.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

UCI are not responsible for dope testing.

[biker jk]

UCI are not responsible for dope testing.

Please don't tell me you believe the CADF is independent of the UCI? Chaired by former President of the UCI anti-doping commission. It's a facade.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/0 ... UQ20150309

When's the mooted international anti-doping tribunal going to replace the national federations?