WHAT? The drugs that were making cyclists go faster work for other athletes as well?

daddyELVIS wrote:

Great, so are we cynics ok to probalistically guess when a performance of a team or individual looks suspect?

That would be a start, yes.

daddyELVIS wrote:

Are you there Fukawitribe? Any answer to the Astana question?

At work. Rammed. On later. Answer is "no"

fukawitribe wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Are you there Fukawitribe? Any answer to the Astana question?

At work. Rammed. On later. Answer is "no"

My day off today!

When you're back on later - on what evidence do you base your answer?

fukawitribe wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Are you there Fukawitribe? Any answer to the Astana question?

At work. Rammed. On later. Answer is "no"

You've gone a bit quiet.

Are you struggling to find evidence that Astana riders who've never tested positive have doped? I'd be interested to know exactly which riders you feel have doped?

daddyELVIS wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Are you there Fukawitribe? Any answer to the Astana question?

At work. Rammed. On later. Answer is "no"

You've gone a bit quiet.

Are you struggling to find evidence that Astana riders who've never tested positive have doped? I'd be interested to know exactly which riders you feel have doped?

Do fuck off. Not that it matters a toss but I spent all of yesterday afternoon and most of the evening trying to sort out running applications using 4 different fucking versions of Python in five different locations, 3 of which fucked about with the Python paths and two dicked around with run-time libraries paths. Sod doping in cycling - you want to sanction someone, ban fucking programmers and deployment assholes who still use LD_LIBRARY_PATH. For life. Last thing I wanted to do was look at a computer any more, let alone another doping thread on road bloody cc.

And breathe. Right, as for your question - you asked for my opinion, I gave it. It's a probabilistic guess given the history of doping in the team since 2007, the management, certain performances of the team as a whole (not talking about Nibali in isolation) and probably a slight prejudiced suspicion of many Soviet block sport teams - that's mostly a product of watching track and field as a keen athlete from the late '70s. It's not entirely fair or reasonable, and that's from someone who was generally rather pro-Soviet back then. I would also guess that it's rather less likely than it was before April. I have no evidence of anyone not doing anything however - that's quite tricky, what do you think it would look like ?

Haha - you're computer stress made me laught - not that I understood any of it!

So you have no evidence of Astana riders, who haven't tested positive, of doping, and yet you suspect at least some of them are doping!

Yet you question the reasoning of those (myself included) who suspect doping is still going on to a greater extent in top level sport, including cycling?

daddyELVIS wrote:

Haha - you're computer stress made me laught - not that I understood any of it!

So you have no evidence of Astana riders, who haven't tested positive, of doping, and yet you suspect at least some of them are doping!

Yet you question the reasoning of those (myself included) who suspect doping is still going on to a greater extent in top level sport, including cycling?

Performances, personnel and records of busts - and looking at things in a somewhat statistical manner, e.g. given number of tests on some teams without any positives, unexplained abnormal reading etc what would the chances of them being likely clean/cleaner than another team with less tests but more question marks/ busts. Got to go.

ps. sorry about expletives - shit day yesterday.

fukawitribe wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Haha - you're computer stress made me laught - not that I understood any of it!

So you have no evidence of Astana riders, who haven't tested positive, of doping, and yet you suspect at least some of them are doping!

Yet you question the reasoning of those (myself included) who suspect doping is still going on to a greater extent in top level sport, including cycling?

Performances, personnel and records of busts - and looking at things in a somewhat statistical manner, e.g. given number of tests on some teams without any positives, unexplained abnormal reading etc what would the chances of them being likely clean/cleaner than another team with less tests but more question marks/ busts. Got to go.

ps. sorry about expletives - shit day yesterday.

So no direct evidence at all then.

So why do you insist that our (the cynics, I suppose you could call us) argument that many of the top athletes, especially those who are winning, are probably doping is totally flawed?

After all, the questionable 'performances' and 'personnel' are still there will so-called clean athletes.

Although, I see you're now bringing the description 'cleanER' into the argument - the word for Anglo-doping!

daddyELVIS wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Haha - you're computer stress made me laught - not that I understood any of it!

So you have no evidence of Astana riders, who haven't tested positive, of doping, and yet you suspect at least some of them are doping!

Yet you question the reasoning of those (myself included) who suspect doping is still going on to a greater extent in top level sport, including cycling?

Performances, personnel and records of busts - and looking at things in a somewhat statistical manner, e.g. given number of tests on some teams without any positives, unexplained abnormal reading etc what would the chances of them being likely clean/cleaner than another team with less tests but more question marks/ busts. Got to go.

ps. sorry about expletives - shit day yesterday.

So no direct evidence at all then.

Edit : ..except the string of positive doping convictions in team riders and ex-team riders and an organisation whose internal policies and management were in such a state that the UCI license committee (who allowed the license) said that had they known at the end of last year what they knew later, the team’s license “would likely have been refused.” As I said ealier though, I expect things would be better since April.

daddyELVIS wrote:

So why do you insist that our (the cynics, I suppose you could call us) argument that many of the top athletes, especially those who are winning, are probably doping is totally flawed?

I don't deny that many are doping - and i've answered why I think the argument that all the winners are necessarily doping is unrealistic a number of times in this thread and elsewhere.

fukawitribe wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

daddyELVIS wrote:

Haha - you're computer stress made me laught - not that I understood any of it!

So you have no evidence of Astana riders, who haven't tested positive, of doping, and yet you suspect at least some of them are doping!

Yet you question the reasoning of those (myself included) who suspect doping is still going on to a greater extent in top level sport, including cycling?

Performances, personnel and records of busts - and looking at things in a somewhat statistical manner, e.g. given number of tests on some teams without any positives, unexplained abnormal reading etc what would the chances of them being likely clean/cleaner than another team with less tests but more question marks/ busts. Got to go.

ps. sorry about expletives - shit day yesterday.

So no direct evidence at all then.

Edit : ..except the string of positive doping convictions in team riders and ex-team riders and an organisation whose internal policies and management were in such a state that the UCI license committee (who allowed the license) said that had they known at the end of last year what they knew later, the team’s license “would likely have been refused.” As I said ealier though, I expect things would be better since April.

daddyELVIS wrote:

So why do you insist that our (the cynics, I suppose you could call us) argument that many of the top athletes, especially those who are winning, are probably doping is totally flawed?

I don't deny that many are doping - and i've answered why I think the argument that all the winners are necessarily doping is unrealistic a number of times in this thread and elsewhere.

So, no evidence then! I can't recall you mentioning a single shred of evidence against Nibali, Aru, or Landa (soon to be of Team Sky, I believe) - yet by your argument the likelihood is that they have doped at some point whilst riding for Astana.

Interesting!

daddyELVIS wrote:

So, no evidence then! I can't recall you mentioning a single shred of evidence against Nibali, Aru, or Landa (soon to be of Team Sky, I believe) - yet by your argument the likelihood is that they have doped at some point whilst riding for Astana.

Interesting!

Oh good grief - yes, no evidence of Nibali, Aru (except by condemnation by another rider) or Landa - but that wasn't the question. There is evidence of team mates doping and of a internal management and policy setup that was bad enough in the context of the doping allegations to make it a precondition of the license to completely overhaul it, and of which the UCI License Committee said that they'd likely have taken Astanas license away had they known. So - a history of positive tests, management personnel with a proven doping record, highly suspect internal policies, a team with a racing license only because of a lack of a priori information during the decision making process and some interesting performances at the team level. In that context, in my opinion it is probable that at least one other member of that team has ridden on the juice and not been caught. By the very nature of the question there can be no direct evidence, so it has to be an opinion based on other factors - and in the case of Astana there seems to be a number of those factors which point to a less than squeaky team.. had there been few, or none, then the probability of other, undetected, sheenanigans would have been lower (although clearly it could be that the entire team is extremely good at not caught ever and other factors - all considered when forming the opinion). That's what it is, an opinion based on a probabilistic guess using what information there is - and that's all it can be unless you know how to prove a negative here. If there was a similar trail of evidence with, say, your favourite bogey men Sky, or anyone else then i'd have the same opinion.

Ooo - it's just like arguing with the Nazis...

exunt

daddyELVIS wrote:

Although, I see you're now bringing the description 'cleanER' into the argument - the word for Anglo-doping!

I said "likely clean/cleaner than another team" to suggest either a team is likely to be clean or (separate case) that one team may contain more or less people possibly doping than another... perhaps poorly phrased.

Also, nothing to do with Anglo anything - what a strange suggestion, what's nationality got to do with it ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

You'd have to define 'clean' means in the context of your argument. Never having taken drugs? Avoiding the juice for a few months before the race? Or being undetectable? Are we talking EPO, steroids and cortisone?

...
Or are you talking about a wet Crit on a Tuesday in April in an Andalucia which wouldn't pay the airfare for the ride home?

Sorry Colin, been off for a bit. Good question - i'll try and say what i'd call clean but I doubt it's definitive or exhaustive, probably some of it contradictory, i'll keep going until I need to go. For really 'clean' i'd say never having taken PEDs. Limited cortisone application is OK by me when medically advised as a remedial agent, but then i'm biased as I have had treatment for impingement syndrome with it and know what it can do - long term usage, i'd either be highly suspicious of or question that medics allowing the rider to continue. Or both. Highly limited steroid use, possibly the same - one time therapeutic use, maybe OK, anything else, nah. Same could be said for a number of agents that could be used in treatment but also abused for performance gain I guess. Ground-up pain-killers in the water bottle no, caffeine pills no, coffee yes (go figure, said it might not be consistent). Inhalators for respiratory conditions are a particular case that's more tricky for me - easy to abuse, easy to excuse.

Permanent effects - i'm not too up on this in cycling but AFAIK, as you say, long term growth factors and protein enhancers are the ones to watch, and highly effective in more peak-power related events due to bone and/or muscle growth - EPO had not much long term benefit (quite the opposite) as it doesn't actually change the vasculature, muscle density blah blah.

So for me, if you had an "ex-doper" on a team who'd been busted for EPO type use but looked "clean" for a number of years subsequently that might not make much difference to the outcome of the race (unless their performance was exceptional) - but still leaves a bad taste in the mouth and you'd have to question performances, perhaps on a per-race basis but done none the less. Could I consider a team-leader of such a setup winning a race a clean winner - possibly yes.

Have 3 or 4 riders in a race line-up like that and it's a different matter - i'd not call the otherwise completely "clean" team leader (never touched a PED) who won a race with such a team a "clean winner" nor would consider the team clean. Anyone touching growth factors, even historically, don't have them in your team and call it clean. Don't have them in your team actually.
So, for me, not discounting prior usage - but i'd probably base my opinion of it on a case-by-case basis. Probably missed lots of stuff - point them out and i'll try and answer. Back to Python dependency hell now for me.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I don't see why Fukawit has a problem with what I say, perhaps he would like to tell me why it irks him.

I did, earlier, and in other posts - i'm not entirely sure where the confusion is my questions. I'm also broadly in agreement with much of what you say, just not your absolute belief that all the winners are cheats. That and perhaps your acknowledgement of any advances in training techniques since the '50s seeming to be non-existent - although that has a much broader effect on physical performance as a whole, and should be a relatively even playing field at the elite level.

fukawitribe wrote:

That and perhaps your acknowledgement of any advances in training techniques since the '50s seeming to be non-existent - although that has a much broader effect on physical performance as a whole, and should be a relatively even playing field at the elite level.

I said they knew what a balanced diet was back in the 50s. I said that certain developments had helped since then, but my point is that people like to denigrate the achievements of the past with the hubris that we are always advancing for the better. Advancements in pharmaceuticals have meant that the gains from natural training are easily outstripped and put in the shade by the chemical enhancements - it is the elixir of drugs which takes man beyond the ordinary. Given the weight of the bikes back at the turn of the twentieth century, the riding speeds of the pros back then are truly astounding. It makes you realise how fit and athletic they were without 'marginal gains'. Those guys would duke it out with the best riders of today in a clean competition….the main advances in training has been refinement to those technique. When Bannister ran the 4 minute mile, he effectively increased his load, which we recognise as pyramidisation. Only through the heart rate monitor and power meters has this been refined even further to help it become more effective. Many of the training programs have remained the same, but just been modified by better calibration of the results with monitoring - but the big gains are of course drug based (Johnson's 100m, just as an example).

However, your willingness to take almost everything I say so f'ing literally pisses me, but not only that, but the way you stalk me on on the forum….if you agree with what I say 'broadly' then why argue the toss? Pick me up on my short fallings by all means, but why keep weighing in on me….why not just state your point of view and leave it at that.

If you have a particular issue state it. I still do not know what your beef is really is because you have not fully explained yourself. You seem to want to take issue with me, but I do not understand why that is. Are you an athlete and you take exception to the slight of my suspicion that you are a doper? Do you dislike seeing your heroes achievements denigrated? I don't know, but I want you to back fuck off.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

That and perhaps your acknowledgement of any advances in training techniques since the '50s seeming to be non-existent - although that has a much broader effect on physical performance as a whole, and should be a relatively even playing field at the elite level.

I said they knew what a balanced diet was back in the 50s. I said that certain developments had helped since then, but my point is that people like to denigrate the achievements of the past with the hubris that we are always advancing for the better. Advancements in pharmaceuticals have meant that the gains from natural training are easily outstripped and put in the shade by the chemical enhancements - it is the elixir of drugs which takes man beyond the ordinary. Given the weight of the bikes back at the turn of the twentieth century, the riding speeds of the pros back then are truly astounding. It makes you realise how fit and athletic they were without 'marginal gains'. Those guys would duke it out with the best riders of today in a clean competition….the main advances in training has been refinement to those technique. When Bannister ran the 4 minute mile, he effectively increased his load, which we recognise as pyramidisation. Only through the heart rate monitor and power meters has this been refined even further to help it become more effective. Many of the training programs have remained the same, but just been modified by better calibration of the results with monitoring - but the big gains are of course drug based (Johnson's 100m, just as an example).

I wasn't denigrating the past or belittling the achievements, but there's more to things changing over the decades than HRMs and power-meters to just "monitor the effectiveness". Of course you can get more results chemically, but that doesn't mean to say all do, that you can't get more from a better non-doping athlete than a lesser doping one or do that whilst remaining under the radar.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

However, your willingness to take almost everything I say so f'ing literally pisses me,

I only take those things literally that i've clarified with you in the past - namely you can't win clean. Please don't try and go there.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

but not only that, but the way you stalk me on on the forum…

Don't flatter yourself - you and I have some similar interests and so end up in the some of the same threads. If I hear something I think is out of order I say so, sometimes you're in the line of fire. Works both ways.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

.if you agree with what I say 'broadly' then why argue the toss? Pick me up on my short fallings by all means, but why keep weighing in on me….why not just state your point of view and leave it at that.

If you have a particular issue state it. I still do not know what your beef is really is because you have not fully explained yourself. You seem to want to take issue with me, but I do not understand why that is. Are you an athlete and you take exception to the slight of my suspicion that you are a doper? Do you dislike seeing your heroes achievements denigrated?

Are you serious ? Ok, perhaps i'm being particularly unclear all the time so... My beef is what i've been saying in this thread and others - that you insist it's not possible to win clean in pro-cycling, clean can't go faster and further then on the juice and all the major winners are cheating. I don't agree - can't fucking stand absolutists on either side, and it's not just me being picky with you.. i've tried to work out what you believe and asked you and it all seems to come back to absolutism. Never have I heard you be equivocal about doping in cycling, no-one can win clean that's it. Not "there's a shit load of it going on but some of them may be clean" - no leeway. Well you can rant on about how we're all naïve and it's all just a show (which of course it is as well) - but apart from anything else and as i've said before, doesn't it seem odd that testing, even retrospective testing hasn't produced more positives if there is the extent of doping which you assert is fact ? Statistically, doesn't the pattern of positives look odd if all the teams are at it to some degree and all the major winners from any of them ? Isn't there just the chance that there are a non-trivial number of winners who haven't won by doping, having a dominant doping team or both ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I don't know, but I want you to back fuck off.

You know, I was going to say go to Hell and deal with the consequences of your views like anyone else - but i'm not sure I can be bothered with this anymore. I do think doping is all over the sport and it pisses me off, but I don't have your utter conviction you know how far it goes - and how inevitable it has to be. I'm open to persuasion if anything remotely like evidence starts to say otherwise - how about you ? What would it take to let an element of doubt in ?

Gizmo_ wrote:

Very frustrating, isn't it. I have this discussion in the office all the time. Most football supporters have never heard of the Puerto blood bags, athletics fans think doping stopped in 1988 with Ben Johnson, tennis fans think Serena Williams' physique is normal, F1 fans say the drivers don't need 'drugs' because "when I drove after a spliff I hit a tree", cricketers have cortisone injections to be able to play at all and that's all in the open. And don't even get me started on American sports.

Perversely I'm happier with the rational view: there is a motive to cheat in all sports where there is a prize to be won. That means some people will cheat by bending or breaking rules they think they can get away with. Either you accept that, while supporting the governing body's attempts to keep order, or you don't follow sport.

This.

It depresses me that people deny having any doubt about sporting achievements when they know people have been busted for less, as if the human race has genetically improved within half a generation or less. You wonder what a bunch of spanners the previous generation were with their training not be cycling, running, jumping and swimming as fast as the one 5 years ago or whatever. Which is why I will keep espousing that the big winners are usually the biggest cheats. Olympians themselves have confessed as much; given the chance to cheat without being caught the greater majority said they would.....

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Which is why I will keep espousing that the big winners are usually the biggest cheats.

..of course they are. What you keep espousing, however, is that every single one of the winners are cheating - that's somewhat different and perhaps not what Gizmo_ was saying (although I may have that wrong, apologies to him if so).

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Olympians themselves have confessed as much; given the chance to cheat without being caught the greater majority said they would.....

Well I suppose "the greater majority" is better than the "virtually 100%" you've previously quoted. I'd ask again, which poll was that ? Answers to variants of Goldman / Mirkin i've seen (including removing the terminal behaviour) haven't come up with anything remotely like that so i'd be interested to know some more. Any links please ?