- This topic has 34 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
fukawitribe.
-
CreatorTopic
-
August 3, 2015 at 7:37 am #24544
SideBurn
Who knew?
Has anyone else got a bit frustrated at the way cycling has been dragged through the mud while silence reigns over other sports? It seems to me that cycling has paid a high price (in lost sponsorship and credibility) for its state of the art drug testing and public naming and shaming of its stars. Is this story the start of a s**t storm for other sports? And why have the results of these tests been suppressed? The statistics have been leaked… -
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
fukawitribe
daddyELVIS wrote:Great, so
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.
Colin Peyresourde
Bang to rights.
Bang to rights.daddyELVIS
Great, so are we cynics ok to
Great, so are we cynics ok to probalistically guess when a performance of a team or individual looks suspect?fukawitribe
daddyELVIS wrote:So, no
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
fukawitribe wrote:daddyELVIS
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!
fukawitribe
daddyELVIS wrote:fukawitribe
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
daddyELVIS wrote:Although, I
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 ?
fukawitribe wrote:daddyELVIS
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!
fukawitribe
Colin Peyresourde wrote:You’d
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.fukawitribe
daddyELVIS wrote:Haha –
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.
Haha – you’re computer stress
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?
fukawitribe
daddyELVIS wrote:fukawitribe
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 ?
fukawitribe wrote:daddyELVIS
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?
fukawitribe wrote:daddyELVIS
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
daddyELVIS wrote:Are you
daddyELVIS wrote:Are you there Fukawitribe? Any answer to the Astana question?At work. Rammed. On later. Answer is “no”
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.