Publising results, what does it acheive?

Jez mon

So I've heard that Wiggo has decided to publish his test results. This is following a trend of other riders publishing theirs. However, quite what does this achieve? We ourselves as members of the public, are by and large, not anti doping experts. Furthermore, the anti doping experts have already looked over the results, and presumably as the guy is still riding, found nothing suspicious.

So overall what does publishing of results do for the sport, other than to show just how suspicious cycling fans are of the riders?

Pokerface

I guess there is "within the rules" and "suspicious, but still within the rules".

Wiggins' results showed that he was not only within the rules, but his levels dropped off during the Tour as would be expected. If he had been doping, his levels would still be within the rules, but might now have dropped off as much as they did.

Meaning - he might have raised a flag somewhere - but they couldn't bust him for it.

Releasing the results isn't so much so that the general public can analyze them - it's so the experts (not just the UCI labs) can analyze them and report back to the public what they think.

And that's what's happened.

AndyRubio

For me, it shows that teams and riders are aware that they have a problem with public perception. It's not enough to say "I don't take drugs" or "I'm the most tested rider in history, never been testede positive". This kind of things makes it all the more transparent. It also lays down the gauntlet to those who have something to hide.

squired

The average member of public won't be able to analyse them, but I'm sure one or two people in the media will pass them onto experts for analysis. Obviously if there is anything even slightly dodgy they would make a big deal about it. So, I think publishing the results shows a lot.

dennisn

Seems to me like someone trying to prove he DIDN'T do something. Almost like the so called "preemptive strike".
Why would someone feel that they have to prove they didn't do something before anyone even accuses them of anything?

Kléber

All of Garmin's riders results are available, so long as you are a haematologist or an endocrinal specialist, or to anyone who signs an agreement to review the numbers alongside a specialist. The idea behind this is to make the information freely available, but to specialists or those genuinely willing to look at them seriously.

As to what it achieves? Well, it's a lot better than sitting on the data. Imagine if Astana shared the data they got from working with Dr Damsgaard (they promised this but didn't deliver) then we / an expert could have spotted Gusev's apparently suspicious data. In other words, Bruyneel promised transparency but it didn't arrive, which is either a minor PR hiccup or a cynical move depending on your view.

Above all it invites debate. If you're clean then you want to discuss doping, you want the world to be able to believe in you. If you're doping, then you don't want people prying into your numbers.

Tom Butcher

dennisn wrote:

Seems to me like someone trying to prove he DIDN'T do something. Almost like the so called "preemptive strike".
Why would someone feel that they have to prove they didn't do something before anyone even accuses them of anything?

Am I wrong to infer that you are arguing Wiggins is somehow suspicious because he is providing a defence for an accusation that has not been made.

The accusations are already there - whether aimed at the peloton of which Wiggins is part or aimed at him as a rider who has shown a sudden leap in form.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

bikerZA

Another example of cyclists being able to do no right.

dennisn

Tom Butcher wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Seems to me like someone trying to prove he DIDN'T do something. Almost like the so called "preemptive strike".
Why would someone feel that they have to prove they didn't do something before anyone even accuses them of anything?

Am I wrong to infer that you are arguing Wiggins is somehow suspicious because he is providing a defence for an accusation that has not been made.

The accusations are already there - whether aimed at the peloton of which Wiggins is part or aimed at him as a rider who has shown a sudden leap in form.

Doesn't it all sound, just a bit, like someone yelling "I'm not a doper!!!!"
Reminds me of the saying about "protesting too much".

Eau Rouge

Jez mon wrote:

Furthermore, the anti doping experts have already looked over the results, and presumably as the guy is still riding, found nothing suspicious.

Isn't that a bit of an assumption?
Who's experts do you mean? The internal testing progrma, the UCI, the newspapers?

disgruntledgoat

dennisn wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Seems to me like someone trying to prove he DIDN'T do something. Almost like the so called "preemptive strike".
Why would someone feel that they have to prove they didn't do something before anyone even accuses them of anything?

Am I wrong to infer that you are arguing Wiggins is somehow suspicious because he is providing a defence for an accusation that has not been made.

The accusations are already there - whether aimed at the peloton of which Wiggins is part or aimed at him as a rider who has shown a sudden leap in form.

Doesn't it all sound, just a bit, like someone yelling "I'm not a doper!!!!"
Reminds me of the saying about "protesting too much".

You've never met him, how can you know that?

dennisn

phips wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Seems to me like someone trying to prove he DIDN'T do something. Almost like the so called "preemptive strike".
Why would someone feel that they have to prove they didn't do something before anyone even accuses them of anything?

Erm, that's just horlicks.

In a 'normal' world you *wouldn't* have to do this, but since our beloved sport is full of liars and cheats I can only take Wiggo's approach as nothing but honourable.

He's trying to provide transparency, where everybody else is about hiding.

Due to the state of the sport today, I think this approach is the way forward to restoring public trust. I'd like to see the Schlecks and Contador do the same.

So, cycling is not part of the "normal" world? These people are not normal? Not like you and I? They need special laws and rules? They must bend to YOUR will in that you want to see these results so "public trust"(or is it your trust?) can be restored? Who gave you the right to demand things all these things from them? Why would they even listen to you?
Sorry, rant over.

DaveyL

Cycling is not part of the normal world in that, in the normal world, only a small percentage of the population are committing crimes. For the last couple of decades, a massive %age of riders have been breaking the rules of the sport, to the extent that in the 90s it was probably the norm to do so, down to the situation we have today, where the peloton is playing by the rules much more, but still not fully, and there is still the air of suspicion over anyone who performs well.

In such a climate, the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal, sadly, goes out of the window.

This all seems pretty obvious to me - are you just trolling and spoiling for a rumble (as usual), Dennis?

Paulie W

dennisn wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Seems to me like someone trying to prove he DIDN'T do something. Almost like the so called "preemptive strike".
Why would someone feel that they have to prove they didn't do something before anyone even accuses them of anything?

Am I wrong to infer that you are arguing Wiggins is somehow suspicious because he is providing a defence for an accusation that has not been made.

The accusations are already there - whether aimed at the peloton of which Wiggins is part or aimed at him as a rider who has shown a sudden leap in form.

Doesn't it all sound, just a bit, like someone yelling "I'm not a doper!!!!"
Reminds me of the saying about "protesting too much".

I think it's far more suspicious to keep your head down and deflect or avoid any questions about doping which the vast majority of cyclists do. But that is the norm and hence most people assume that everyone is a doper.

Wiggins is starting form the position that he appears guilty unless proven innocent.

ellieb

I think you will find dennis is trolling again

Paulie W

Paulie W wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Seems to me like someone trying to prove he DIDN'T do something. Almost like the so called "preemptive strike".
Why would someone feel that they have to prove they didn't do something before anyone even accuses them of anything?

Am I wrong to infer that you are arguing Wiggins is somehow suspicious because he is providing a defence for an accusation that has not been made.

The accusations are already there - whether aimed at the peloton of which Wiggins is part or aimed at him as a rider who has shown a sudden leap in form.

Doesn't it all sound, just a bit, like someone yelling "I'm not a doper!!!!"
Reminds me of the saying about "protesting too much".

I think it's far more suspicious to keep your head down and deflect or avoid any questions about doping which the vast majority of cyclists do. But that is the norm and hence most people assume that everyone is a doper.

Wiggins is starting from the position that he appears guilty unless proven innocent.

dennisn

ellieb wrote:

I think you will find dennis is trolling again

Maybe, it's been a slow work week.

prawny

Cycling isn't a normal world, I live in the normal world and I can use my asthma inhaler whenever I want 8)

dennisn

Eau Rouge wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Furthermore, the anti doping experts have already looked over the results, and presumably as the guy is still riding, found nothing suspicious.

Isn't that a bit of an assumption?
Who's experts do you mean? The internal testing progrma, the UCI, the newspapers?

Experts? You mean like the guy they always introduce on the news as "our expert on(.........fill in bank....) is (....... fill in blank.....), he / she is a (........ fill in blank..... ). You mean the talking heads on TV????

DaveyL

No, the scientists, like Dr Michael Ashenden, who are exercise physiologists and who are qualified to analyse the data. The scientists who the UCI employ to analyse their biological passport data.

I.e. the "correct" definition of an expert. Not the one you get on Fox News.

Next trolling attempt?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Jez mon

Eau Rouge wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Furthermore, the anti doping experts have already looked over the results, and presumably as the guy is still riding, found nothing suspicious.

Isn't that a bit of an assumption?
Who's experts do you mean? The internal testing progrma, the UCI, the newspapers?

I mean the internal program and the UCI.

At the end of the day, surely the danger of letting results into the public domain, is some "expert" endlessly pouring over the results and deciding something is suspicious...