Sky and David Walsh

Richmond Racer

micron, 1986 - the year to which Rich was referring - was certainly before EPO hit the peloton big time. Generation EPO certainly started after this date.

The words I also used was that Lemond is 'generally accepted as clean'. Would you like to contest that? What are your thoughts re Lemond? After all, uniquely amongst us here, you spend 2 days with him in Dec. Also what are your thoughts on the period when he was coaching Rasmussen?

mr_poll

Similar to what Pross said surely this argument should be looked at the other way around.

In the EPO years the riders peaking argument could easily be seen as staying out of the limelight/in comp testing (especially as we know the UCI out of competition testing was at best poor prior to 2005). Surely logic would dictate if Wiggins or another season long peaker was doped to the gills turning up and winning race after race is a recipe for getting caught.

mr_poll

Richmond Racer wrote:

micron, 1986 - the year to which Rich was referring - was certainly before EPO hit the peloton big time. Generation EPO certainly started after this date.

The words I also used was that Lemond is 'generally accepted as clean'. Would you like to contest that? What are your thoughts re Lemond? After all, uniquely amongst us here, you spend 2 days with him in Dec. Also what are your thoughts on the period when he was coaching Rasmussen?

As above - If the whiff of suspicion that started against LA is that he beat a load of dopers so he must be doping how do you square:

RR, you don't really believe Lemond rode in a 'cleaner' era do you? You do know both EPO and blood doping were in use in the peloton long before then (cf US Olympic cycling team)?

frenchfighter

Wow, just saw this is on 26 pages. May have to look back over this to see what's hot.

micron

point is, you can argue both sides of the coin - I hear a lot from one side so it's interesting to hear the other side.

RR EPO generally acknowledged to have gained a real hold in the peloton by 88 but blood doping around before then - as fignon so eloquently put it (paraphrased) in my era the doping was crap and the exploits incredible, now the doping is great and the exploits crap

As for lemond - hearing him talk about winning his first tour to antoine vayer (in excellent French) was just one of the highlights I wouldn't bet the farm on any rider being 100% clean simply because the governance on banned products is so labarynthine. As bassons points out, what is tested for in and out of competition is not consistent for a start.

r0bh

micron wrote:

As has been pointed out, the old pattern of autologous blood doping was to tailor your season to the pattern of withdrawals and deposits, so to speak. The argument goes, as I understand it, that new doping methods facilitate riders to be able to sustain a higher level of performance - if not extraterrestrial - throughout the season. As I said to begin with, this is veloclinic's theory not mine but I noted some posters here in a pretty one sided debate with him and was interested in your views.

Conventional sports science theory is that a clean athlete in an endurance sport will maintain a relatively consistent level with small peaks above this for specific events, the peak prompted by tapering the training.

No doubt microdosing would allow an athlete to maintain a higher level than if they were clean.

But putting forward a thesis that amounts to "consistent performance = doping" is nonsensical.

ddraver

^^^It would be better for your sanity if you don't bud...

micron

We've been talking over the last few days about evidence and seeing, for example, blood and SRM values for Sky. These are not for Sky but for Wiggins at Garmin - I have tried to pin down vaughters as to why they appear in emails between Ferrari and Armstrong - assumed it was because Armstrong & wiggins were, in his words, BFFs in 2009, but he says that relationship developed at TdF and emails are from Paris-nice prologue that year. Is it common for riders to share SRM data, as it's usually held to be a closely guarded secret? I know Pinotti routinely releases his because he says it's the best way to prove your effort is 'real'.

Page 35, about half way through the document http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/JR+Exhibit+A.pdf just after the phrase about 'killing that garmin'

Apologies if you have thoroughly digested & debunked this before

Pross

micron wrote:

The argument goes, as I understand it, that new doping methods facilitate riders to be able to sustain a higher level of performance - if not extraterrestrial - throughout the season. As I said to begin with, this is veloclinic's theory not mine but I noted some posters here in a pretty one sided debate with him and was interested in your views.

I've never even heard of veloclinic before today. I'd be interested in hearing what your opinion is on the subject though. It seems a bit pointless saying 'this is what someone else thinks'. So, based on your own reading (which I don't doubt is more extensive and knowledgable than my own, I know very little about the doping subject and the likes of Puerto and most of the LA stuff passed me by whilst I had a break from both riding and watching cycling) do you a) think the 'season long peak' is dodgy and b) believe that LeMond wasn't clean?

My own opinions are based on the bits I have read and the, albeit limited, numbers that have been made public for the Sky riders' power outputs etc. plus the general decline in average speeds on climbs. The one thing I would like to see all teams doing (and Sky with their overt anti-doping stance should have lead on this I feel) is publishing the blood values for riders and details of their internal testing regime (is this something they have to provide to the UCI as part of the Pro Tour licence?). It would also possibly help to overcome concerns if all teams published riders power data for races after the race had finished but I can understand how they may be reluctant to do this and let other teams see the results.

It would make an excellent sports science research project to review cycling over the decades using whatever data was available to see if any patterns emerge for different types of doping and that could then provide a well informed model to trigger alarm bells and further investigation.

Turfle

Pross wrote:

micron wrote:

My own opinions are based on the bits I have read and the, albeit limited, numbers that have been made public for the Sky riders' power outputs etc. plus the general decline in average speeds on climbs. The one thing I would like to see all teams doing (and Sky with their overt anti-doping stance should have lead on this I feel) is publishing the blood values for riders and details of their internal testing regime (is this something they have to provide to the UCI as part of the Pro Tour licence?). It would also possibly help to overcome concerns if all teams published riders power data for races after the race had finished but I can understand how they may be reluctant to do this and let other teams see the results.

It would make an excellent sports science research project to review cycling over the decades using whatever data was available to see if any patterns emerge for different types of doping and that could then provide a well informed model to trigger alarm bells and further investigation.

Vaughters himself has said the problem with releasing that data to the public is it takes one lone voice to suggest something in a profile looks dodgy, and then that is the voice that gets heard and repeated.

Until there is trust in the community that everything will be looked at free of prejudice there is little point in doing it.

bockers

Oh dear I was nearly fully hooked.

It is not testing, peaking or anything around performance that caught Armstrong. Ultimately it was the overwhelming number of testimonies from people and riders he worked with riders that provided the coffin, the lid came from from friends/associates and then the money trail nailed that lid down.

The format of Lances season was questioned by some but it was his crushing stages day after day with no bad days that caused concern for those of us who followed professional cycling. The fact that he concentrated on the tour was not new, Indurain was doing that years before.

Peaking or rather performing all season was standard in the pre EPO days. After all it is their job and there was not the money in the sport to be able to live by one race result a year. One thing I remember back then was it was nigh on impossible for an individual to win all three tours in the same year, just too gruelling on the body. The Vuelta was in May back then IIRC.

So to repeat, it is not the race program, the results or the testing program that finally did for Lance. It was the money trail, eye witness accounts and testimonies.

I have yet to hear anyone claim to have seen Bradley or Sky doping. No former team mates, members of staff or other pros (including those who are now telling all). As has been pointed out, Sky have had a few leave, including the odd Doctor, under a cloud, and surley they would want to blow a whistle if one was to be found.

If this sort of stuff starts to appear I will reassess my viewpoint but at present we have a case of a very good cyclist, in a well organised team, winning races.

ocdupalais

We seem to have established that:
Doped riders tend to maintain high performance levels all season.
Doped riders tend to peak at one or two points in the season.
Some doping products/methods produce season-long performance benefits.
Some doping products/methods produce brief performance spikes in the season.

Inconsistent performances throughout the season can indicate doping.
Consistent low performance levels (in relation to previous seasons) can indicate doping.
Consistent high levels of performance can indicate doping.


We is geniuses.
We punch bad doping on nose with Mighty Fist of Partial Knowledge got from Internet!
Kerrison shmerrison...

r0bh

micron wrote:

We've been talking over the last few days about evidence and seeing, for example, blood and SRM values for Sky. These are not for Sky but for Wiggins at Garmin - I have tried to pin down vaughters as to why they appear in emails between Ferrari and Armstrong - assumed it was because Armstrong & wiggins were, in his words, BFFs in 2009, but he says that relationship developed at TdF and emails are from Paris-nice prologue that year. Is it common for riders to share SRM data, as it's usually held to be a closely guarded secret? I know Pinotti routinely releases his because he says it's the best way to prove your effort is 'real'.

Page 35, about half way through the document http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/JR+Exhibit+A.pdf just after the phrase about 'killing that garmin'

Apologies if you have thoroughly digested & debunked this before

I'm struggling to find anything of any significance in there. 459W for Wiggo is not a huge surprise to anyone I don't think, given that values of that order have been quoted by him in his book, in Fotheringham's piece in Cycling Anthology and in the Year in Yellow documentary.

Also, was Wiggo riding Ossymetric chainrings back in 2009 like he does now? They are known to make crank-based powermeters read high.

Pross

micron wrote:

We've been talking over the last few days about evidence and seeing, for example, blood and SRM values for Sky. These are not for Sky but for Wiggins at Garmin - I have tried to pin down vaughters as to why they appear in emails between Ferrari and Armstrong - assumed it was because Armstrong & wiggins were, in his words, BFFs in 2009, but he says that relationship developed at TdF and emails are from Paris-nice prologue that year. Is it common for riders to share SRM data, as it's usually held to be a closely guarded secret? I know Pinotti routinely releases his because he says it's the best way to prove your effort is 'real'.

Page 35, about half way through the document http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/JR+Exhibit+A.pdf just after the phrase about 'killing that garmin'

Apologies if you have thoroughly digested & debunked this before

Sorry, I'm struggling a bit here. Are you trying to make a point re: Wiggins here? I don't know how the data was obtained but it's not as if Armstrong and Ferrari are suggesting that Wiggins power is suspiciously high is it? In fact they conclude that Armstrong's SRM is giving duff results

nic_77

micron wrote:

Nic, Pross, bockers: first, refuting the sky 'evidence' - short answer, what's the point? The problem with this entire 'argument' is that all of us rehash the same old same old. It's stale, it's tired, we all haggle over semantics, twist the available facts to our own narratives and viewpoints. So perhaps instead of going over the same tired old ground we need to be asking some new questions? I have a few that I'd be happy to get your thoughts on - for example, I noticed some of you engaging with veloclinic - he contends that wiggins season long peak is only achievable through doping. Not saying he's right or wrong but have similar 'season long' peaks been achieved? Or was there a season long peak at all? Veloclinic can be very persuasive :P but I'm interested in hearing your perspective.

Agreeable to all? Frank and open discussion of issues rather than demands for 'evidence' and making judgements on responses based on perceived like/dislike of poster?

OK... firstly I'm not sure that debate is possible, unless there is at least some basis in fact or at least firm belief (i.e. something backed up by evidence), but let's ignore that for the time being...

Now let's look at the prolonged peak issue... to summarise what has been said:
1. By definition it's not a peak if it is prolonged - if there are spikes in Wiggins season's these have coincided with key days in his campaign - notably TTs
2. Some would argue that Wiggins' 2012 season was long but actually quite light - a very cleverly selected racing calendar, focused on favourable parcours, spent primarily in the wheels of a range of expensive super-domestics
3. The magnitude of any peaks (/spikes) attained are smaller than those achieved by doping riders - borne out by the watt/kg data
4. Prolonged consistent performance appears to be an indicator of clean riding. Previous dopers have been known to target their doping strategy for specific races
5. The question of a new 'unknown' doping strategy that can be used to produce a prolonged performance period is of course interesting... microdosing is not new, and has been primarily used previously to mask evidence of transfusions in the passport. Maybe Sky have a new wonder drug, or microdosing approach... but I still don't see how this is consistent with point 2.

All in all, I think it is good to question this point.

Maybe Wiggins' 2012 can be seen as unorthodox - different to what we've seen elsewhere throughout the 2000's... but that's a good thing right? Consistent results all year, with ordinary outputs - in fact the polar opposite of a single super-human peak in performance (like, say, Armstrong at the TdF for USPS for example).

And back to my questions... so Wiggins' prolonged 2012 is one reason for doubt, what else have you got? and, again, why particularly the focus on Sky?

micron

R0b is it usual for pros on different teams to exchange SRM data? If not, how did the Ferrari's have Wiggins SRM data? BTW agree with the point you made regarding micro dosing - the supposition being that riders have backed off from autologous blood doping and are now using older techniques. With the top riders being so tight in terms of their output, even the most marginal difference makes a difference. Of course the gains of a rider like wiggins may not be due to doping but to sky's programme. Of course that doesn't imply that any rider Is doping but nor does it mean that they definitively aren't - bringing us neatly back to the old 'can't prove a negative' routine.

ddraver

You don't understand the point of "can't prove a negative" do you....

ratsbeyfus

micron wrote:

One of the problems with zero tolerance is that it enforces omerta and encourages people to lie about their past as Leinders apparently did.

Surely the great thing about zero-tolerance is that you'd be utterly nuts to say you have it when you are secretly doping behind the scenes. Particularly when make a big show of forcing discovered/admitted ex-dopers out of the door. All it would take is one of those forced out to turn round and say "I doped at SKY with their knowledge, approval and/or assistance." for the whole thing to fall apart spectacularly.

micron

Nic, sorry did you want to focus on sky or not? Think the thread is Walsh and sky? Not Walsh and lampre/OPQS/saxo etc. happy to discuss all of the above of course.

Not sure why you assert points 2 & 5 are inconsistent - think CERA for example and it's effect.

Sorry got to run, wouldn't want you to think I was ducking out or anything

dish_dash

micron wrote:

R0b is it usual for pros on different teams to exchange SRM data? If not, how did the Ferrari's have Wiggins SRM data?

We don't actually know how detailed the SRM data that the Ferraris had. And unless someone asks Wiggins or Armstrong directly how the Ferraris got it (and they answer honestly) then we'll be forever speculating.

My first response however is not that Wiggins gave his data to Armstrong, they were on different teams and competing against each other. We do know that Armstrong was notorious for tracking his rivals were up to. There is quite as much possibility that he sourced it from a contact at Garmin who wasn't Wiggins...

Richmond Racer

micron, no one can prove 100% that ANY rider isnt doping. The only people who can be 100% that they are not doping, are the riders themselves. No one here is claiming that any of us can prove that someone isnt.

Likewise the only proof that someone is, is when they get done.

Turfle

The implication being that Wiggins may have been working with Ferrari and Armstrong?

Richmond Racer

Btw micron, a race was on today - Qatar. Did you watch any of it?

mroli

Micron - I've had a look at the email correspondence and it is VERY interesting - but I can only see one reference to Wiggins' nos. Surely that could have come about as a result of a number of things - including someone within the Garmin camp giving it to Lance, Garmin have published Wiggins' data previously - eg see: http://www.slipstreamsports.com/2009/05/13/bradley-wiggins-garmin-edge-705-data-download-giro-stage-5 or they could have been just chatting:
"Bro, I think my data was off - it was saying I was only pushing out 409 Watts - what was yours saying"
"Lance - I think it was on 476 or something like that".

Richmond Racer

mroli wrote:

Micron - I've had a look at the email correspondence and it is VERY interesting - but I can only see one reference to Wiggins' nos. Surely that could have come about as a result of a number of things - including someone within the Garmin camp giving it to Lance, Garmin have published Wiggins' data previously - eg see: http://www.slipstreamsports.com/2009/05/13/bradley-wiggins-garmin-edge-705-data-download-giro-stage-5 or they could have been just chatting:
"Bro, I think my data was off - it was saying I was only pushing out 409 Watts - what was yours saying"
"Lance - I think it was on 476 or something like that".

Or a power reading on one rider's unit that is visible to another rider having a look-sie. Meh. FFS this is Armstrong we're talking about, who was notorious for being obsessive about what his rivals were up to. And there was Wiggins, climbing alongside him on that Tour.

And yeah, also it wasnt as though Vaughters team was exactly water-tight, example Matt White sending Trent Lowe to Del Morel. When did Johnny Weltz, formerly of USPS and big protester when Hamilton came out with everything, join Garmin?

micron

RR That works - except numbers are from Paris-nice prologue as I think I mentioned - more difficult to get a sneaknpeak in that situation I would think? As you're no doubt aware, welz left USPS on less than amicable terms so would he be passing SRM info to them?

As for vaughters - he says there's no money in women's racing and its not part of his brave new franchised world :evil:

inkyfingers

Micron, glad you came back. Is this comeback 3.0?

Richmond Racer

micron wrote:

RR That works - except numbers are from Paris-nice prologue as I think I mentioned - more difficult to get a sneaknpeak in that situation I would think? As you're no doubt aware, welz left USPS on less than amicable terms so would he be passing SRM info to them?

As for vaughters - he says there's no money in women's racing and its not part of his brave new franchised world :evil:

On this, we can agree. That is shoot. One of his less impressive viewpoints (being charitable here)

Re Weltz, well, he certainly has things to hide from his USPS days, wouldnt have wanted to get on the bad side of Lance and Bruyneel. No more than the likes of CVV, DZ etc wanted to. Lance, the man who said to Vaughters when he doped something along the lines of 'you're in on it now, now you cant write about it'. Think Weltz ba&ls might not have been in a vice?

Just throwing it out there.

nic_77

micron wrote:

Nic, sorry did you want to focus on sky or not? Think the thread is Walsh and sky? Not Walsh and lampre/OPQS/saxo etc. happy to discuss all of the above of course.

Double-check my previous post, my question does relate to Sky - but I'll accept it reflects more of an interest in 'your' outlook rather than necessarily examining Sky per se.

A clean team (and that's what Sky say they are) should definitely be scrutinised, but a tainted team must deserve even closer attention. Why have you, Kimmage and others chosen Sky as the bad guys in world cycling rather than direct your attention towards those teams where there is more clear-cut evidence of malpractice? Or better still the governance that has allowed this situation to develop.

micron wrote:

Not sure why you assert points 2 & 5 are inconsistent - think CERA for example and it's effect.

Because I don't proof read my posts I meant point 3... If Sky are doping, why aren't they producing big numbers (e.g. watts/kg) - instead they seem to be winning races with mediocre performances (compared to those of known dopers).

iainf72

micron wrote:

As for vaughters - he says there's no money in women's racing and its not part of his brave new franchised world :evil:

Doesn't the market indicate there is no money in it? After all, if there was, someone would be making some cash