Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

above_the_cows

OnYourRight wrote:

Brailsford also said Sky trained twice a week to do exactly what Froome did in the Mont Ventoux attack – so it didn’t surprise him. In fact, he thought Froome could do even better!

My understanding was that Brailsford phoned UK Anti-Doping to see whether they would be ready to accept all of Sky’s info, not to actually ask them to do so right now. Slight difference, but possibly important.

Ah that makes more sense. To analyse that amount of data requires a lot of man power and of course expense.

No_Ta_Doctor

I'm guessing the clinic are going mental right about now!

thomthom

No tA Doctor wrote:

I'm guessing the clinic are going mental right about now!

Unlike any other hour or day or week or month or year..

slim_boy_fat

No tA Doctor wrote:

I'm guessing the clinic are going mental right about now!

The Clinic have found the source of Sky's cheating. In fact in one day they have discovered a product, discussed it's merit's, agreed it has huge benefits but is also a masking agent and was developed by Leinders (even though he had nothing to do with it), have convicted Sky and are about to hand out bans. In fact I'd go as far to say that WADA are surplus to requirements going forward.

No_Ta_Doctor

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I'm guessing the clinic are going mental right about now!

The Clinic have found the source of Sky's cheating. In fact in one day they have discovered a product, discussed it's merit's, agreed it has huge benefits but is also a masking agent and was developed by Leinders (even though he had nothing to do with it), have convicted Sky and are about to hand out bans. In fact I'd go as far to say that WADA are surplus to requirements going forward.

Looking good for clean sport.

To be fair to them, they did notice that the documents naming Leinders didn't actually have anything, at all, (nada, zilch, zero) to do with the drug they were discussing. After five or six pages of the thread. Of course, the Sky execution warrants had already been signed by then, and it was a pity to waste them.

iainf72

I did a bit of a facepalm with the whole "we'll give our data to WADA / whoever" piece. For a team that manages the training / nutrition etc so well it's just so knee jerk sounding.

It's a decent offer, but a better way to approach it (IMO) would be to call out that there is no recognised testing / analysis based on power / blah, but you'd like to help drive it forward and work towards a robust model that's based on science and not some random set of beliefs.

That will fall flat because people won't accept anything that doesn't confirm their existing belief system. So the whole thing is hollow.

LeicesterLad

Who cares? I'm f*cking bored of it all. I'm bored of the race to be honest. Since the big time gap I've barely been arsed to watch the last 5 minutes of the chuckle brothers each day. My only remaining hope of real entertainment is the Alp. I'm bored of doping this, doping that, power data blah blah blah. F*ck all of them and all of it. Somebody make a f*cking race of it instead of riding for your sh*tty place in the top ten.

Only thing keeping me going right now is the bearded one and Bauke.


Right, were did I put my cup of tea?

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

I did a bit of a facepalm with the whole "we'll give our data to WADA / whoever" piece. For a team that manages the training / nutrition etc so well it's just so knee jerk sounding.

It's a decent offer, but a better way to approach it (IMO) would be to call out that there is no recognised testing / analysis based on power / blah, but you'd like to help drive it forward and work towards a robust model that's based on science and not some random set of beliefs.

That will fall flat because people won't accept anything that doesn't confirm their existing belief system. So the whole thing is hollow.

To be fair, that's pretty much what they've done. But this way they get a bloke from WADA / whoever to say it, which looks better.

iainf72

No tA Doctor wrote:

To be fair, that's pretty much what they've done. But this way they get a bloke from WADA / whoever to say it, which looks better.

I disagree somewhat. They've just made it look like they know nothing. If you call it out, and WADA confirm it, it looks like you've done your homework.

Also, WADA are just a policy engine, so I'm not sure why they'd even be in the frame.

mididoctors

iainf72 wrote:

I did a bit of a facepalm with the whole "we'll give our data to WADA / whoever" piece. For a team that manages the training / nutrition etc so well it's just so knee jerk sounding.

It's a decent offer, but a better way to approach it (IMO) would be to call out that there is no recognised testing / analysis based on power / blah, but you'd like to help drive it forward and work towards a robust model that's based on science and not some random set of beliefs.

That will fall flat because people won't accept anything that doesn't confirm their existing belief system. So the whole thing is hollow.

yeah sort of.. it has to independent so a team contributing to the analysis is a bit suss...

I think DB suggestion of having the teams required to pay a permanent embedded wada dude was out there.

pros and cons there. if you get a corrupt wada guy? and familiarity leads to relationships

the whole thing needs more thought

mididoctors

Omar Little wrote:

On the subject of the ascent times rather than the doping - on the Ventoux all time list it has Armstrong and Pantani with the same time in 2000, they certainly finished the stage together but i thought (i might be wrong) that Pantani caught the Armstrong/Ulrich group then attacked?

they were together at the bottom and together at the top

but not always together on the climb therefore

A) one must have been faster than the other

or

the get the same time for the climb

choose

Macaloon

iainf72 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

To be fair, that's pretty much what they've done. But this way they get a bloke from WADA / whoever to say it, which looks better.

I disagree somewhat. They've just made it look like they know nothing. If you call it out, and WADA confirm it, it looks like you've done your homework.

Also, WADA are just a policy engine, so I'm not sure why they'd even be in the frame.

It fits with his position on inadequacies in the bio passport. Who else can he point to at the moment? Also, he hasn't made it only about power. He's offered all their medical data too. Kerrison has said that there's no easy link between power and physiology.


Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there was serious sponsor pressure to change the news narrative from: "Team Sky's Christopher Froome was again forced to deny doping allegations". This is a good try. For Sky.

Macaloon

...

bompington

Well folks, I've been catching up with this thread and I've raised, thanks mainly to Ugo but with help from a few others, that there is a simple solution to this whole doping thing.
Since it's clear that someone who goes faster than the rest must be doping, all you need to do is to ban the top three finishers in every stage.

This will save a whole load of time, money and hassle with testing.

And will have the added bonus of making for some really interesting racing as everyone tries frantically to come fourth.

LutherB

LeicesterLad wrote:

Who cares? I'm f*cking bored of it all. I'm bored of the race to be honest. Since the big time gap I've barely been arsed to watch the last 5 minutes of the chuckle brothers each day. My only remaining hope of real entertainment is the Alp. I'm bored of doping this, doping that, power data blah blah blah. F*ck all of them and all of it. Somebody make a f*cking race of it instead of riding for your sh*tty place in the top ten.

Only thing keeping me going right now is the bearded one and Bauke.


Right, were did I put my cup of tea?

You need some fine Columbian to make you feel better 8)

mike6

bompington wrote:

Well folks, I've been catching up with this thread and I've raised, thanks mainly to Ugo but with help from a few others, that there is a simple solution to this whole doping thing.
Since it's clear that someone who goes faster than the rest must be doping, all you need to do is to ban the top three finishers in every stage.

This will save a whole load of time, money and hassle with testing.

And will have the added bonus of making for some really interesting racing as everyone tries frantically to come fourth.

You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Job done.

LeicesterLad

LutherB wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Who cares? I'm f*cking bored of it all. I'm bored of the race to be honest. Since the big time gap I've barely been arsed to watch the last 5 minutes of the chuckle brothers each day. My only remaining hope of real entertainment is the Alp. I'm bored of doping this, doping that, power data blah blah blah. F*ck all of them and all of it. Somebody make a f*cking race of it instead of riding for your sh*tty place in the top ten.

Only thing keeping me going right now is the bearded one and Bauke.


Right, were did I put my cup of tea?

You need some fine Columbian to make you feel better 8)

Good suggestion. In fact, I might just go and roll a fat one right now. 8)

No_Ta_Doctor

Macaloon wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

To be fair, that's pretty much what they've done. But this way they get a bloke from WADA / whoever to say it, which looks better.

I disagree somewhat. They've just made it look like they know nothing. If you call it out, and WADA confirm it, it looks like you've done your homework.

Also, WADA are just a policy engine, so I'm not sure why they'd even be in the frame.

It fits with his position on inadequacies in the bio passport. Who else can he point to at the moment? Also, he hasn't made it only about power. He's offered all their medical data too. Kerrison has said that there's no easy link between power and physiology.


Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there was serious sponsor pressure to change the news narrative from: "Team Sky's Christopher Froome was again forced to deny doping allegations". This is a good try. For Sky.

From a PR perspective it's about the best shot they've got.

They've already pointed at interpretation difficulties and this solution is something that's been put to them by others (Shane Stokes seems to be incredibly eager to take the credit, though this sort of thing has been discussed for ages). This is a win/win for them. Either nobody will take on the job, because it's far too complex to do properly (very likely) or whoever takes the job on will have to buy themselves a supercomputer to crunch the numbers and spend a couple of years building the science. The one thing they can't do is seem unwilling to let anyone look. They don't need to attack the "science", which will only enrage people further and lead to a whole load more "debate" on what is possible to show and what isn't.

iainf72

Ok.

I propose Vayer looks and analyses the data. Then he can decide.

That's what will happen and that would be a nightmare scenario. The man might be a clown, but the faithful will take any refusal to let him look at the data as proof positive.

That's why I think they needed to publically and loudly call out there is no tests here that are peer reviewed, understood and robust. It just leaves a door open to say "why not Vayer?"

Garmin showed how to do it with blood tests a few years back. But they had the advantage of their being some recognised science.

blazing_saddles

Today's Movistar data, or why climbing times are a law unto themselves:

Col de Manse
2013:9,5 km@5,2%---19:16---average speed 29.58 km/h(Rui Costa)

2011:9,5 km@5,2%---20:04---average speed 28.41 km/h(Contador-Evans-S.Sanchez)
---20:25---average speed 27.92 km/h(F.Schleck-A.Schleck-Voeckler group)

Remember, Contador attacked several times to create that gap.
So, Costa, 48 seconds faster, today on almost the identical course.

Doping or variables?

rick_chasey

Ok.

So you're a DS or head of a team with a tour favourite going into the Tour.

What's the blueprint for successfully dealing with the doping chat?


You know it's likely to happen. Your rider is odds on to win yellow.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Ok.

I propose Vayer looks and analyses the data. Then he can decide.

That's what will happen and that would be a nightmare scenario. The man might be a clown, but the faithful will take any refusal to let him look at the data as proof positive.

That's why I think they needed to publically and loudly call out there is no tests here that are peer reviewed, understood and robust. It just leaves a door open to say "why not Vayer?"

Garmin showed how to do it with blood tests a few years back. But they had the advantage of their being some recognised science.

Vayer's a step ahead of you. His much trumpeted 'power radar' hasn't come up with any dodgy scores so now he's moved on to comparing times from selected sections of the climb and demanding VO2 max figures (an outdated idea which was probably just about still considered when Vayer last trained anyone)

adr82

bompington wrote:

Well folks, I've been catching up with this thread and I've raised, thanks mainly to Ugo but with help from a few others, that there is a simple solution to this whole doping thing.
Since it's clear that someone who goes faster than the rest must be doping, all you need to do is to ban the top three finishers in every stage.

This will save a whole load of time, money and hassle with testing.

And will have the added bonus of making for some really interesting racing as everyone tries frantically to come fourth.

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

Ok.

I propose Vayer looks and analyses the data. Then he can decide.

That's what will happen and that would be a nightmare scenario. The man might be a clown, but the faithful will take any refusal to let him look at the data as proof positive.

That's why I think they needed to publically and loudly call out there is no tests here that are peer reviewed, understood and robust. It just leaves a door open to say "why not Vayer?"

Garmin showed how to do it with blood tests a few years back. But they had the advantage of their being some recognised science.

I don't think it will get to Vayer. Possibly a panel including Vayer. The point is that they won't ever give it to a private individual, that's why WADA (and apparently UKAD) are in the frame.

slim_boy_fat

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ok.

So you're a DS or head of a team with a tour favourite going into the Tour.

What's the blueprint for successfully dealing with the doping chat?


You know it's likely to happen. Your rider is odds on to win yellow.

I think that meeting probably consisted of people sat round the table looking into space and puffing their cheeks out. What can you say? As has already been discussed their is only one answer to the question you know you are going to be asked.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ok.

So you're a DS or head of a team with a tour favourite going into the Tour.

What's the blueprint for successfully dealing with the doping chat?


You know it's likely to happen. Your rider is odds on to win yellow.

Does the yellow jersey DS still get two 'no questions asked' murders? Or is that the US President? I forget.

Seriously though, I have previously suggested pledging Froome's cut of the prize money to WADA for the sole purpose of retroactive testing both now and in the future - but entirely at their discretion. Because that's actually got solid science behind it.

RichN95.

With regard to Vayer and whether he should be included - absolutely not. He doesn't even do the calculations himself. He's a fairground barker. His science gains it's merit only through being him being noisy and giving the press a story. It's Andrew Wakefield all over again (and tragically he still has the ear of some journos).

rick_chasey

You get what I mean, right?

A) if you are in yellow you get accused. More so if you win.

Brailsford obviously forgot about a).

So how do you do it?

Paying money won't work. That's just underhand bribery. Flat out denial obviously doesn't work. Releasing the data probably doesn't work since we're all stupid and have agendas that make us myopic.

So what then?

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Paying money won't work. That's just underhand bribery.

Not my way. It is money solely and accountably for one purpose - retroactively testing Froome. If the money is not used for that then it is given back - it's not to buy a load of booze.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

You get what I mean, right?

A) if you are in yellow you get accused. More so if you win.

Brailsford obviously forgot about a).

So how do you do it?

Paying money won't work. That's just underhand bribery. Flat out denial obviously doesn't work. Releasing the data probably doesn't work since we're all stupid and have agendas that make us myopic.

So what then?

Pretty much what they have done - don't bother trying as nothing they do will satisfy, and just concentrate on winning the race.