Anti Doping Denmark report
Comments
-
with that line I think you ve finally revealed the problem here...
From all angles ddr.0 -
I think there was a bit more to it than just doping. I doubt anyone who doped and was resurrected at CSC hadn't done so at their previous team.This puts into context Riis' ability to ressurect people's careers. This doesn't look good for Jalabert, Basso, Voigt or the Schleck brothers.
I think people went from furtive, non-team sponsored DIY doping to the likes of Fuentes and his blood bank. Think of someone like Voigt coming from Credit Agricole, not a doping superpower and then moving to CSC where the management is enabling you to do it. Big difference.
There is of course the factor of riders being unhappy with their previous teams (DZ, Vandevelde, Jullich) and no doubt Riis was a good organiser and motivator too, but without the juice the improvements ain't happening.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Joel. How can you possibly dope at a race without the knowledge of your team? Who's preserving your dope and cleaning your works?
In case you hadn't noticed there are still a huge number of people involved in cycling with the knowledge and past misdemeanors.
Anyway, bored now. Suffice it to say I have read thousands (no exaggeration either) of pieces over the last few years about doping. It fascinates me. Which is why I have courage in my convictions.
Fair enough. But... don't the inconsistencies bother you? It's all done in secret in the dark. Except at races where we have, say 150 dopers, presumably sharing this huge pool of enablers. Yet our villain is sure he won't be grassed. Incredible on this scale....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Joel. How can you possibly dope at a race without the knowledge of your team? Who's preserving your dope and cleaning your works?
In case you hadn't noticed there are still a huge number of people involved in cycling with the knowledge and past misdemeanors.
Anyway, bored now. Suffice it to say I have read thousands (no exaggeration either) of pieces over the last few years about doping. It fascinates me. Which is why I have courage in my convictions.
Fair enough. But... don't the inconsistencies bother you? It's all done in secret in the dark. Except at races where we have, say 150 dopers, presumably sharing this huge pool of enablers. Yet our villain is sure he won't be grassed. Incredible on this scale.
I don't see any inconsistencies. Most will be done when training, with an odd boost here and there. And given that a lot of training is done at home...0 -
I think most people know Joelsim's understanding of doping is at the level of a Roger Hargreaves book. He tries to read a lot on it obviously, but where other people admit where things are technically quickly beyond them, he chooses to paint broad stroke conclusions.
You'll never get any real in-depth stuff from him on the subject that you can't scan read from the odd condensed news driven article here and there. He has a right to draw his own conclusions though.0 -
Sorry for the delay, I had to board a plane. Anyway, it's worse than I thought, you have done some basic research and have come up with an interpretation that is not entirely correct.
You may have missed my post from the previous page, so I'll try again:Why would you dope at all times EXCEPT when it matters most? i.e. at a training camp or a race*?
Plus, that dip in heamatocrit would also raise the passport's eyebrow (as it were). Which is actually the most important part. Your story (and the BBC/l'Equipe shows) is predicated on a rider doping every day, in season or off season for their whole career. Now that truly WOULD be a first!
*Stage race
Because the benefits last longer than the glowtime. Again well documented.
And regarding the passport, this is set to 1/1000 chance of a wrong flag. Blood values can and do fluctuate wildly within those parameters.
Joelsim, when you have a moment please could you post a brief summary (on a haematological level if possible) of your understanding of how the bio passport works. It would help me gauge whether you know what you are talking about or not.
I suspect you believe that every rider is assigned a number. If they post a result above this number they are now doping. If they post one below it, they were doping before but aren't now.
Even if that were how it worked, I venture that you'd argue that if the rider posts the same number then they were doping before and still are now.
Yes. There are upper and lower limits which are created by the passport depending on the results of each individual rider and samples taken over a period of time. This is a moveable feast but as time progresses the limits become more set.
The passport measures several different blood measures including Hct, Haemoglobin, old and new reticulocytes etc.
Here's my understanding...
Yes, the various blood parameters are relevant, but measuring absolute values of these is not necessarily appropriate. Even defining ranges is broadly worthless because there are such a wide number of factors that affect measurements within an individual - e.g. body metrics, hydration, infection, age, diet, altitude not to mention training load, race fatigue and changing physiology over time. Of course these parameters can also be impacted by medications, PEDs and blood transfusion too.
The good news for the passport is that the various blood parameters are interdependent, which means the absolute values no longer need to be considered in isolation. Instead the blood profiling can look at the complete picture to ascertain whether a change in composition over time may have potentially been achieved artificially.
The best analogy I can come up with is this... take the graphic equaliser on your crummy 1990's stereo. If the individual controls are moved collectively the sound remains broadly the same, just perhaps a little louder. Likewise, an increase in treble might be balanced out by a corresponding increase in bass. However, move one little lever at a time and the difference in sound is marked.
The doper can use different techniques to effect shifts in individual parameters, for example micro-dosing EPO in parallel with a blood transfusion. Even with a wealth of experience, this is pretty hard to measure and balance (although I accept that the likes of Ferrari seem to have developed some fairly solid protocols). The challenge is increased when the manipulation is being done nefariously and not in a lab with the benefit of real time testing. The tester only has to get lucky once to catch the imbalance. Add to that the fact that substance specific tests may also catch the cheat trying to effect any one individual shift.
Yes, you can avoid individual glow times and yes, you can maintain a uniform passport profile, but at what cost and for what gain? The analogy here is with catching benefit cheats - if you make the claiming process hard enough it soon becomes easier to get a job.
I don't know what else is taken into consideration by the passport scheme, but I imagine other variables such as the rider's race schedule may also be taken into account too (particularly during expert review).
The one further complication is that, as with everything in nature, there's no such thing as normal.0 -
I think most people know Joelsim's understanding of doping is at the level of a Roger Hargreaves book. He tries to read a lot on it obviously, but where other people admit where things are technically quickly beyond them, he chooses to paint broad stroke conclusions.
You'll never get any real in-depth stuff from him on the subject that you can't scan read from the odd condensed news driven article here and there. He has a right to draw his own conclusions though.
Let's see who is right in the fullness of time. Until then throw insults as much as you like.0 -
Sorry for the delay, I had to board a plane. Anyway, it's worse than I thought, you have done some basic research and have come up with an interpretation that is not entirely correct.
You may have missed my post from the previous page, so I'll try again:Why would you dope at all times EXCEPT when it matters most? i.e. at a training camp or a race*?
Plus, that dip in heamatocrit would also raise the passport's eyebrow (as it were). Which is actually the most important part. Your story (and the BBC/l'Equipe shows) is predicated on a rider doping every day, in season or off season for their whole career. Now that truly WOULD be a first!
*Stage race
Because the benefits last longer than the glowtime. Again well documented.
And regarding the passport, this is set to 1/1000 chance of a wrong flag. Blood values can and do fluctuate wildly within those parameters.
Joelsim, when you have a moment please could you post a brief summary (on a haematological level if possible) of your understanding of how the bio passport works. It would help me gauge whether you know what you are talking about or not.
I suspect you believe that every rider is assigned a number. If they post a result above this number they are now doping. If they post one below it, they were doping before but aren't now.
Even if that were how it worked, I venture that you'd argue that if the rider posts the same number then they were doping before and still are now.
Yes. There are upper and lower limits which are created by the passport depending on the results of each individual rider and samples taken over a period of time. This is a moveable feast but as time progresses the limits become more set.
The passport measures several different blood measures including Hct, Haemoglobin, old and new reticulocytes etc.
Here's my understanding...
Yes, the various blood parameters are relevant, but measuring absolute values of these is not necessarily appropriate. Even defining ranges is broadly worthless because there are such a wide number of factors that affect measurements within an individual - e.g. body metrics, hydration, infection, age, diet, altitude not to mention training load, race fatigue and changing physiology over time. Of course these parameters can also be impacted by medications, PEDs and blood transfusion too.
The good news for the passport is that the various blood parameters are interdependent, which means the absolute values no longer need to be considered in isolation. Instead the blood profiling can look at the complete picture to ascertain whether a change in composition over time may have potentially been achieved artificially.
The best analogy I can come up with is this... take the graphic equaliser on your crummy 1990's stereo. If the individual controls are moved collectively the sound remains broadly the same, just perhaps a little louder. Likewise, an increase in treble might be balanced out by a corresponding increase in bass. However, move one little lever at a time and the difference in sound is marked.
The doper can use different techniques to effect shifts in individual parameters, for example micro-dosing EPO in parallel with a blood transfusion. Even with a wealth of experience, this is pretty hard to measure and balance (although I accept that the likes of Ferrari seem to have developed some fairly solid protocols). The challenge is increased when the manipulation is being done nefariously and not in a lab with the benefit of real time testing. The tester only has to get lucky once to catch the imbalance. Add to that the fact that substance specific tests may also catch the cheat trying to effect any one individual shift.
Yes, you can avoid individual glow times and yes, you can maintain a uniform passport profile, but at what cost and for what gain? The analogy here is with catching benefit cheats - if you make the claiming process hard enough it soon becomes easier to get a job.
I don't know what else is taken into consideration by the passport scheme, but I imagine other variables such as the rider's race schedule may also be taken into account too (particularly during expert review).
The one further complication is that, as with everything in nature, there's no such thing as normal.
I have no issue with anything you had said, except for the fact that in the years since it was introduced a wealth of knowledge has been gleaned from how far riders can push things, and as you say the Ferraris and other doctors who get paid for knowing all about the system, know exactly what they are doing.0 -
I think most people know Joelsim's understanding of doping is at the level of a Roger Hargreaves book. He tries to read a lot on it obviously, but where other people admit where things are technically quickly beyond them, he chooses to paint broad stroke conclusions.
You'll never get any real in-depth stuff from him on the subject that you can't scan read from the odd condensed news driven article here and there. He has a right to draw his own conclusions though.
Let's see who is right in the fullness of time. Until then throw insults as much as you like.
I think you misunderstood. That was a ringing mfin endorsement. FWIW you're the only doping zoomer it's worth debating. The others in my experience have understandable difficulty staying on the point....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
I think most people know Joelsim's understanding of doping is at the level of a Roger Hargreaves book. He tries to read a lot on it obviously, but where other people admit where things are technically quickly beyond them, he chooses to paint broad stroke conclusions.
You'll never get any real in-depth stuff from him on the subject that you can't scan read from the odd condensed news driven article here and there. He has a right to draw his own conclusions though.
Let's see who is right in the fullness of time. Until then throw insults as much as you like.
I think you misunderstood. That was a ringing mfin endorsement. FWIW you're the only doping zoomer it's worth debating. The others in my experience have understandable difficulty staying on the point.
Well it's not going to be solved tomorrow. Let's hope in a few years I can move on to Enid Blyton's Five Go to Mount Teide0 -
What, not even the fact that my explanation is at odds with your's?
Sorry for the delay, I had to board a plane. Anyway, it's worse than I thought, you have done some basic research and have come up with an interpretation that is not entirely correct.
You may have missed my post from the previous page, so I'll try again:Why would you dope at all times EXCEPT when it matters most? i.e. at a training camp or a race*?
Plus, that dip in heamatocrit would also raise the passport's eyebrow (as it were). Which is actually the most important part. Your story (and the BBC/l'Equipe shows) is predicated on a rider doping every day, in season or off season for their whole career. Now that truly WOULD be a first!
*Stage race
Because the benefits last longer than the glowtime. Again well documented.
And regarding the passport, this is set to 1/1000 chance of a wrong flag. Blood values can and do fluctuate wildly within those parameters.
Joelsim, when you have a moment please could you post a brief summary (on a haematological level if possible) of your understanding of how the bio passport works. It would help me gauge whether you know what you are talking about or not.
I suspect you believe that every rider is assigned a number. If they post a result above this number they are now doping. If they post one below it, they were doping before but aren't now.
Even if that were how it worked, I venture that you'd argue that if the rider posts the same number then they were doping before and still are now.
Yes. There are upper and lower limits which are created by the passport depending on the results of each individual rider and samples taken over a period of time. This is a moveable feast but as time progresses the limits become more set.
The passport measures several different blood measures including Hct, Haemoglobin, old and new reticulocytes etc.
Here's my understanding...
Yes, the various blood parameters are relevant, but measuring absolute values of these is not necessarily appropriate. Even defining ranges is broadly worthless because there are such a wide number of factors that affect measurements within an individual - e.g. body metrics, hydration, infection, age, diet, altitude not to mention training load, race fatigue and changing physiology over time. Of course these parameters can also be impacted by medications, PEDs and blood transfusion too.
The good news for the passport is that the various blood parameters are interdependent, which means the absolute values no longer need to be considered in isolation. Instead the blood profiling can look at the complete picture to ascertain whether a change in composition over time may have potentially been achieved artificially.
The best analogy I can come up with is this... take the graphic equaliser on your crummy 1990's stereo. If the individual controls are moved collectively the sound remains broadly the same, just perhaps a little louder. Likewise, an increase in treble might be balanced out by a corresponding increase in bass. However, move one little lever at a time and the difference in sound is marked.
The doper can use different techniques to effect shifts in individual parameters, for example micro-dosing EPO in parallel with a blood transfusion. Even with a wealth of experience, this is pretty hard to measure and balance (although I accept that the likes of Ferrari seem to have developed some fairly solid protocols). The challenge is increased when the manipulation is being done nefariously and not in a lab with the benefit of real time testing. The tester only has to get lucky once to catch the imbalance. Add to that the fact that substance specific tests may also catch the cheat trying to effect any one individual shift.
Yes, you can avoid individual glow times and yes, you can maintain a uniform passport profile, but at what cost and for what gain? The analogy here is with catching benefit cheats - if you make the claiming process hard enough it soon becomes easier to get a job.
I don't know what else is taken into consideration by the passport scheme, but I imagine other variables such as the rider's race schedule may also be taken into account too (particularly during expert review).
The one further complication is that, as with everything in nature, there's no such thing as normal.
I have no issue with anything you had said, except for the fact that in the years since it was introduced a wealth of knowledge has been gleaned from how far riders can push things, and as you say the Ferraris and other doctors who get paid for knowing all about the system, know exactly what they are doing.
That's the trouble, your conclusions lack weight when your reasoning is unfounded. You appear to be working merely on the 'even a stopped clock tells the right tome twice a day' principle.
The passport closes the net a good deal... at least until mechanical cheating, or non-blood defined doping techniques are developed.0 -
What, not even the fact that my explanation is at odds with your's?
Sorry for the delay, I had to board a plane. Anyway, it's worse than I thought, you have done some basic research and have come up with an interpretation that is not entirely correct.
You may have missed my post from the previous page, so I'll try again:Why would you dope at all times EXCEPT when it matters most? i.e. at a training camp or a race*?
Plus, that dip in heamatocrit would also raise the passport's eyebrow (as it were). Which is actually the most important part. Your story (and the BBC/l'Equipe shows) is predicated on a rider doping every day, in season or off season for their whole career. Now that truly WOULD be a first!
*Stage race
Because the benefits last longer than the glowtime. Again well documented.
And regarding the passport, this is set to 1/1000 chance of a wrong flag. Blood values can and do fluctuate wildly within those parameters.
Joelsim, when you have a moment please could you post a brief summary (on a haematological level if possible) of your understanding of how the bio passport works. It would help me gauge whether you know what you are talking about or not.
I suspect you believe that every rider is assigned a number. If they post a result above this number they are now doping. If they post one below it, they were doping before but aren't now.
Even if that were how it worked, I venture that you'd argue that if the rider posts the same number then they were doping before and still are now.
Yes. There are upper and lower limits which are created by the passport depending on the results of each individual rider and samples taken over a period of time. This is a moveable feast but as time progresses the limits become more set.
The passport measures several different blood measures including Hct, Haemoglobin, old and new reticulocytes etc.
Here's my understanding...
Yes, the various blood parameters are relevant, but measuring absolute values of these is not necessarily appropriate. Even defining ranges is broadly worthless because there are such a wide number of factors that affect measurements within an individual - e.g. body metrics, hydration, infection, age, diet, altitude not to mention training load, race fatigue and changing physiology over time. Of course these parameters can also be impacted by medications, PEDs and blood transfusion too.
The good news for the passport is that the various blood parameters are interdependent, which means the absolute values no longer need to be considered in isolation. Instead the blood profiling can look at the complete picture to ascertain whether a change in composition over time may have potentially been achieved artificially.
The best analogy I can come up with is this... take the graphic equaliser on your crummy 1990's stereo. If the individual controls are moved collectively the sound remains broadly the same, just perhaps a little louder. Likewise, an increase in treble might be balanced out by a corresponding increase in bass. However, move one little lever at a time and the difference in sound is marked.
The doper can use different techniques to effect shifts in individual parameters, for example micro-dosing EPO in parallel with a blood transfusion. Even with a wealth of experience, this is pretty hard to measure and balance (although I accept that the likes of Ferrari seem to have developed some fairly solid protocols). The challenge is increased when the manipulation is being done nefariously and not in a lab with the benefit of real time testing. The tester only has to get lucky once to catch the imbalance. Add to that the fact that substance specific tests may also catch the cheat trying to effect any one individual shift.
Yes, you can avoid individual glow times and yes, you can maintain a uniform passport profile, but at what cost and for what gain? The analogy here is with catching benefit cheats - if you make the claiming process hard enough it soon becomes easier to get a job.
I don't know what else is taken into consideration by the passport scheme, but I imagine other variables such as the rider's race schedule may also be taken into account too (particularly during expert review).
The one further complication is that, as with everything in nature, there's no such thing as normal.
I have no issue with anything you had said, except for the fact that in the years since it was introduced a wealth of knowledge has been gleaned from how far riders can push things, and as you say the Ferraris and other doctors who get paid for knowing all about the system, know exactly what they are doing.
That's the trouble, your conclusions lack weight when your reasoning is unfounded. You appear to be working merely on the 'even a stopped clock tells the right tome twice a day' principle.
The passport closes the net a good deal... at least until mechanical cheating, or non-blood defined doping techniques are developed.
I know it does, and nothing I have said disputes that. It dramatically reduces the benefits of doping, but even a 1% benefit could mean being competitive or not at this level. With regard to the science, I'm no scientist - but there are many very highly paid experts who are. Whilst I know the basics, it's pretty obvious that it's not difficult to get away with doping with the right knowledge. The passport parameters are set to a level that, for obvious reasons, has to give leeway so as not to wrongly punish those who don't to a level of 0.1% error. Add to that the reluctance of the UCI to follow through with passport cases unless they are concrete, again for obvious reasons.
If I had a week I could put together a very solid, compelling case for what I'm saying but frankly I don't have that luxury.0 -
What, not even the fact that my explanation is at odds with your's?
Sorry for the delay, I had to board a plane. Anyway, it's worse than I thought, you have done some basic research and have come up with an interpretation that is not entirely correct.
You may have missed my post from the previous page, so I'll try again:Why would you dope at all times EXCEPT when it matters most? i.e. at a training camp or a race*?
Plus, that dip in heamatocrit would also raise the passport's eyebrow (as it were). Which is actually the most important part. Your story (and the BBC/l'Equipe shows) is predicated on a rider doping every day, in season or off season for their whole career. Now that truly WOULD be a first!
*Stage race
Because the benefits last longer than the glowtime. Again well documented.
And regarding the passport, this is set to 1/1000 chance of a wrong flag. Blood values can and do fluctuate wildly within those parameters.
Joelsim, when you have a moment please could you post a brief summary (on a haematological level if possible) of your understanding of how the bio passport works. It would help me gauge whether you know what you are talking about or not.
I suspect you believe that every rider is assigned a number. If they post a result above this number they are now doping. If they post one below it, they were doping before but aren't now.
Even if that were how it worked, I venture that you'd argue that if the rider posts the same number then they were doping before and still are now.
Yes. There are upper and lower limits which are created by the passport depending on the results of each individual rider and samples taken over a period of time. This is a moveable feast but as time progresses the limits become more set.
The passport measures several different blood measures including Hct, Haemoglobin, old and new reticulocytes etc.
Here's my understanding...
Yes, the various blood parameters are relevant, but measuring absolute values of these is not necessarily appropriate. Even defining ranges is broadly worthless because there are such a wide number of factors that affect measurements within an individual - e.g. body metrics, hydration, infection, age, diet, altitude not to mention training load, race fatigue and changing physiology over time. Of course these parameters can also be impacted by medications, PEDs and blood transfusion too.
The good news for the passport is that the various blood parameters are interdependent, which means the absolute values no longer need to be considered in isolation. Instead the blood profiling can look at the complete picture to ascertain whether a change in composition over time may have potentially been achieved artificially.
The best analogy I can come up with is this... take the graphic equaliser on your crummy 1990's stereo. If the individual controls are moved collectively the sound remains broadly the same, just perhaps a little louder. Likewise, an increase in treble might be balanced out by a corresponding increase in bass. However, move one little lever at a time and the difference in sound is marked.
The doper can use different techniques to effect shifts in individual parameters, for example micro-dosing EPO in parallel with a blood transfusion. Even with a wealth of experience, this is pretty hard to measure and balance (although I accept that the likes of Ferrari seem to have developed some fairly solid protocols). The challenge is increased when the manipulation is being done nefariously and not in a lab with the benefit of real time testing. The tester only has to get lucky once to catch the imbalance. Add to that the fact that substance specific tests may also catch the cheat trying to effect any one individual shift.
Yes, you can avoid individual glow times and yes, you can maintain a uniform passport profile, but at what cost and for what gain? The analogy here is with catching benefit cheats - if you make the claiming process hard enough it soon becomes easier to get a job.
I don't know what else is taken into consideration by the passport scheme, but I imagine other variables such as the rider's race schedule may also be taken into account too (particularly during expert review).
The one further complication is that, as with everything in nature, there's no such thing as normal.
I have no issue with anything you had said, except for the fact that in the years since it was introduced a wealth of knowledge has been gleaned from how far riders can push things, and as you say the Ferraris and other doctors who get paid for knowing all about the system, know exactly what they are doing.
That's the trouble, your conclusions lack weight when your reasoning is unfounded. You appear to be working merely on the 'even a stopped clock tells the right tome twice a day' principle.
The passport closes the net a good deal... at least until mechanical cheating, or non-blood defined doping techniques are developed.
I know it does, and nothing I have said disputes that. It dramatically reduces the benefits of doping, but even a 1% benefit could mean being competitive or not at this level. With regard to the science, I'm no scientist - but there are many very highly paid experts who are. Whilst I know the basics, it's pretty obvious that it's not difficult to get away with doping with the right knowledge. The passport parameters are set to a level that, for obvious reasons, has to give leeway so as not to wrongly punish those who don't to a level of 0.1% error.
If I had a week I could put together a very solid, compelling case for what I'm saying but frankly I don't that luxury.
I don't think it does. That's gonna be an average of about 4w at FTP or, lets be generous, 15w in a sprint which is pretty much an anaerobic effort anyway.
If we've reduced the effectiveness of dangerous and expensive doping practices to the level of swapping in ceramic bearings or turning your hoods in a bit, then I think thats cause for celebration."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Yeah ok. I was being conservative with 'even 1%...' Let's use the CIRC report figure of 3-5% then.
Blimey!0 -
Yeah ok. I was being conservative with 'even 1%...' Let's use the CIRC report figure of 3-5% then.
Blimey!
That still wouldn't bump you up particularly far on the w/kg chart. Or let's look at it a different way. If i look at Strava, I can see that Iljo Keisse rode the colle de finistere in 1:33:10 on stage 20 of this years Giro. knock 4% off that and we get 1:28:40, give or take.
Martin Tjallingi rode it in 1:03:43 or 33% quicker.
I know that one is in the bus trying to make the time cut and the other is racing, but i don't it explains a gap of that magnitude.
Can you admit that doping is not having anything like the effect on races that it used to/ That managing a situation to a point where the risks and benefits are seriously difficult to reconcile with the percieved rewards is worth praise?
For another example, we live in an age where humanity is wealthier and healthier than ever before in its history. Yes, people are still desperately poor and die needlessly of preventable causes, but some progress is better than just throwing your hands up and saying it's all awful, surely?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
[quote="Joelsim"
Let's see who is right in the fullness of time. Until then throw insults as much as you like.[/quote]
I won't insult you Joel as you're entitled to your beliefs, but the problem is that there is no circumstance where you'd admit to being wrong.
Your position is one where they've just not be caught *yet*
The brave position is to look at the evidence and say things are better, or cleaner.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
[quote="Joelsim"
Let's see who is right in the fullness of time. Until then throw insults as much as you like.
I won't insult you Joel as you're entitled to your beliefs, but the problem is that there is no circumstance where you'd admit to being wrong.
Your position is one where they've just not be caught *yet*
The brave position is to look at the evidence and say things are better, or cleaner.[/quote]
To both of the you, yes things are better. There's no disputing that.
And no I'm not going to admit to being wrong as I'm 100% sure I'm not.0 -
You might not dispute what I am saying now, but I asked you to explain your understanding of how the passport works and your response demonstrated an inadequate grasp. As a result I, for one, am going to assume the rest of your logic is sloppy too. Your conclusion could well be correct, but not because of the evidence you present.
What, not even the fact that my explanation is at odds with your's?
Sorry for the delay, I had to board a plane. Anyway, it's worse than I thought, you have done some basic research and have come up with an interpretation that is not entirely correct.
You may have missed my post from the previous page, so I'll try again:Why would you dope at all times EXCEPT when it matters most? i.e. at a training camp or a race*?
Plus, that dip in heamatocrit would also raise the passport's eyebrow (as it were). Which is actually the most important part. Your story (and the BBC/l'Equipe shows) is predicated on a rider doping every day, in season or off season for their whole career. Now that truly WOULD be a first!
*Stage race
Because the benefits last longer than the glowtime. Again well documented.
And regarding the passport, this is set to 1/1000 chance of a wrong flag. Blood values can and do fluctuate wildly within those parameters.
Joelsim, when you have a moment please could you post a brief summary (on a haematological level if possible) of your understanding of how the bio passport works. It would help me gauge whether you know what you are talking about or not.
I suspect you believe that every rider is assigned a number. If they post a result above this number they are now doping. If they post one below it, they were doping before but aren't now.
Even if that were how it worked, I venture that you'd argue that if the rider posts the same number then they were doping before and still are now.
Yes. There are upper and lower limits which are created by the passport depending on the results of each individual rider and samples taken over a period of time. This is a moveable feast but as time progresses the limits become more set.
The passport measures several different blood measures including Hct, Haemoglobin, old and new reticulocytes etc.
Here's my understanding...
Yes, the various blood parameters are relevant, but measuring absolute values of these is not necessarily appropriate. Even defining ranges is broadly worthless because there are such a wide number of factors that affect measurements within an individual - e.g. body metrics, hydration, infection, age, diet, altitude not to mention training load, race fatigue and changing physiology over time. Of course these parameters can also be impacted by medications, PEDs and blood transfusion too.
The good news for the passport is that the various blood parameters are interdependent, which means the absolute values no longer need to be considered in isolation. Instead the blood profiling can look at the complete picture to ascertain whether a change in composition over time may have potentially been achieved artificially.
The best analogy I can come up with is this... take the graphic equaliser on your crummy 1990's stereo. If the individual controls are moved collectively the sound remains broadly the same, just perhaps a little louder. Likewise, an increase in treble might be balanced out by a corresponding increase in bass. However, move one little lever at a time and the difference in sound is marked.
The doper can use different techniques to effect shifts in individual parameters, for example micro-dosing EPO in parallel with a blood transfusion. Even with a wealth of experience, this is pretty hard to measure and balance (although I accept that the likes of Ferrari seem to have developed some fairly solid protocols). The challenge is increased when the manipulation is being done nefariously and not in a lab with the benefit of real time testing. The tester only has to get lucky once to catch the imbalance. Add to that the fact that substance specific tests may also catch the cheat trying to effect any one individual shift.
Yes, you can avoid individual glow times and yes, you can maintain a uniform passport profile, but at what cost and for what gain? The analogy here is with catching benefit cheats - if you make the claiming process hard enough it soon becomes easier to get a job.
I don't know what else is taken into consideration by the passport scheme, but I imagine other variables such as the rider's race schedule may also be taken into account too (particularly during expert review).
The one further complication is that, as with everything in nature, there's no such thing as normal.
I have no issue with anything you had said, except for the fact that in the years since it was introduced a wealth of knowledge has been gleaned from how far riders can push things, and as you say the Ferraris and other doctors who get paid for knowing all about the system, know exactly what they are doing.
That's the trouble, your conclusions lack weight when your reasoning is unfounded. You appear to be working merely on the 'even a stopped clock tells the right tome twice a day' principle.
The passport closes the net a good deal... at least until mechanical cheating, or non-blood defined doping techniques are developed.
I know it does, and nothing I have said disputes that. It dramatically reduces the benefits of doping, but even a 1% benefit could mean being competitive or not at this level. With regard to the science, I'm no scientist - but there are many very highly paid experts who are. Whilst I know the basics, it's pretty obvious that it's not difficult to get away with doping with the right knowledge. The passport parameters are set to a level that, for obvious reasons, has to give leeway so as not to wrongly punish those who don't to a level of 0.1% error. Add to that the reluctance of the UCI to follow through with passport cases unless they are concrete, again for obvious reasons.
If I had a week I could put together a very solid, compelling case for what I'm saying but frankly I don't have that luxury.
(Apologies everyone else for the spam / scrolling nightmare)0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19632608#p19632608]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Yeah ok. I was being conservative with 'even 1%...' Let's use the CIRC report figure of 3-5% then.
Blimey!
That still wouldn't bump you up particularly far on the w/kg chart. Or let's look at it a different way. If i look at Strava, I can see that Iljo Keisse rode the colle de finistere in 1:33:10 on stage 20 of this years Giro. knock 4% off that and we get 1:28:40, give or take.
Martin Tjallingi rode it in 1:03:43 or 33% quicker.
I know that one is in the bus trying to make the time cut and the other is racing, but i don't it explains a gap of that magnitude.
Can you admit that doping is not having anything like the effect on races that it used to/ That managing a situation to a point where the risks and benefits are seriously difficult to reconcile with the percieved rewards is worth praise?
For another example, we live in an age where humanity is wealthier and healthier than ever before in its history. Yes, people are still desperately poor and die needlessly of preventable causes, but some progress is better than just throwing your hands up and saying it's all awful, surely?
Err, you sure about that?
Source: Climbing Records.Colle delle Finestre
2015:18,3 km@9,2%---1:02:51---average speed 17.47 km/h(Mikel Landa)
---1:03:26---average speed 17.31 km/h(Hesjedal-Uran-Aru)
---1:03:34---average speed 17.27 km/h(Ilnur Zakarin)
---1:04:22---average speed 17.06 km/h (Alberto Contador)
According to good ol' Doctor F, Landa climbed the unsurfaced, 9km section 45 seconds faster than Simoni/Di Luca/Rujano did in 2005.
Impressive stuff."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Are you calling Strava a liar?
That's just for the segment on there, there's every chance that climbing records starts its watch earlier, so to speak.
My point wasn't the time spent on the climb, it was the measurable discrepancy between the two on the same day, in the same race."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
I haven't got an inadequate grasp. I know exactly what the passport measures and how it works. But as I've said I'm not a scientist nor do I pretend to be. Frankly your responses are somewhat dismissive of those who do know the science behind it in intimate detail. Yet, you are unwilling to agree with Dick Pound, or Ferrari's ramblings, or the CIRC report, or in fact anything that suggests that anti doping isnt currently very effective. Which clearly it isn't. Take your blinkers off. What you are saying is that there's no doping going on, otherwise they'd be caught. Which is patently rubbish.0
-
I would add to that that the 2005 race climbed Sestriere before it hit the finestere, whereas the 2015 edition took a flat route to the bottom."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
I haven't got an inadequate grasp. I know exactly what the passport measures and how it works. But as I've said I'm not a scientist nor do I pretend to be. Frankly your responses are somewhat dismissive of those who do know the science behind it in intimate detail. Yet, you are unwilling to agree with Dick Pound, or Ferrari's ramblings, or the CIRC report, or in fact anything that suggests that anti doping is currently very effective. Which clearly it isn't. Take your blinkers off. What you are saying is that there's no doping going on, otherwise they'd be caught. Which is patently rubbish.
We have different definitions of "very effective" clearly.
Mine would be that doping is no longer a major factor in determining races and no longer a requirement to be a professional cyclist. Even at the very highest level.
Yours would seem to be "does not exist any more", which is wholly unrealistic.
For me, the beauty of the passport is that it doesn't focus on detecting a given substance, it focuses on demonstrating through statistical probability that your blood has been manipulated artificially and invites you to explain it."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
It comes down to a simple equation:
A rider will dope if:
P/(C * R) > M
(where M is the rider's own personal morality).
The value of all four of those variables have changed since 2004 for better, so to say that nothing has changed is just nonsense.
Should there be an additional variable.
X - the perception/knowledge that everyone else is doping.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Happy to discuss anything with anyone. I hope I presented a clear and helpful explanation of my understanding.I haven't got an inadequate grasp. I know exactly what the passport measures and how it works. But as I've said I'm not a scientist nor do I pretend to be. Frankly your responses are somewhat dismissive of those who do know the science behind it in intimate detail. Yet, you are unwilling to agree with Dick Pound, or Ferrari's ramblings, or the CIRC report, or in fact anything that suggests that anti doping isnt currently very effective. Which clearly it isn't. Take your blinkers off. What you are saying is that there's no doping going on, otherwise they'd be caught. Which is patently rubbish.
You insist on making definitive statements which you can't back up, so don't start crying when someone calls you out.0 -
Possibly. I'd lump that in with the personal morality bit. (This is just an equation I made up on the spot as an Illustration)It comes down to a simple equation:
A rider will dope if:
P/(C * R) > M
(where M is the rider's own personal morality).
The value of all four of those variables have changed since 2004 for better, so to say that nothing has changed is just nonsense.
Should there be an additional variable.
X - the perception/knowledge that everyone else is doping.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Possibly. I'd lump that in with the personal morality bit. (This is just an equation I made up on the spot as an Illustration)It comes down to a simple equation:
A rider will dope if:
P/(C * R) > M
(where M is the rider's own personal morality).
The value of all four of those variables have changed since 2004 for better, so to say that nothing has changed is just nonsense.
Should there be an additional variable.
X - the perception/knowledge that everyone else is doping.
Pah! Pseudoscience.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I think most people know Joelsim's understanding of doping is at the level of a Roger Hargreaves book. He tries to read a lot on it obviously, but where other people admit where things are technically quickly beyond them, he chooses to paint broad stroke conclusions.
You'll never get any real in-depth stuff from him on the subject that you can't scan read from the odd condensed news driven article here and there. He has a right to draw his own conclusions though.
Let's see who is right in the fullness of time. Until then throw insults as much as you like.
I'm right though, you are going on gut feeling and lots of casual interest in it, no bad thing, but I don't think you understand much of it in depth. I'm not saying I do at all by the way but nothing you ever say seems to be backed up by much and it always seems completely obvious what articles you've read and what's influenced you.
I think a lot of casual observers on doping are the same. It's fine, but there are people on here who understand things a lot lot more who are far more informed and they don't make the kind of broad sweeping claims you do.
You get called out cos people have to balance you banging the drum with the gut feeling black and white conclusions you make.0 -
