Cycling

[imtommygunn]

Endurance sports lend themselves to massive gains from performance enhancing drugs though whereas with football / tennis and the like they will obviously be very beneficial but their gains will be marginal relatively speaking.

The same can be said about running too which with recent Salazar scandals has it's own problems and is most likely rife.

[guy crouchback]

that's true to a point, but sprinters also take performance enhancing drugs and in football, for example the difference between a professional contract and the scrap heap is more often then not speed. drugs have plagued baseball where  drugs are taken to improve reaction times.

it just depends on the drugs you are talking about and testing for. the main reason we all know so much about EPO and the other ''endurance'' drugs is because of the cycling  scandals. 

[imtommygunn]

The current 100 metre scene is getting a bit mad too with Gatlin so dominant. Power too I guess.

I would say it exists in football etc too but you don't gain as much.

[Clov]

Does it not bother you that Froome's times are better than Armstrong's?

Obvious as hell's on the juice, just follow these two on twitter..

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport
f**k the hypocrisy ‏@Digger_forum

Are they?

The time it takes someone to go up a climb relative to historical comparisons with confirmed dopers tells you very little as there are so many factors than are not controlled for across the comparisons. The technology, tire pressure differences, atmospheric conditions, headwinds, length of stage, position of stage within the overall tour etc. The idea that you can extrapolate from the minimal data available to the public a confident judgement about whether someone is doping or not is foolish.

Ross Tucker strikes me as a snake-oil salesman with a bee in his bonnet.

The other source you cite is a parody account.

The times are comparative studies not one stage.

What do you know about Ross Tucker, and Digger Forum is far from a parody account.

You are pretty naive so. Buying marginal gains BS. This is just Lance revisited.

Ok, well in that case may be you could educate me. What would a set physiological data that are indicative of doping look like? What is the power to weight ratio or the total power output for a given ride that would be diagnostic? Or to put it the other way round, what are the physiological limits beyond which it is not possible (even for an historically great athlete) to excel cleanly?

https://m.soundcloud.com/offtheball/ross-tucker-on-chris-fromme

You sound like a fan boy interview with Tucker on the link above argues the case pretty well.

Listen, I asked a genuine question because i'd genuinely like to know the answer - can we diagnose doping from the performance data? I have no preconceived notion of what the answer to that question is. I'm a fan of cycling and i would like to know if what we are watching now can be trusted. Like everyone who has watched the sport, I have been duped before and i have absolutely no desire to be duped again. If that makes me a 'fan-boy' then so be it.

Now I'm not a physiologist so i won't pretend that i can interpret the data. However, we can ask whether there is a scientific consensus about what the behavioural/physiological markers of doping would be. Say a set of criteria agreed upon by experts in the field which would give us a high degree of confidence that doping had taken place. Does such an objective set of criteria exist? Well, from the link you posted and from what i have read around the area, it is hard to say that there is. Instead we have the opinion of one physiologist. Not ideal but better than nothing. So what is his take of the data from the Ventoux climb that has been placed into the public domain? Well in his words, its high, but then, as he says, you would expect it to be high because this is the worlds best cyclist at that time. He also says it doesn't prove that he was doping and it doesn't prove that he wasn't doping. Its not implausible but it is at the upper limit of what he would expect.

What we want this data to tell us is whether Froome is doping or not. In Ross Tucker's opinion does it tell us that? No. Moreover we might ask whether data like this could possible tell us if an individual rider is clean or doped? Well this article would suggest probably not http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/can-performance-be-used-as-an-indicator-of-doping/

In reality the only person that knows whether Chris Froome is doping or not is Chris Froome. Ross Tucker doesn't know, i don't know and you don't know - for how could we? You might say that makes me credulous and niave, I'd say that that is rational interpretation of the available evidence. Now if you want to be highly skeptical about cycling today because of what has gone on before i have no problem with that whatsoever. But lets not kid ourselves that it is because you know something that the rest of us don't.

[guy crouchback]

Does it not bother you that Froome's times are better than Armstrong's?

Obvious as hell's on the juice, just follow these two on twitter..

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport
f**k the hypocrisy ‏@Digger_forum

Are they?

The time it takes someone to go up a climb relative to historical comparisons with confirmed dopers tells you very little as there are so many factors than are not controlled for across the comparisons. The technology, tire pressure differences, atmospheric conditions, headwinds, length of stage, position of stage within the overall tour etc. The idea that you can extrapolate from the minimal data available to the public a confident judgement about whether someone is doping or not is foolish.

Ross Tucker strikes me as a snake-oil salesman with a bee in his bonnet.

The other source you cite is a parody account.

The times are comparative studies not one stage.

What do you know about Ross Tucker, and Digger Forum is far from a parody account.

You are pretty naive so. Buying marginal gains BS. This is just Lance revisited.

Ok, well in that case may be you could educate me. What would a set physiological data that are indicative of doping look like? What is the power to weight ratio or the total power output for a given ride that would be diagnostic? Or to put it the other way round, what are the physiological limits beyond which it is not possible (even for an historically great athlete) to excel cleanly?

https://m.soundcloud.com/offtheball/ross-tucker-on-chris-fromme

You sound like a fan boy interview with Tucker on the link above argues the case pretty well.

Listen, I asked a genuine question because i'd genuinely like to know the answer - can we diagnose doping from the performance data? I have no preconceived notion of what the answer to that question is. I'm a fan of cycling and i would like to know if what we are watching now can be trusted. Like everyone who has watched the sport, I have been duped before and i have absolutely no desire to be duped again. If that makes me a 'fan-boy' then so be it.

Now I'm not a physiologist so i won't pretend that i can interpret the data. However, we can ask whether there is a scientific consensus about what the behavioural/physiological markers of doping would be. Say a set of criteria agreed upon by experts in the field which would give us a high degree of confidence that doping had taken place. Does such an objective set of criteria exist? Well, from the link you posted and from what i have read around the area, it is hard to say that there is. Instead we have the opinion of one physiologist. Not ideal but better than nothing. So what is his take of the data from the Ventoux climb that has been placed into the public domain? Well in his words, its high, but then, as he says, you would expect it to be high because this is the worlds best cyclist at that time. He also says it doesn't prove that he was doping and it doesn't prove that he wasn't doping. Its not implausible but it is at the upper limit of what he would expect.

What we want this data to tell us is whether Froome is doping or not. In Ross Tucker's opinion does it tell us that? No. Moreover we might ask whether data like this could possible tell us if an individual rider is clean or doped? Well this article would suggest probably not http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/can-performance-be-used-as-an-indicator-of-doping/

In reality the only person that knows whether Chris Froome is doping or not is Chris Froome. Ross Tucker doesn't know, i don't know and you don't know - for how could we? You might say that makes me credulous and niave, I'd say that that is rational interpretation of the available evidence. Now if you want to be highly skeptical about cycling today because of what has gone on before i have no problem with that whatsoever. But lets not kid ourselves that it is because you know something that the rest of us don't.
[/quote

if he is doping he is not doing it on his own, he has some very smart people working with him. not only that but i would suggest that if he is at it so are at lease some of his team mates, for  me the most extraordinary performance the other day wasn't froome it was geraint thomas.  but this is why i honestly think that are not doping. because if they are its so wholesale and so sophisticated that the whole team are little more then a pharmaceutical operation. i just cant accept that this could be the case.

[yellowcard]

Does it not bother you that Froome's times are better than Armstrong's?

Obvious as hell's on the juice, just follow these two on twitter..

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport
f**k the hypocrisy ‏@Digger_forum

Are they?

The time it takes someone to go up a climb relative to historical comparisons with confirmed dopers tells you very little as there are so many factors than are not controlled for across the comparisons. The technology, tire pressure differences, atmospheric conditions, headwinds, length of stage, position of stage within the overall tour etc. The idea that you can extrapolate from the minimal data available to the public a confident judgement about whether someone is doping or not is foolish.

Ross Tucker strikes me as a snake-oil salesman with a bee in his bonnet.

The other source you cite is a parody account.

The times are comparative studies not one stage.

What do you know about Ross Tucker, and Digger Forum is far from a parody account.

You are pretty naive so. Buying marginal gains BS. This is just Lance revisited.

Ok, well in that case may be you could educate me. What would a set physiological data that are indicative of doping look like? What is the power to weight ratio or the total power output for a given ride that would be diagnostic? Or to put it the other way round, what are the physiological limits beyond which it is not possible (even for an historically great athlete) to excel cleanly?

https://m.soundcloud.com/offtheball/ross-tucker-on-chris-fromme

You sound like a fan boy interview with Tucker on the link above argues the case pretty well.

Listen, I asked a genuine question because i'd genuinely like to know the answer - can we diagnose doping from the performance data? I have no preconceived notion of what the answer to that question is. I'm a fan of cycling and i would like to know if what we are watching now can be trusted. Like everyone who has watched the sport, I have been duped before and i have absolutely no desire to be duped again. If that makes me a 'fan-boy' then so be it.

Now I'm not a physiologist so i won't pretend that i can interpret the data. However, we can ask whether there is a scientific consensus about what the behavioural/physiological markers of doping would be. Say a set of criteria agreed upon by experts in the field which would give us a high degree of confidence that doping had taken place. Does such an objective set of criteria exist? Well, from the link you posted and from what i have read around the area, it is hard to say that there is. Instead we have the opinion of one physiologist. Not ideal but better than nothing. So what is his take of the data from the Ventoux climb that has been placed into the public domain? Well in his words, its high, but then, as he says, you would expect it to be high because this is the worlds best cyclist at that time. He also says it doesn't prove that he was doping and it doesn't prove that he wasn't doping. Its not implausible but it is at the upper limit of what he would expect.

What we want this data to tell us is whether Froome is doping or not. In Ross Tucker's opinion does it tell us that? No. Moreover we might ask whether data like this could possible tell us if an individual rider is clean or doped? Well this article would suggest probably not http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/can-performance-be-used-as-an-indicator-of-doping/

In reality the only person that knows whether Chris Froome is doping or not is Chris Froome. Ross Tucker doesn't know, i don't know and you don't know - for how could we? You might say that makes me credulous and niave, I'd say that that is rational interpretation of the available evidence. Now if you want to be highly skeptical about cycling today because of what has gone on before i have no problem with that whatsoever. But lets not kid ourselves that it is because you know something that the rest of us don't.
[/quote

if he is doping he is not doing it on his own, he has some very smart people working with him. not only that but i would suggest that if he is at it so are at lease some of his team mates, for  me the most extraordinary performance the other day wasn't froome it was geraint thomas.  but this is why i honestly think that are not doping. because if they are its so wholesale and so sophisticated that the whole team are little more then a pharmaceutical operation. i just cant accept that this could be the case.

Your correct when you say that if he is doping there has to be medical assistance coming from somewhere. Its highly unlikely that Froome is doping unaided with no medical guidance.

Your also correct in saying that Thomas' performance on Tuesday was a bigger surprise given that he is not known for his climbing ability. However that is only because we are used to seeing Froome at this level for about 4 years now. Froome's transformation in 2011 was remarkable as he had shown no aptitude previously for even remotely challenging in grand tours. Thomas had at least always shown talent as a cyclist albeit as a classics rider.

[yellowcard]

Does it not bother you that Froome's times are better than Armstrong's?

Obvious as hell's on the juice, just follow these two on twitter..

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport
f**k the hypocrisy ‏@Digger_forum

Are they?

The time it takes someone to go up a climb relative to historical comparisons with confirmed dopers tells you very little as there are so many factors than are not controlled for across the comparisons. The technology, tire pressure differences, atmospheric conditions, headwinds, length of stage, position of stage within the overall tour etc. The idea that you can extrapolate from the minimal data available to the public a confident judgement about whether someone is doping or not is foolish.

Ross Tucker strikes me as a snake-oil salesman with a bee in his bonnet.

The other source you cite is a parody account.

The times are comparative studies not one stage.

What do you know about Ross Tucker, and Digger Forum is far from a parody account.

You are pretty naive so. Buying marginal gains BS. This is just Lance revisited.

Ok, well in that case may be you could educate me. What would a set physiological data that are indicative of doping look like? What is the power to weight ratio or the total power output for a given ride that would be diagnostic? Or to put it the other way round, what are the physiological limits beyond which it is not possible (even for an historically great athlete) to excel cleanly?

https://m.soundcloud.com/offtheball/ross-tucker-on-chris-fromme

You sound like a fan boy interview with Tucker on the link above argues the case pretty well.

Listen, I asked a genuine question because i'd genuinely like to know the answer - can we diagnose doping from the performance data? I have no preconceived notion of what the answer to that question is. I'm a fan of cycling and i would like to know if what we are watching now can be trusted. Like everyone who has watched the sport, I have been duped before and i have absolutely no desire to be duped again. If that makes me a 'fan-boy' then so be it.

Now I'm not a physiologist so i won't pretend that i can interpret the data. However, we can ask whether there is a scientific consensus about what the behavioural/physiological markers of doping would be. Say a set of criteria agreed upon by experts in the field which would give us a high degree of confidence that doping had taken place. Does such an objective set of criteria exist? Well, from the link you posted and from what i have read around the area, it is hard to say that there is. Instead we have the opinion of one physiologist. Not ideal but better than nothing. So what is his take of the data from the Ventoux climb that has been placed into the public domain? Well in his words, its high, but then, as he says, you would expect it to be high because this is the worlds best cyclist at that time. He also says it doesn't prove that he was doping and it doesn't prove that he wasn't doping. Its not implausible but it is at the upper limit of what he would expect.

What we want this data to tell us is whether Froome is doping or not. In Ross Tucker's opinion does it tell us that? No. Moreover we might ask whether data like this could possible tell us if an individual rider is clean or doped? Well this article would suggest probably not http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/can-performance-be-used-as-an-indicator-of-doping/

In reality the only person that knows whether Chris Froome is doping or not is Chris Froome. Ross Tucker doesn't know, i don't know and you don't know - for how could we? You might say that makes me credulous and niave, I'd say that that is rational interpretation of the available evidence. Now if you want to be highly skeptical about cycling today because of what has gone on before i have no problem with that whatsoever. But lets not kid ourselves that it is because you know something that the rest of us don't.

Michelle Smith's performances in the pool were also not implausible. Taken in isolation Froome's performance wasn't beyond human capabilities. However given the massive spike in his performance in 2011 you would need to have blindfolds on not to be asking questions as its the plausability. As Tucker says himself the power data is only one pixel and all of the other factors have to taken into account when forming an opinion on whether a rider is doping or not.

[bennydorano]

Spike? Most people would refer to it as his breakthrough year! You are well aware of the Bilharza episode, you choose not to believe it? The motorbike episode in the Giro you continually refer to also has an innocent explanation you presumably are aware of yet choose not to believe? Both of us have access to the same info yet draw differing conclusions. I still get a vibe from posters who think he's a doper that those who hold a different opinion are fucktards, yet in reality there is zero evidence of anything untoward.

I see Froome is to subject himself to physiological testing to try & placate the doubters.

[gallsman]

Spike? Most people would refer to it as his breakthrough year! You are well aware of the Bilharza episode, you choose not to believe it? The motorbike episode in the Giro you continually refer to also has an innocent explanation you presumably are aware of yet choose not to believe? Both of us have access to the same info yet draw differing conclusions. I still get a vibe from posters who think he's a doper that those who hold a different opinion are fucktards, yet in reality there is zero evidence of anything untoward.

I see Froome is to subject himself to physiological testing to try & placate the doubters.

That may be true Benny but at the same time you've insinuated that anyone who doesn't buy Froome doesn't understand cycling, which also isn't true.

Fair play to Froome for offering himself up for further testing, but it's also worth remembering that Lance never failed a test.

[bennydorano]

I apologise if that's how it appears as it's not my intention.

[yellowcard]

Spike? Most people would refer to it as his breakthrough year! You are well aware of the Bilharza episode, you choose not to believe it? The motorbike episode in the Giro you continually refer to also has an innocent explanation you presumably are aware of yet choose not to believe? Both of us have access to the same info yet draw differing conclusions. I still get a vibe from posters who think he's a doper that those who hold a different opinion are fucktards, yet in reality there is zero evidence of anything untoward.

I see Froome is to subject himself to physiological testing to try & placate the doubters.

Really? I would expect to see a natural progression upwards not one where he transformed himself from being a domestique without a team, to a Grand Tour champion and one of the best clean cyclists of all time (if you take your viewpoint). It wasn't a breakthrough it was a complete transformation.

Your right Benny, no hard evidence just circumstantial evidence. Its the complete lack of transparency by sky that grates with me the most. If they didn't try and portray themself as whiter than white then maybe they wouldn't annoy me as much.  They have led a concerted PR campaign with the might of the establishment and Murdoch media empire behind them. Personally I don't buy it at all. Personally I also don't think your a fucktard (your words) either, your entitled to your opinion but I get the impression that it would take Froome to get busted before you'd stop believing. I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me but I have my own opinions and its based on nothing more than the cumulation of evidence and the opinions of those who are detached from the gravy train, are proper investigative journalists and who know the sport.

[yellowcard]

Do you think this is Thomas' 'breakthrough year' into a GC contender at age 29? Pulling the yellow jersey group up the top of a mountain and chasing down a specialist climber like Quintana who he is 2 stone heavier than when he is widely known as a classics rider. Not as big a transformation as Froome was 4 years ago but the next thing is Thomas will be competing for the other Grand Tours as well.

[bennydorano]

Thomas is/was naturally talented enough to be anything, if he lost a stone he could be a genuine GC man imo, his infatuation with the track up until recently have prob stopped the development years needed, he doesn't strike me as overly interested in GC, but I think he could win a Vuelta if he changed focus from the classics (Kelly showed both can be done anyway).

He chased down Quintana for 50ms today as is the job of a super domestique

[yellowcard]

Thomas is/was naturally talented enough to be anything, if he lost a stone he could be a genuine GC man imo, his infatuation with the track up until recently have prob stopped the development years needed, he doesn't strike me as overly interested in GC, but I think he could win a Vuelta if he changed focus from the classics (Kelly showed both can be done anyway).

He chased down Quintana for 50ms today as is the job of a super domestique

Totally differrent disciplines, Thomas has more talent than Froome ever had but couldn't climb (actually pulling them for long periods) HC mountains with the top riders sporadically never mind doing 3 consecutive days. Maybe Usain Bolt could win a 1,500m as well!

[yellowcard]

Michael Rasmussen ‏@MRasmussen1974 2h2 hours ago

Track rider @GeraintThomas86 bringing back colombian climber @NairoQuinCo !