So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005
80 watchers
Sep 2018
2:56pm, 5 Sep 2018
26,814 posts
|
Derby Tup
Perfectly logical for me: cyclists like all sportsmen have cheated since time immemorial. I presume you think Mo Farah is clean too?
|
Sep 2018
3:09pm, 5 Sep 2018
5,510 posts
|
larkim
LOL. Indeed I do! If you can point me towards a positive test for him, I'll change my view. I've no problem with a culture of suspicion to a degree (I'd prefer we didn't have that culture, but the last 15 years history of doping leave no option really), but beyond "he wins a lot therefore he must be a cheat" or "Kara Goucher says Al Sal was up to no good" (a claim now nearly 3 years old with no substance it appears behind it) I fail to see how someone who typically won races by under 1s in times slower than was run in the Diamond League last week and times considerably slower than some worshipped greats of the past such as Bekele and Haile becomes a likely doper when the likelihood is that the testing and intelligence around him is probably higher than for any other distance athlete in running. |
|
Sep 2018
3:14pm, 5 Sep 2018
26,815 posts
|
Derby Tup
And the moon is made of blue cheese because no-one has proved otherwise 
|
|
Sep 2018
3:25pm, 5 Sep 2018
5,511 posts
|
larkim
Yebbut, for all athletes of all abilities with no doping conviction against them, no-one has proved them clean either. I don't see how you can logically conclude that, say, Farah is dirty but Pavey is not, Froome is dirty but Stannard is not, etc etc I think its a logical fallacy to assume that every champion is a cheat because you believe that doping is rife. It fundamentally ignores variability in athletic ability and training approaches and assumes that anyone that dopes *must* be the best athlete out there such that they are unbeatable without doping. I've no doubt whatsoever that in a World Champs 10,000m final on the track there are runners who have doped in the recent past. But unless any of them test positive I have no way of deducing that they are a doper from the results they achieve. Someone with 95% of the talent / training of Farah could dope and achieve 98% of what Farah could achieve and still finish 10th to Farah's 1st. |
Sep 2018
4:06pm, 5 Sep 2018
6,410 posts
|
paul the builder
I don't think DT's position is a logical fallacy. I think it requires only one (slightly) arguable pillar (amongst a bunch of other unarguable ones) to support it: that PED testing is woeful, and therefore it's relatively easy to avoid getting caught. Once you believe that, then add in the size of the rewards, human nature, the easy/cheap availability of different methods of PED, the fact that some institutions (sponsors, governing bodies, even governments) have a vested interest in 'success' - then it becomes a highly logical position to take. Across all professional sport. |
Sep 2018
4:16pm, 5 Sep 2018
13,218 posts
|
Chrisull
8 out of 10, lets be clear was not based on random speculation. It was based on passport values before they properly nailed down what was a fail, what wasn't. Here's what the UCI said "It is based on the rider’s biological passport and the final blood tests they underwent before the Grand Depart in Rotterdam. Each rider is given a score of between zero and ten. According to L’Equipe, the large majority of riders received scores of four or less but a score of from six to ten apparently indicated that the possibility of doping was "overwhelming". Some of the riders located to the top of list have already been singled out by the biological passport and evaluated by the panel of nine experts, even if no procedure was opened." “The UCI’s Anti-Doping Service then draws up a “testing plan” on the basis of the results of these tests and the athletes’ biological passports. This testing plan defines the priorities, frequency and features of the tests to be performed during the race,” the UCI statement reads. It was on a similar footing to being caught speeding, but the camera ran out of film, so being let off. If it was groundless speculation, I agree, innocent til proven guilty. However to me it is clear that this was a dry run for biological passports, and just didn't have the legal teeth to back it up. |
|
Sep 2018
4:22pm, 5 Sep 2018
13,219 posts
|
Chrisull
Clarification: "a dry run for passports being used as a sole means of conviction" Here's the first case where it was used successfully. A year after the UCI list. nytimes.com Who did it convict. Pellizotti... the same one in the breakaway on today's Vuelta... and finishing 3rd. I'm not suggesting he's not clean now, he served his 2 years by 2013 and was kicked off his team. But I'm surprised at the amount of leeway that riders are currently being given here. I don't necessarily think Froome is a doper. BUT for me the likelihood is that he is. |
|
Sep 2018
4:43pm, 5 Sep 2018
5,512 posts
|
larkim
Just to correct, the UCI quote is only the second para of what you quoted, the first is Cycling News text from here cyclingnews.com Look, I'm in no position to offer proper knowledge about what does or doesn't go on in the pro peloton, or whether it is easy or hard to evade doping tests. My reading of the testing arrangements aren't that they are woeful and relatively easy to avoid getting caught, but I appreciate that that is broadly the narrative which press reports accentuate. I do have some naive faith in the bodies which are interested in testing, whether that is UCI, WADA, IAAF, UKAD, USADA etc and I know that that naive faith isn't shared widely! Testing, so long as we cannot trust riders / athletes to be holier than thou (and whilst there is fame, money and other rewards around, that will never be the case) will probably never be resourced to the levels that would ensure that all doping will be caught. There will be technical deficiencies, advances in doping techniques etc which will continue the cycle of doping being ahead of the enforcement bodies. If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on doping being more rife in the second tier of all sports - the domestiques in the peloton, the runners for whom their major achievement is just making a world championship final or national squad. These are probably the individuals who think "with just a little bit more I could be as good as XYX champion". Once they're at the top, winning and as a consequence being tested more frequently, they are far more likely to be caught simply because testing frequency is that much higher. A peloton rider could quite happily take amphetamines throughout the TdF and come out the other end without being tested. Froome couldn't do that, and none of the guys who expect to wear yellow or win stages could do that. For me sport becomes unwatchable if you think that it is more likely than not that the victors are cheats. I just can't approach sport that way. |
|
Sep 2018
11:17am, 6 Sep 2018
13,220 posts
|
Chrisull
I have to disagree larks. Anquetil, self confessed drugs cheat. Merckx failed two drugs tests. Thevenet admitted cortisone abuse for his 1975 and 1977 wins. Hinault refused to give a sample in 1982. Entire US team blood doped in the 1984 Olympics. Delgado failed drugs test in 1988. Fignon failed a test in 1989. These are just the winners for the up to the EPO era! (for more see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling). It's part of the sport unfortunately and the folklore. |
|
Sep 2018
11:18am, 6 Sep 2018
13,221 posts
|
Chrisull
And today's interesting graphic. Sioutsou's list of tests. twitter.com I sincerely hope this is wrong, because according to this he wasn't tested when riding for Sky!!!! |
Related Threads
-
Cheating in amateur sports
Apr 2017
-
Are you doping? Do you know someone who is?
Mar 2017
-
Tour De France
Aug 2020
-
Le Tour 2016
Jul 2016
-
Tour de France 2016
Jun 2016
-
T\'Tour in otley
Apr 2016
-
Le Tour 2015
Aug 2015
-
Le Tour 2014
Jun 2015
-
Tour of Britain
Jan 2015
-
Womens Tour Of Britain
May 2014
