oldroadman
Veteran
- Location
- Ubique
Reforming the UCI
- Thread starter Flying_Monkey
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
It appears that in the desire to clutch onto the belief a clean rider won the TDF with GL being the obvious choice for many but how many have tested the strength of the argument.
We now have many old guard falling by the way side and acceptance of this along with LA guilt with no positive tests. Is it therefore not appropriate that we use the same modern measures of association etc as a way of determining, if only for ourselves, probability of guilt?
Leaving positive tests out what other way can GL be seen as clean or not clean?
We now have many old guard falling by the way side and acceptance of this along with LA guilt with no positive tests. Is it therefore not appropriate that we use the same modern measures of association etc as a way of determining, if only for ourselves, probability of guilt?
Leaving positive tests out what other way can GL be seen as clean or not clean?
thom
____
- Location
- The Borough
Is it April fools day in Switerland or something ?
Shadow
member
- Location
- edge of the south downs
Incroyable! You just cannot make these things up.
edit: sp.
johnr
Über Member
- Location
- Grand depart 2014 county (east)
DogTired
Über Member
- Location
- Floating on a sea of vimto.
No. LA was found guilty on a rather damning mass of evidence. Even Oakley, his most diehard of sponsors have cut his contract along with the rest of them. There are no rational arguments or promoters of arguments left. He is guilty due to the evidence and testimony. He was innocent until proven guilty and that's why only 7 days ago has his TdF wins been taken away.
Quite frankly, anyone who has read the least bit of background is aware that LA has tested positive. This is confirmed, in the public domain and accepted by the UCI.
So Greg LeMond is innocent until someone comes up with some compelling evidence to the contrary.
@dogtired I have read about all the lost sponsors like you have but also watched in amazement as they walk across the line from Athlete Armstrong to Livestrong Armstrong and we see him at events in his Nike gear, Oakley glasses etc. It doesn’t appear to have changed much to me! A stronger message would have been better surely?
I agree about LA and also that anyone caught should suffer what is set down for them.
I would also add to your post that if anyone has done any research, even a limited amount, cannot be surprised there was/is doping in Cycling as it forms part of its history and accepted as such.
I feel that you have missed the point I have made however in an attempt to defend GL innocence, but possibly also helped reinforce it as well.
With the large number of past riders, managers, etc. admitting to doping Cycling is ground down in debates which rider is next to fall and reasons why they were involved in doping, many with as little evidence as can be associated to GL.
If we are satisfied to take such an extreme stance why should anyone be left of the list of suspicion present or past including GL?
I read in forums....wow didn’t expect him,.... I knew it he rode with, ......he was in team X and they had a number of dopers etc. etc.
GL rode with Fignon! Does that mean he doped?
GL was diagnosed as anaemic does that means he doped?
GL received injections at Giro does that mean he doped?
GL has been photographed with LA, JH, SY etc. does that mean he doped?
There is an ability to make the challenge for anyone but where does it all end?
Why would any athlete want to add the pressure of trying to prove innocence whilst training and competing when a photo in a paper with someone who gets caught later or he was in the Team etc. The current rules of engagement will drive athletes away from Sport.
I agree about LA and also that anyone caught should suffer what is set down for them.
I would also add to your post that if anyone has done any research, even a limited amount, cannot be surprised there was/is doping in Cycling as it forms part of its history and accepted as such.
I feel that you have missed the point I have made however in an attempt to defend GL innocence, but possibly also helped reinforce it as well.
With the large number of past riders, managers, etc. admitting to doping Cycling is ground down in debates which rider is next to fall and reasons why they were involved in doping, many with as little evidence as can be associated to GL.
If we are satisfied to take such an extreme stance why should anyone be left of the list of suspicion present or past including GL?
I read in forums....wow didn’t expect him,.... I knew it he rode with, ......he was in team X and they had a number of dopers etc. etc.
GL rode with Fignon! Does that mean he doped?
GL was diagnosed as anaemic does that means he doped?
GL received injections at Giro does that mean he doped?
GL has been photographed with LA, JH, SY etc. does that mean he doped?
There is an ability to make the challenge for anyone but where does it all end?
Why would any athlete want to add the pressure of trying to prove innocence whilst training and competing when a photo in a paper with someone who gets caught later or he was in the Team etc. The current rules of engagement will drive athletes away from Sport.
I never realised UCI had a sense of humour!
U
User169
Guest
"The expression of the face is smiling, happy, positive, and at the same time almost amazed/surprised."
DogTired
Über Member
- Location
- Floating on a sea of vimto.
I thought it was pretty clear in post #161 that you were raising question marks regarding Greg LeMond's record of being clean and not having doped. It's not clear how the statements in #161 reconcile with an attempt to defend LeMonds innocence.
@dogtired & dellzeqq the point I am making is that the lines between guilt and innocence are now far closer than they have ever been. In Cycling we are seeing this more acutely than other Sports and only when these new approaches are applied to them shall their fan base and public opinion be tuned in to it.
In defence of WADA they have very little money compared to Sports teams and athletes and the testing regimes are basically worthless to catch dopers so they turn to any means necessary to show they remain a valid and necessary part of Sport. This has been borne from frustration and sterile performance in the role they play.
I am also willing to accept them confirming the rules are changing on Day X but being applied from now but they have not and sanction athletes based exclusively on the rules with no room to manouvre and work outside them when it suits.
Credibility is being lost unecessarily and Elite athletes are must be wondering what I am looked upon as dirty but I am clean!
@dogtired I personally do not believe any GT has been won by a non-doping rider for a very long time and well before GL. I can make as strong an argument for him as I can against him based on what we know. Do I still like him of course I do he was GREAT and I believe is more warranted for his opinion than most others and if he was willing to accept a role in the NEW Cycling era he should be given it.
In defence of WADA they have very little money compared to Sports teams and athletes and the testing regimes are basically worthless to catch dopers so they turn to any means necessary to show they remain a valid and necessary part of Sport. This has been borne from frustration and sterile performance in the role they play.
I am also willing to accept them confirming the rules are changing on Day X but being applied from now but they have not and sanction athletes based exclusively on the rules with no room to manouvre and work outside them when it suits.
Credibility is being lost unecessarily and Elite athletes are must be wondering what I am looked upon as dirty but I am clean!
@dogtired I personally do not believe any GT has been won by a non-doping rider for a very long time and well before GL. I can make as strong an argument for him as I can against him based on what we know. Do I still like him of course I do he was GREAT and I believe is more warranted for his opinion than most others and if he was willing to accept a role in the NEW Cycling era he should be given it.
But is this really true, that it's possible to make as strong an argument against as it is for? With GL, there has been no (so far as I am aware) substantiated evidence that he took performance enhancing drugs. If we limit our review for now to winners of the Tour de France, we can review the winner each year from 2012 back to 1986 (or whenever), and analyse the evidence that sits for and against them having taken PEDs. In some cases (e.g. Floyd Landis) there was actual failed tests by UCI / WADA standards; for Lance Armstrong, there were failed tests not to the required standards plus the evidence of team mates etc etc that was good enough for USADA and UCI to ban him; for Bjarne Riis, post event confessions; for Pantani, there were reams of circumstantial evidence, the high hematocrit levels, but not actual failed tests I don't think? etc. etc. etc.
For Evans, Wiggins and Sastre, no evidence exists, circumstantial or otherwise (well, perhaps Cadel met Ferrari?) which leads us to conclude they most likely didn't dope - and one can examine the evidence of performance stats, power to weigh ratios, times etc. and build a case which is stronger that they did not dope than that they did.
Big Mig is a trickier case, no evidence or even suggestion at the time, nothing even today widely reported other than his substantial performance improvement from the late 80s to the early 90s which in part led to LeMond calling it a day.
In each case we examine the facts, evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) in front of us and reach an informed conclusion on the likelihood of doping.
In GL's case, does even the performance data indicate evidence of doping? So I'm not sure it is right to say arguments can be constructed which are equal on both sides when it comes to GL. There's no real evidence of any quality, so we are left to speculate on hearsay and judge a man on his character. There is quite a lot of evidence to support the latter part though, in terms of his conduct etc. - so perhaps in fact more evidence to suggest he was not a doper.
@Buddfox thanks for your response with an excellent range of examples in criteria/riders across the whole era you mentioned and considered arguments and it appears you 'get' the point I am making.
Changing from a physical testing regime to deter/catch dopers to the multiple levels of probability to dermine guilt opens up much more areas to be considered which you have addressed. I am sure others may want to add more that have been missed.
I used GL as I feel he is so difficult to make a positive case against and many rear up when you mention this which is not the intention, if a probability argument can be made against him I feel all riders are doomed. There is no physical evidence or 3rd Party statements either that could be deemed credible, in that I am rejecting LA comments at him.
Looking at the other rider you mentioned first which I feel are great examples as they cover most of the areas I have been looking at.
Evans met with Ferrari but no long term relationship that has come to light. Is he guilty by association to a confirmed Doping Doctor?
Wiggins was a member of Cofidis a Confirmed Doping Team. Is he guilty by Association to a known Doping Team?
Sastre no known associations however he has produced some excellent climbing stats against some known EPO Dopers. Is he Guilty of suspicion by Performance Stats that deserve to be analysed in more detail to clear/convict him?
Big Mig associated with known Doping Doctor and his Performance stats were lower than GL 91 then all well above. His climbing stats for Performance are exceptional and do they deserve closer investigation to determine he is clean/guilty?
There is no physical evidence for any of them but lots of different Probability routes to review. It is no longer acceptable to say no positive tests and I feel for current athletes as they are all now guilty until proven innocent and with the vast media coverage how would a photo look if Wiggins walked through a function meeting and greeting and Ferrari/Fuentes shook his hand and smiled. Wiggo would be spending weeks making denials and that simply is not fair or just.
There is also Financial records and who pays who but that will now all be washed away with 3rd Party clean companies working as middle men, maybe not!
On GL being clean there is no positive tests, no 3rd party association claims of guilt. Bernard Tapie always spoke about him very highly and stated he was clean. I have no climbing data for his stats before 89 so i dont know if there is a comparison worth looking at for him alone and with other winners up to 88. I also only have output data for his 89 and 90 win not climbing again maybe someone has that to offer. His 89 and 90 output stats were higher than BigMig 91 but lower, I believe, than all years afterwards.
All the data I have is no more compelling than Wiggins or Evans through the route of Association and we have a positive clean comment from Tapie. His days with Hinualt Team have been considered as a clean Team and no evidence suggests otherwise.
To make an inverse argument against GL takes a lot more consideration and construction and a different Probability approach than we have done with the others mainly due to the large field of Doping targets to latch a Probability factor onto. There is also the change in Doping culture which may or may not have it's timeline correct!
GL rode with Fignon who was a confirmed Doper so he has a link by Association to a Doping Rider.oes that mean he doped?
GL was diagnosed as Anaemic however the source of the diagnosis is in doubt who made the call. The issue for an athlete in these days is Anaemia was associated with Blood Doping through removal and storage of Blood reducing an athletes iron count. If it wasn't the Doctor who made the call from Blood data it is more suspicious than not. There is however no Blood Data from that time to either make the call of suspicion but the question of how the diagnosis was made is relevant. He received Iron Injections as result of the diagnosis.
GL received injections at a time he was suffering and these changed not just his season but his career at that time. iron in itself is not an issue dependant on the reasons for it's application however this period in Sports history had already seen the rise of EPO. I appreciate EPO is associated with ()'s which is correct but 86 to 89 seen EPO deaths from use in Europe in Cycling and Skiing and Skiing recognised it had become a problem in their Sport and banned it in 88. If you consider FDA did not clinically approve it until 89 it was quite available on the Black market in Europe. The relationship between Iron and EPO is simple as you require Iron as an essential part of the EPO solution. The most common view is EPO became part of the Peloton in the 90's however it was used to excess in Skiing and Cycling at times before this with the recorded deaths I assume mainly due to misuse and lack of understanding. Did the Iron Injections being advised form part of EPO or not?
The EPO comments will get I am sure, from some, the derisory rubbish/nonsense comment but hopefully it shall be looked at closer and some conjecture that if 1 less affluent Sport had banned it in 88 where else was it being used? Cycling?
I added the being photographed with LA etc as a joke to see who bit on what.
Sorry for the long post but I hope that you find, whether you agree or not, that I have somewhat issued what I said I would in a reasoned way which I hope stimulates debate although I am sure to hear from the same crowd to dismiss it and offer no critique or cogent assessment.
My Conclusion? Cycling has been a part of my life for years and I have little faith in it for non-doping GT winners and that would include GL however if I can say something to contradict that point of view is that whilst I feel a valid argument is available for any rider GL is the one I would much prefer to make a considered argument as not doping for. I do not however share the perceived timeline of EPO into Cycling and it may have been done with or without rider's knowledge.
Changing from a physical testing regime to deter/catch dopers to the multiple levels of probability to dermine guilt opens up much more areas to be considered which you have addressed. I am sure others may want to add more that have been missed.
I used GL as I feel he is so difficult to make a positive case against and many rear up when you mention this which is not the intention, if a probability argument can be made against him I feel all riders are doomed. There is no physical evidence or 3rd Party statements either that could be deemed credible, in that I am rejecting LA comments at him.
Looking at the other rider you mentioned first which I feel are great examples as they cover most of the areas I have been looking at.
Evans met with Ferrari but no long term relationship that has come to light. Is he guilty by association to a confirmed Doping Doctor?
Wiggins was a member of Cofidis a Confirmed Doping Team. Is he guilty by Association to a known Doping Team?
Sastre no known associations however he has produced some excellent climbing stats against some known EPO Dopers. Is he Guilty of suspicion by Performance Stats that deserve to be analysed in more detail to clear/convict him?
Big Mig associated with known Doping Doctor and his Performance stats were lower than GL 91 then all well above. His climbing stats for Performance are exceptional and do they deserve closer investigation to determine he is clean/guilty?
There is no physical evidence for any of them but lots of different Probability routes to review. It is no longer acceptable to say no positive tests and I feel for current athletes as they are all now guilty until proven innocent and with the vast media coverage how would a photo look if Wiggins walked through a function meeting and greeting and Ferrari/Fuentes shook his hand and smiled. Wiggo would be spending weeks making denials and that simply is not fair or just.
There is also Financial records and who pays who but that will now all be washed away with 3rd Party clean companies working as middle men, maybe not!
On GL being clean there is no positive tests, no 3rd party association claims of guilt. Bernard Tapie always spoke about him very highly and stated he was clean. I have no climbing data for his stats before 89 so i dont know if there is a comparison worth looking at for him alone and with other winners up to 88. I also only have output data for his 89 and 90 win not climbing again maybe someone has that to offer. His 89 and 90 output stats were higher than BigMig 91 but lower, I believe, than all years afterwards.
All the data I have is no more compelling than Wiggins or Evans through the route of Association and we have a positive clean comment from Tapie. His days with Hinualt Team have been considered as a clean Team and no evidence suggests otherwise.
To make an inverse argument against GL takes a lot more consideration and construction and a different Probability approach than we have done with the others mainly due to the large field of Doping targets to latch a Probability factor onto. There is also the change in Doping culture which may or may not have it's timeline correct!
GL rode with Fignon who was a confirmed Doper so he has a link by Association to a Doping Rider.oes that mean he doped?
GL was diagnosed as Anaemic however the source of the diagnosis is in doubt who made the call. The issue for an athlete in these days is Anaemia was associated with Blood Doping through removal and storage of Blood reducing an athletes iron count. If it wasn't the Doctor who made the call from Blood data it is more suspicious than not. There is however no Blood Data from that time to either make the call of suspicion but the question of how the diagnosis was made is relevant. He received Iron Injections as result of the diagnosis.
GL received injections at a time he was suffering and these changed not just his season but his career at that time. iron in itself is not an issue dependant on the reasons for it's application however this period in Sports history had already seen the rise of EPO. I appreciate EPO is associated with ()'s which is correct but 86 to 89 seen EPO deaths from use in Europe in Cycling and Skiing and Skiing recognised it had become a problem in their Sport and banned it in 88. If you consider FDA did not clinically approve it until 89 it was quite available on the Black market in Europe. The relationship between Iron and EPO is simple as you require Iron as an essential part of the EPO solution. The most common view is EPO became part of the Peloton in the 90's however it was used to excess in Skiing and Cycling at times before this with the recorded deaths I assume mainly due to misuse and lack of understanding. Did the Iron Injections being advised form part of EPO or not?
The EPO comments will get I am sure, from some, the derisory rubbish/nonsense comment but hopefully it shall be looked at closer and some conjecture that if 1 less affluent Sport had banned it in 88 where else was it being used? Cycling?
I added the being photographed with LA etc as a joke to see who bit on what.
Sorry for the long post but I hope that you find, whether you agree or not, that I have somewhat issued what I said I would in a reasoned way which I hope stimulates debate although I am sure to hear from the same crowd to dismiss it and offer no critique or cogent assessment.
My Conclusion? Cycling has been a part of my life for years and I have little faith in it for non-doping GT winners and that would include GL however if I can say something to contradict that point of view is that whilst I feel a valid argument is available for any rider GL is the one I would much prefer to make a considered argument as not doping for. I do not however share the perceived timeline of EPO into Cycling and it may have been done with or without rider's knowledge.
