Drugs. A good thing for Le Tour 2012?

[Cudzoziemiec]

If such techniques had been around in the 80s do you think East Germany would not have used them?

I'm sure they would - hence the mention of China, who are now (allegedly) comparable to the DDR of the 80s in their approach to sport.

The problem is that the returns of such a program are by no means guaranteed as there are too many variables - is it possible to breed a person to want to compete? Like I said, Brave New World.

d.

I think it probably will be possible at some point as we discover links between genes and psychology, but not till long after the phsyical links are known. Right now, a Bond villain cyborg lab is less unlikely!

[citoyen]

As I said, I believe Brailsford but thousands won't...

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx

[citoyen]

So Kimmage has a chip on his shoulder about the fact that Wiggins doesn't like him, and chooses to make snarky comments about Sky to get his own back. Not really a story.

Yup, that's the long and the short of it. There are plenty of plausible reasons why Wiggins might not have wanted Kimmage following him around, not least of which is that he's an annoying little shit (albeit one whose crusading anti-doping journalism is admirable).

There are valid questions about how much Brailsford really knows about the shady past of some of the people he employs, but even if he knows more than he lets on, that's far from being proof that any of those people are [still] involved in doping now they're at Sky.

d.

[TimC]

As I said, I believe Brailsford but thousands won't...

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx

Paul Kimmage is an annoying git, but the sport needs him and people like him to ask the inconvenient questions. My personal feeling, like many, is that Sky, and Bradley in particular, are clean - but that they have relaxed on their commitment to transparency and accountability, and that is a tragedy for those of us who want to believe in them. It feels like it has become too difficult to live up to those high ideals. That doesn't mean they're doping, but that to constantly open everything to inspection and have all your decisions subject to interrogation has become unsupportable for them, and so they've closed up somewhat.

Bradley's outburst the other day was totally understandable (and quite endearing, in a way!), given the pressure he's under and the constant suspicious sniping, but it's not up to the snipers to prove their suspicions; it's for Bradley and his team to prove they are clean. It's not justice, but it's the way it has to be. It's not enough for us to *think* they're clean; they gave various commitments about the way they would do business that would assuage and hopefully eliminate our doubts. They haven't entirely lived up to those commitments, and they need to redress that.

[citoyen]

It feels like it has become too difficult to live up to those high ideals. That doesn't mean they're doping, but that to constantly open everything to inspection and have all your decisions subject to interrogation has become unsupportable for them, and so they've closed up somewhat.

Almost inevitable when idealistic outsiders get involved in the sport...

Look at Garmin on the other hand - they're all people with a background in road cycling. They always knew they would have to take a more pragmatic stance.

d.

[mattc]

It's not enough for us to *think* they're clean;

That's all SKY want.

If they can win* stuff, and most people *think* they're clean, the money was well spent.

I suspect that's what the business model says (if it's honest) in the Executive Summary bit.


*EDIT: I assumed it went without saying that they need to avoid being caught cheating!

[TimC]

It feels like it has become too difficult to live up to those high ideals. That doesn't mean they're doping, but that to constantly open everything to inspection and have all your decisions subject to interrogation has become unsupportable for them, and so they've closed up somewhat.

Almost inevitable when idealistic outsiders get involved in the sport...

Look at Garmin on the other hand - they're all people with a background in road cycling. They always knew they would have to take a more pragmatic stance.

d.

I think you're probably right, but Brailsford needs to explain why things have changed slightly, and emphasise that Sky's commitment to clean racing is as strong as ever and show how he intends to ensure that.

[TimC]

It's not enough for us to *think* they're clean;

That's all SKY want.

If they can win stuff, and most people *think* they're clean, the money was well spent.

I suspect that's what the business model says (if it's honest) in the Executive Summary bit.

I think the risks to Sky's brand if they're found to be cheating are too big to allow that to be a possibility. Therefore they have to try harder.

[Hillbilly]

a team who seem able to ride at tempo uphill for ages, and get to the top looking oddly fresh.

Read this:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html

Thanks for posting this.  It's an interesting read (if a little rambling) that puts things into context.

[twiddler]

That Kimmage article, as far as i can be bothered to read it, appears to be based entirely on the weak opinion of an author who failed to self-criticise his piece.  Just because someone doesn't behave in a manner which suits his particular logic he dismisses the other rather than check his own thinking.

In its opening, the article omits any consideration of the effects of preparation on an athlete whose job is to turn himself inside out day after day; given the improvement in Wiggins' ability to apply himself in the past couple of years, the pressure he's been under for that length of time, the races we've seen him win and the training we've read about in his preparation for this year's tour, and given the comments on early season victories that he'd "peaked too" soon, now imagine all he's put up with to finally achieve his goal of standing in yellow; is it really surprising he responded the way he did?

I've not got anything against Kimmage, if in his next article he can raise his game and apply himself in the way Bradders has then i'll probably read and enjoy the full thing.

[David Martin]

Wiggos best retort to Kimmage would be "If I rode my bike like you research your articles, I wouldn't be wearing the yellow jersey now"

[mattc]

Didn't Kimmage write a whole book about how tough he found racing without drugs? (at the back)

Having a bit of a swear seems like the lesser strop.

[this is slightly tongue-in-cheek; I really enjoyed the Kimmage book]

[giropaul]

The major distinction, for me, is that Kimmage (and most other riders in those days) had to ride pretty well everything just to scratch a living - Wedneday night kermesses in Belgium etc etc.

The Sky team have been paid (well) to train; and in a very precise and monitored way, for 3 weeks of excellence.

That's a really, really big difference.

[TheLurker]

An interesting article by a sports scientist, with links to some background reading, in yesterday's Grauniad which tends to support those who (like me)  hope Sky and other teams are indeed clean.

Precis.
On the basis of times recorded for tour climbs by the current riders it is possible to estimate their sustained power output.  Calculations for current riders indicate that they are maintaining 5.7 to 6.0 W/Kg for time T which is physically plausible.  Whereas sustained outputs of 6.1 to 6.4 W/Kg for time 3T which is what is estimated for a previous generation of riders are physically implausible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/10/tour-mountains-science-of-sport

The other reassuring thing (and I know it in no way constitutes hard evidence) was just how slow the "sprint" was for yesterday's stage where  in previous years we might have seen a fast sprint for the line.

[Honest John]

Didn't Kimmage write a whole book about how tough he found racing without drugs? (at the back)

Having a bit of a swear seems like the lesser strop.

[this is slightly tongue-in-cheek; I really enjoyed the Kimmage book]

I read Kimmage's book n years ago and thought: "What a miserable sod."

[tiermat]

Surely by sheer co-incidence (as these things take months to arrange etc) the back cover of the Metro today is a Nike advert, with a photo montage of Mark Cavendish.  The caption for the piece is "Greatness seeks Criticism"

[Gareth Rees]

The Kimmage piece is spot on. I made the same points in the other thread myself:

Given the history of the Tour de France (90% of winners over the last 20 years having tested positive at some point) it's entirely reasonable for people to be suspicious that you have to dope to win. Attacking the critics is not a convincing response: after all, it's just what Armstrong used to do. The onus is on the riders and the sport to demonstrate that they are clean.

Wiggins (and Sky) used to agree about this. In 2009, Wiggins said, "I came from nowhere on the Tour and everyone knows where it's been with blood doping". In other words, he conceded that it was reasonable for people to be suspicious. He took the brave step of making his blood test figures public to demonstrate that he was racing clean. What has changed?

The problem of doping in cycling is a systematic one, and one of the elements of that system is that professional cyclists don't talk honestly and openly about it. Wearing the yellow jersey, Wiggins has been given a platform to change that, and it would be a shame if he didn't make use of it. I guess the problem is that he has something to lose now: maybe he can't afford to make too many enemies.

Having a bit of a swear seems like the lesser strop.

I don't think Kimmage cares about the swearing. I certainly don't. We care about his choice of target for the swearing. What happened to the Wiggins who wrote, "You bastard Landis ... You and guys like you are pissing on my sport and my dreams"?

I read Kimmage's book and thought: "What a miserable sod."

I think it's only human to be bitter if you were racing clean and discovered that you had little chance of winning because you were competing against riders who doped.

[citoyen]

An interesting article by a sports scientist, with links to some background reading, in yesterday's Grauniad which tends to support those who (like me)  hope Sky and other teams are indeed clean.

That's an expanded version of the same piece in Ross Tucker's own blog that I linked to upthread. His blog is well worth following if you're interested in the subject.

d.

[citoyen]

Given the history of the Tour de France (90% of winners over the last 20 years having tested positive at some point) it's entirely reasonable for people to be suspicious that you have to dope to win.

So what do you do if you have suspicions? Just go posting them on the internet as if they're fact? Or maybe, if you're genuinely interested, make an effort to look at some meaningful evidence (eg the sports science blog) and either confirm your suspicions or alternatively discover that perhaps your suspicions have very shaky foundations?

Jumping to facile conclusions is the lazy option.

Attacking the critics is not a convincing response: after all, it's just what Armstrong used to do. The onus is on the riders and the sport to demonstrate that they are clean.

I don't think the kind of people Wiggo was talking about are really interested in the truth, they're just snarky smartarses. Their "reasonable suspicion" is disingenuous and cynical. They will never be convinced because they don't want to be.

What has changed?

See the Brailsford interview linked to upthread.

d.

[Honest John]

I think it's only human to be bitter if you were racing clean and discovered that you had little chance of winning because you were competing against riders who doped.

It helps if you're a po-faced wazzock with a King Edward on your shoulder, too. Kimmage should have known what he was getting into.

[fuzzy]

Wiggins (and Sky) used to agree about this. In 2009, Wiggins said, "I came from nowhere on the Tour and everyone knows where it's been with blood doping". In other words, he conceded that it was reasonable for people to be suspicious. He took the brave step of making his blood test figures public to demonstrate that he was racing clean. What has changed?

3 years of being in the public domain with his stance and figures to be greeted after one of the high points of his professional life and realisation of a dream, by the Twatter cynicism and thinly disguised backstabbing is what has changed.

His ethos remains the same, his willingness or ability to put up with the shit whilst keeping schtum may have altered. I for one am right behind him.

[Karla]

Given the history of the Tour de France (90% of winners over the last 20 years having tested positive at some point) it's entirely reasonable for people to be suspicious that you have to dope to win. Attacking the critics is not a convincing response: after all, it's just what Armstrong used to do. The onus is on the riders and the sport to demonstrate that they are clean.

Wiggins (and Sky) used to agree about this. In 2009, Wiggins said, "I came from nowhere on the Tour and everyone knows where it's been with blood doping". In other words, he conceded that it was reasonable for people to be suspicious. He took the brave step of making his blood test figures public to demonstrate that he was racing clean. What has changed?

What has changed is that he's found that being open and public is not enough, because the lazy twatters* of the internet aren't interested in the truth.  They're interested in coming over as all cynically superior, so they accuse Wiggins of doping even when he's done all he can to show that he's clean.

It really hurts to get beaten with a stick that is not meant for you.  After trying to be open and being rewarded with more of the same ignorant bile, that's what it must feel like for Wiggins.  You tell'em Bradley!

*Tweeters, twatters, twats, c*nts.  Ho hum.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Are the blood results still published?

[Cudzoziemiec]

The other reassuring thing (and I know it in no way constitutes hard evidence) was just how slow the "sprint" was for yesterday's stage where  in previous years we might have seen a fast sprint for the line.

Just watched yesterday's (Wednesday's) stage, and I have to agree with this. Also, the way Sagan and a couple of others in the breakaway "cracked" and then just limped home.

[citoyen]

Are the blood results still published?

Disingenuous question. Sky never published their blood values - that was Garmin.

Maybe Sky should go public but just because they don't, that's not in itself cause for suspicion.

I know there were some questions raised about Wiggo's blood values when they were published in 2009, but nothing conclusive - seems they are very much open to different interpretations, even among the experts.

d.