• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Beating WADA/ASADA's PEDs testing regime


Pretty sure it'd be a lot lot more than just the Ruskies mate.
 
Michele Ferrari isn't exactly poor.

performance standard has dropped
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't. Meta analysis shows that the best riders still climb as fast as the top riders from the early 2000's did. And I don't just mean the fastest, either. Even when you look at things like average power/weight for the top 10, 20 it's still the same. Ammatipyoraily has some very good graphs and tables to show this.

If you follow Ross, you'll know that he doesn't accuse any particular rider, but overall he ACTUALLY says that today's riders are just as fast. Check out his analysis on more recent tours.
 
yes stiffy, but if you are going to argue this and that, back it up with proof.

Now, as I have argued, standard in sport has being going down, so what does that tell you.

It tells me that things are getting harder.
 
From that link you posted, spart:

Last year Chris Froome’s ascent of the main mountain stages (Ax-3-Domaines and Mont Ventoux) matched the level of performance seen in the Armstrong era.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, that article made that statement after claiming that it's technological advances that have "bridged the gap"
I disagree. You can't say in the same article that "athletes are slower so there's no doping" and then say "athletes are just as fast, so it must be technology"
 
spartacus said:
yes stiffy, but if you are going to argue this and that, back it up with proof.

Now, as I have argued, standard in sport has being going down, so what does that tell you.

It tells me that things are getting harder.
Click to expand...

Looks like JoeBlow has some proof. See below. And that's in addition to my principle of Economics post.

 
Last edited:
I am not saying sport is clan, even in major sports like track and cycling. I am just saying much harder to cheat
 
El Stiffy said:
Looks like JoeBlow has some proof. See below. And that's in addition to my principle of Economics post.
Click to expand...

don't worry, I will do an article to prove the point to you, standard in many sports has gone down where there is extensive testing.

But you are free to think what you like.
 
it could well be that I am wrong stiffy, I think in will get started on an article looking at aths results, especially since 2000.

I will keep you posted with what I find.
 
spartacus said:
it could well be that I am wrong stiffy, I think in will get started on an article looking at aths results, especially since 2000.

I will keep you posted with what I find.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate. I'll gladly read your article. I'm not denying what you are saying, just that I believe there are a lot more incentives to be cheating the system than upholding it.
 
OK, Ross Tucker, here we go.

Regarding Froome on Ax-3 Domaines in 2013:
"It was fast, very fast"
He gives power estimates of between 6.3W/kg and 6.5W/kg - elsewhere he states that his estimate (and it is only an estimate) of the maximum natural physiological performance possible is about 6.2W/kg for durations of 30mins (Ax-3 was 23:14) - http://sportsscientists.com/2013/07/the-power-of-the-tour-de-france-performance-analysis-groundwork/
"Either it is one exceptional individual, or…well, we know the rest"

Regarding the Tour in 2013:
"Therefore, when Chris Froome rides away from a field on the first week of the Tour at a power output that is higher than benchmarked, and produces a time that puts him in the company of known dopers, we should ask questions of that performance. But we cannot conclusively use it to prove that he is doping."
"By the end of the Tour, Quintana and Rodriguez were at the same level as Froome on Ax-3-Domaines, and Quintana even surpassed it on Semnoz to produce the best climb of the race, statistically speaking. Even accepting the constraints of “performance pixellation”, the trend was quite clear."
"Ultimately, though, the final word on the 2013 Tour is that we shouldn’t be accusing, just wondering. And given cycling’s history, and the fact that those entrusted with running the sport have shown themselves to be unable to clean it up, we cannot simply believe (blindly) in miracles this time around. So we wonder, reasonably, and use some kind of performance metric to gain some insight. Proof, no. But equally, not worthless."

On the 2014 Tour:
"My expanded thoughts (and these brief ones) again confirm my belief, held since 2010, that the sport is likely cleaner, but not yet where it wants to be, clean."
"the performances we’ve seen this year, and in 2013, are in good company with those of known dopers, perhaps not dating back to the sport’s worst era in the 1990s and early 2000s, but certainly the latter part of the 2000s. While Nibali and Froome of 2014 and 2013 are relatively similar, they are also similar to the 2003 – 2005 era, which provides some reason for skepticism."



Ross is very scientific in his method and provides a balanced view. But he's definitely not saying it's clean.
 
"My expanded thoughts (and these brief ones) again confirm my belief, held since 2010, that the sport is likely cleaner, but not yet where it wants to be, clean."

That is also what I am also saying, although I may be wrong about power output.

I would be interested to look at uci sprint times at world champs, but only at those help indoors and not altitude.
 
dont see how it could be clean.

if your on the tour, you know others will be jacked up..so why would you fucking bother trying to compete vs them? unless you get on it to.

i dont have a problem with peds in sport, i want to see the best physical performance possible.
 
El Stiffy said:
Cheers mate. I'll gladly read your article. I'm not denying what you are saying, just that I believe there are a lot more incentives to be cheating the system than upholding it.
Click to expand...

What I do agree with that attempts to cheat will always be present as some/many do look for loopholes.
 
More Ross:

"To put it into context, Nibali’s margin of victory yesterday (500m) was just over half of what he’d have conceded to the fastest ever ascents, and that could well prompt people to suggest that we’re seeing a different sport now.On the other hand, when you see the names closest to Nibali – Zulle, Piepoli, Berzin, Rominger – you could just as easily adopt a skeptical position, based on exactly the same performance. You might also point out that in 1996 when Riis produced the fastest ever time, there was no ascent of the Col du Tormalet prior to Hautacam, and it was supposedly an easier stage that happened a few days earlier in the race, and certainly not at the end of three difficult days in the Pyrenees which itself came at the end of a race with more mountain finishes than those before it. Rumors of a headwind make the performance seem even more ‘super-human’.
"

Shows his balanced view.
 
one former pro rider, not real god, told me a few years ago that he had been informed that pro cyclists would revert to micro doses, which could even get around biological passports.
 
Ross on the 2014 tour:
"In other words, what we saw today was a performance, not only from Nibali but also from those nearest him on the stage, that is at least comparable to anything produced between 2002 and 2007, the height of the doping era."
And those six didn't include Froome and Contador, both of whom were expected to be stronger than Nibali.

http://sportsscientists.com/2014/07/the-physiology-at-the-front-of-the-tour/

The article also has a graph and some analysis on the podium contenders across 2008 to today and they're by no means "slower" - "the Tour today is not worse than it was in the pre-biological passport days, when the 50% HCT rule was used, and pre-EPO testing, but it’s also not obviously better."

Same article links to some analysis by Puchowics which showed that Nibali, Valverde, Pinot, Peraud, and Bardet all turned in performances that were faster than the 2002-2007 era.


I'm struggling to find the analysis of full top 10 lists, but working on it. I believe Ammatti did a lot of it. @digger_forum has posted a lot of links on the topic. Will keep looking
 
I am looking at top lists for 100m at present, but only in years where there is a global world championship (3 out of 4) as many athletes take it a bit easier in the odd year. years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 201, 2012, 2013.

looking at top 5, no 10, 25, 50, 100 and 150.

Interestingly, while here is some variation in top 10 during period, there is little change in 25, 50, 100, and 150.


I am also going to look at a number of countries, US, Jam, GB, Australia and more, to show decline in some and not in others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register