Ricco

I'm getting good at this prediction business. I offered my services
(via a.b to le tour a year or two ago when I made a couple of
correct predictions, and it was damned obvious from the start of this
tour that Ricco was doping (come on, he idolised Pantani).

Uncharacteristic performance in the mountains is always a pointer to
suspicion. As is wildly varying performance day to day on strategic
stages.

And the funny thing was, I was always suspicious of last year's yellow
jersey Contador, especially after my predictions of a doping Rasmussen
was vindicated. And he was soon detected and banned (but from tests
performed after the tour, so there's no proof). Which means Cadel
most likely was the dope-free winner of last year's tour.

I have no current suspicions about any big names in this tour who
hasn't been kicked out yet. Let's hope my intuition is right

--
TimC
NOP NOP NOP NOP bang NOP NOP bang ouch
-- TimC spinning in the corner.

"TimC" wrote in message
...

I have no current suspicions about any big names in this tour who
hasn't been kicked out yet. Let's hope my intuition is right

The smarter dopers are going to avoid doing anything too spectacular so it
would be pretty hard to reliably pick them just by observing their
performances to date. Wouldn't the smart doper stay within a minute or two
of the favourites over the course of the Tour but avoid winning any stages
until towards the end - and even then only by a modest amount? Wouldn't it
be smart to also toss in the odd 'run out of gas' e.g.suddenly slip off the
leading 3 man breakaway at the summit but still finish with a valuable third
place (this would be especially convincing if the first and second
place-getters were to 'over perform' and bring themselves under suspicion)?

Doping will only be eliminated when the probability of detection and the
associated penalties are so high that its simply not worth the risk.
Notwithstanding the rhetoric from the organisers, it appears that some
riders (and maybe even some teams) believe the probability of getting caught
this year is still low enough to make the risk of doping worthwhile. This
might be because they have faith that the very latest doping technology is
hard to detect or because they think the policing system still leaves
adequate wiggle room. I think the most plausible view is that there are
indeed some more dopers in this years race, almost all of whom will go
undetected.

On Jul 18, 11:26 am, "Claude" wrote:
"TimC" wrote in message

...

I have no current suspicions about any big names in this tour who
hasn't been kicked out yet. Let's hope my intuition is right

The smarter dopers are going to avoid doing anything too spectacular so it
would be pretty hard to reliably pick them just by observing their
performances to date. Wouldn't the smart doper stay within a minute or two
of the favourites over the course of the Tour but avoid winning any stages
until towards the end - and even then only by a modest amount? Wouldn't it
be smart to also toss in the odd 'run out of gas' e.g.suddenly slip off the
leading 3 man breakaway at the summit but still finish with a valuable third
place (this would be especially convincing if the first and second
place-getters were to 'over perform' and bring themselves under suspicion)?


The appeal of doping is not limited to the would-be star. Less able
riders with a chemical boost could obtain a domestique position, or
become stronger in that role. The leader benefits from their cheating,
but is not cheating directly. Hmm, a lot of the US Postal riders from
Lance's day have been busted ...

On 2008-07-18, Donga (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
The appeal of doping is not limited to the would-be star. Less able
riders with a chemical boost could obtain a domestique position, or
become stronger in that role. The leader benefits from their cheating,
but is not cheating directly.

Well, Ricco's team got disqualified this time, precisely for that
reason. If a winner gains assistance from a cheat, then it almost
certainly means that the winner wouldn't have been in the same
position if there was no cheat available, and hence, if the winner (or
team manager) allowed it knowingly, then they also cheated.

Hmm, a lot of the US Postal riders from
Lance's day have been busted ...

Yep. And that's if you don't have direct suspicion on Lance himself.
And note that the US-postal-Discovery-current successor whoever they
are also continue to have suspicion associate with them.

--
TimC
My other car is a cdr

On Jul 18, 2:07*pm, TimC -
astro.swin.edu.au wrote:
On 2008-07-18, Donga (aka Bruce)
* was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

The appeal of doping is not limited to the would-be star. Less able
riders with a chemical boost could obtain a domestique position, or
become stronger in that role. The leader benefits from their cheating,
but is not cheating directly.

Well, Ricco's team got disqualified this time, precisely for that
reason. *If a winner gains assistance from a cheat, then it almost
certainly means that the winner wouldn't have been in the same
position if there was no cheat available, and hence, if the winner (or
team manager) allowed it knowingly, then they also cheated.

Nit - they weren't disqualified - they withdrew themselves

phillip brown

Rasmus Damsgaard from Team CSC-Saxo Bank says "if the ASO did an EPO test on
all riders in the peloton tomorrow, 10, 20 even maybe 30% of the riders
would test positive for EPO......if ASO continues doing only random tests,
there will probably only be one or two more caught. However, if they work
harder and start collecting a larger quantity of samples to test for EPO, we
will see more positive cases"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...news2&from=rss

Is it still true that the EPO test just looks at hematocrit? If this
is so then it only catches those who use it badly, not those who know
what they are doing. And as far as I know there is still no workable
routine test for blood doping, an old but simple technique and probly
the one Landis used to work his miracle. I am happy to be corrected -
I really only have a passing interest at this time of year as I am
involved in a fairly obsessive tipping competition for the tour and it
is a disaster for the tipster when riders get pulled!

Claude wrote:

Rasmus Damsgaard from Team CSC-Saxo Bank says "if the ASO did an EPO test on
all riders in the peloton tomorrow, 10, 20 even maybe 30% of the riders
would test positive for EPO......if ASO continues doing only random tests,
there will probably only be one or two more caught. However, if they work
harder and start collecting a larger quantity of samples to test for EPO, we
will see more positive cases"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...news2&from=rss

TimC wrote:
I'm getting good at this prediction business. I offered my services
(via a.b to le tour a year or two ago when I made a couple of
correct predictions, and it was damned obvious from the start of this
tour that Ricco was doping (come on, he idolised Pantani).

Uncharacteristic performance in the mountains is always a pointer to
suspicion. As is wildly varying performance day to day on strategic
stages.

And the funny thing was, I was always suspicious of last year's yellow
jersey Contador, especially after my predictions of a doping Rasmussen
was vindicated. And he was soon detected and banned (but from tests
performed after the tour, so there's no proof). Which means Cadel
most likely was the dope-free winner of last year's tour.

I have no current suspicions about any big names in this tour who
hasn't been kicked out yet. Let's hope my intuition is right

Bit of a pattern developing here.
Two Spanish riders get the chop for doping, then an Italian rider from a
Spanish team. Contador is Spanish and Operation Puerto...Spanish of
course. Yeah I know that Contador wasn't nabbed, but I think he was
dodgy. Bit like investing - if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
Halcyon