I’ve seen ZADA actually stem out some cheaters,., they don’t get excluded from races (we can do that as fellow riders mid race) but their results are excluded from leaderboard after the race

I think ZADA actually helps

Not perfect, but I’m happy they are there and doing what they do

Now I need to figure out how I can be strong enough to get ZADA certified

Why didn't WADA think of that? All these years and we could've had clean racing...

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

I haven't done races in awhile, as I'm more invested in doing structured plans with trainerroad at the moment, but I wish zwift would allow for password protected events where organizers could verify stuff before hand and then allow users to join specific events/levels. While after the fact stuff is all well and good, it doesn't help when the dynamics of an event are affected by users who shouldn't be in lower categories, for example.

I had a pretty red face after one of my IMs in the bright sun and summer heat last year. I can't believe I passed my drug test! Surely it meant I was on something. ;)

A few weeks ago I was doing Watopia right at the bottom of "Epic KOM" about to climb when someone passed me doing 15+ w/kg. There weren't many people immediately ahead of me for me to catch, so I was able to watch him move up the standings ahead of me for over minute afterwards. For all that time, his w/kg never fell below that number. Finally he went off my screen.

Yeah.

It happens, can’t do anything about it

It’s a video game that makes training more fun .. at least for me. I compare myself to previous efforts not what others do

Once I stopped getting annoyed with cheaters and people better than me (real, pereceived, cheating, etc) it got a lot more fun

+1


My thoughts and prayers go out to all those beaten by a hacker. But now is not the time to be discussing Zwift anti hacking policy.

BTW, why is it ZADA? Shouldn't it be ZAHA?

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

As the thread's devoted to that topic, I'm thinking it kinda is.

I'm not on Zwift, but a female friend is. She's been riding a mountain bike for a few years, but recently got a pretty sweet Cervelo which she keeps on a dumb trainer. She puts up both real and Zwift rides on Strava...

Typical real ride on mountain bike, on streets - 11.59 miles in 1:18:56; 1361 feet climbing; 8.8mph average, 27.3 max

Recent Zwift ride - Giro di Castelli Stage 4 - B Group: 16.68 miles in 44:25; 1099 feet climbing; 22.5mph, 53 max.

mmhmm... right!

---

Proud member of FISHTWITCH: doing a bit more than fish exercise now.

My apologies for not using a pink font.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

Stop trolling when you've no clue of what you're talking about. A noob who thinks all organizators are fully ethic concerning doping, making unfinishing comments without any sense. There're signs to detect a doper, even if it obviously can't be taken into account as a legal proof in front of the law. When a guy has some kind of grey eyes, a strange red face (not all red faces look the same, this is typical), with a haggard look, sweat profusely and strangely (moist and homogeneous, whereas it is normally more focused on the forehead and has a greater tendency to drip), being inexplicably aggressive with mood swings, or being able to restart full gaz instantaneously without pain in the legs after several minutes of stopping (style puncture) are all signs of different kinds of doping. Not detectable if you don't have any subtlety or any experience of observing phenomena, which you can't have by making the clever one to spout nonsense on a forum.

Same remark for the other phenomenon which has no clue of what he's speaking about.

Since you have profound insight into ways to detect doping, perhaps you can work with WADA on the new facial recognition of doping.

And if you are so convinced about your observations, I'd be interested to learn about how many such people you have advised the anti-doping authority about your suspicions (they have a hotline), and as a result how many of them have subsequently received an ADRV?

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

With some work on your delivery, you won't need it.

(On the other hand, I am no great shakes on that score. And compared to the "red-faced", "organizator" guy, you are Shakespeare )

This is a pretty ridiculous and pointless comparison.
You're comparing speeds from 2 potentially utterly different real and simulated rides and apparently trying to use that as a basis for questioning the credibility of the simulation.
Why do I think this is ridiculous?
Let me give you a few obvious reasons.

1. Well for starters, you don't tell us if she was putting in a similar effort. There's a limit to how fast I can go, but I can go as slow as I like! Was she wearing a HR strap or using a power meter to quantify the effort for each?
2. Were these routes both closed loops? It makes quite the difference if they started and finished at different altitudes or if the outdoor ride was predominantly into the wind.
3. What dumb trainer was she using and is it set up correctly. Does she have a power meter or is she using power curves for "virtual power"? If you select the wrong power curves for your trainer on Zwift, you can get VERY inaccurate data. That's not Zwift's fault. If it's a magnetic type trainer, did she use the correct resistance setting?
4. Did she ride continuously outdoors or were there junctions and delays included in the time and average speed given?
5. She was on a mountain bike for the road ride and a road bike on the trainer and in the sim. You don't think there might be differences here? What sort tyres on the MTN bike? Smooth or knobbly, and race or durable types? Position can make a very significant difference to speed. Zwift assumes a good road or tri bike position. How's her mountain bike position?
6. Her max speed outdoors was only 27.3mph. With the figures you gave she must at some point have been descending decent gradients unless it wasn't a closed loop route. Is she a very nervous descender? That's a very low speed. I doubt she was pedaling and she was probably braking during some or all descents. You can't brake in Zwift.
7. Was it windy out?
8. The outdoor ride has a very significant amount of extra climbing. 1361ft climbing in 11.59miles is very different to 1099ft in 16.68 miles. Average gradient is about 80% greater.
9. Did she enter accurate weight data in Zwift?

Seriously, the number of obvious flaws in drawing the parallel you did is stunning! Perhaps you have more information you didn't share, but as you posted it, the anecdote was worthless.


For me, Zwift may be slightly optimistic on speed but not dramatically so, and it doesn't matter anyway, so long as it's the same for everyone. My Zwift rides approximate pretty well with outdoor rides on the tri bike, but I'm slower in reality on the road bike. If I held the position the avatar does for the full ride, that would probably be close too but I rarely stay low on the road bike.

There's nothing unusual about my "sight". Many racers remarked to me, distinguishing various signs that they also noticed the obvious signs of doping. Aggressivity is well known concerning those taking testosterone for example. When you don't have any baggage, you avoid being ironic. Where is the ignore function on this forum?





I'm not native. I hope for you you're not neither.
http://dictionnaire.reverso.net/anglais-francais/red-faced
http://ccm.net/faq/4413-some-typographical-rules#brackets
Given your poor expertise of English, I won't ask you to compare the length of our dicks regarding the mastery of our respective primary language, "Shakespeare".





Nice effort, but for me point 5 was already more than enough to show the ridiculousness of Halfspeed's remark.




Otherwise the Zada still does a good job and eradicates hand over fist (if that's the correct expression). I have just done two races, and less than a third of the starters are in the final results... I didn't notice the dropouts along the way, but it's still impressive. But one thing they obviously don't do is notice that guys with a strong build, measuring 1m86, can't weigh 67kg.Even if there are still a few of them in the top places whose credibility we can doubt, it is difficult to be categorical, especially on their part because they have the responsibility not to exclude innocent people.

So...it wasn't in a race? You were just riding around? Who cares?

Zwift has become reality..
Kinda fascinating really.

Not pointless at all. I said typical.. day in, day out, nearly everyday, a discrepancy like that. I've ridden with her and she's slow AF. If I were to Zwift, and her Zwift setup is legit, I'd be fast AF in there.
I'm not discounting Zwift. I see its use and I would love to be able to afford a smart trainer and get on it. But the races? A good workout, but gotta laugh at the speed, and therefore the rankings of some zwifters. I'd only race myself in there.

---

Proud member of FISHTWITCH: doing a bit more than fish exercise now.

You have to consider several things :
- In zwift, the roads are considered ideal (very soft), as new. Very rare in reality, but it exists.
- The wind's null. So to compare, you have to take the average speed of an IRL ride, and add a few km/h (headwind + backwind makes a slower speed to zero wind all the time).
- Relays are ideal in zwift (you don't need to step aside and take the wind to take your relay. You are considered to be taking the wind only once you have passed the rider in front of you, often crossing his body (time during which you are still protected).
- The equipment in zwift (bike + outfit) are considered excellent, especially when you win better bikes.
- There is a huge amount of drafting, even when you ride alone (by catching up or by getting caught up), which does not exist IRL (except when drafting behind cars/scooters/trucks/tractors).
- You should especially see the quality of your friend's setup, the problem is often there.
- 45km/h on a race, it's nothing exceptional IRL, and we don't go much faster on zwift, whereas the races are much shorter.
- You never slow down in zwift (turns, traffic lights, traffic do not exist). Even other cyclists don't slow you down. Think that you never brake.
- Last but not least, it doesn't matter if everyone is housed in the same building (already said previously).


P.S. : Concerning the races, don't worry too much about what happens during them. Clearly there are still some cheaters left, but frankly, if all of them were eliminated, it would be too easy, with the number of races, to finish 1st in many of them. Let's say they are there to balance the dispersion of riders on all races, in order to give you a more realistic ranking if you had to face all the regular riders on the same race.
And the job is well done, as I said, after an hour, the rankings are often drastically cleaned up.

I think you're entirely missing my point. There were many possible reasons for a discrepancy other than a dramatic failure of realism by Zwift. Given you say she is really very slow. It narrows things down and seems her Zwift setup is almost certainly NOT legit. Most likely a wrong resistance curve match or wrong resistance setting on a mag trainer. In which case your entire point.....is not a point.

I never said there was anything wrong with your sight.

I asked you to outline how many dopers have been caught as a result of your ability to pick them just by looking at them.

And what's your false positive rate?

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

Stop the fallacies. Probability cannot be said to exist when there is no event. In this case, the "denunciation" event is void in my case.


And if you want to ask precisely why I don't denounce it, it's because I don't care anymore, knowing that it's a mafia-like environment (not just concerning athletes). Athletes having a reputation superior to the event's one, have a right of way. The practice is generalized at mid-high level, so I don't care to denounce individuals.



And if you want to know how many have been proven doped among those detected, the answer is 100%. On the other hand, I was not able to detect directly all those who were doped, having subsequently learned it by word of mouth, so not all doping is necessarily visually detectable, or we have to spend more time with individuals. As in the case of an athlete who may have had seizures before the effort, or who is required to do push-ups at night to circulate blood (and so prevent heart attack). This is observable, I was told, but I wasn't there to see any of these events. Some signs are more permanent, others much more ephemeral.

I haven't read much of this thread at all but, real question, why does anyone care if people manipulate their wkg? Does it have to do with these people cheating to win the virtual races and steal KOMs?

You're the who that claimed they could tell a doper by looking at them. I wanted to know more because if it's valid/reliable then it could be a useful means to better target testing resources but you are unable or unwilling to demonstrate this ability with any evidence. I don't see that as a fallacy.

Even so, if we take pro riders who've been on the podium of a major European race or GT stage over the past 30 years, a monkey throwing darts at a board full of rider's names has a better than even chance of hitting a doper, so claiming some sort of ability when the random odds of being right is already better than 50% isn't really saying much. You'd need to be able to do much better than the monkey.

In any case as a means of detecting doping for people riding an indoor trainertainment system where no one can actually see you, it's kind of moot.

No offence intended, I just like to question claims which sound extraordinary.
Ride well and tailwinds.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

AlexS wrote:

blablabla

So you really spend your time arguing, playing smart. You have proven several times to be unable to read a text, I will not quoter ad vitam eternam the same things. I leave you to your trolling, since you don't have the rhetorical arguments to discuss supposedly, or even the will, for that matter.