I am saying that I am disturbed by someone setting a record that is much faster than records set by people that either admitted to doping or were busted for it. I am saying that this is disturbing because the most recent time this happened, the individual who set the record was then immediately busted for doping.
Ross does a good job of addressing the issue of doping in the blog post - saying that it's naive to jump to conclusions either way - and that most likely the results over the entire tour - i.e. repeatability - matter more than a single performance. I.e., a tailwind, discrepancies about the actual grade, etc. all could play a role.
I don't think what I am saying is - in large part - any different than if I posted a listing of all of the swimming world records that have been broken with the LZR suit and asking if people were disturbed by that. Unfortunately, history has taught us to be cautious.
I actually wish that - for comparison - they had done an analysis of Andy Schleck's VAM and also Pelizotti. If those guys really had very high VAMs, then it would be reasonable to conclude that wind (and perhaps misinformation about the climb's grade/length) played a role.
However, as the data is presented, I find it troubling. I say this as someone who thinks that cycling has done a very good job of trying to clean up the sport, much moreso than NFL, MLB, etc. where they just sweep it under the rug and/or don't even seriously enforce it. I am *not* disturbed when they catch someone. I think it means that the system is working.
I also think it's important to note that I think there is a big difference between inferring something by performance relative to others (i.e., "it is disturbing that Contador climbed so much faster than Andy Schleck, Pelizotti, etc.") as compared to performance relative to past performers, especially when those past performers are established cheaters.
EDIT: I am DEFINITELY not insinuating that Contador is doping. I am simply saying that I find it troubling that Contador is so much faster than folks who did. I also found it interesting, regarding those who have argued that Lance is clean (including Lance himelf), that his own performances were very strong - relative to his competition - but were not overwhelmingly strong compared to historical performances. I think, for example, that is much more compelling than Ed Coyle's paper (which has been attacked/defended endlessly) on Armstrong's efficiency gains for those who support Lance.
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @rappstar | Game Designer @ Zwift
Ask me about: 1st Endurance | Normatec - $100 off RAPP2018 | Zipp | Quarq | SRAM