“Walsh, author of, From Lance to Landis and* LA Confidentiel* told Cyclingnews, “The passport seemed like a good idea but I don’t believe that the system can catch the sophisticated cheater. The evidence we have so far is that the guys towards the winning end of the classification in big races are still significantly ahead of the UCI’s checks.””
To which I reply that he is conveniently overlooking DiLuca’s confirmed positive at the Giro.
I’m not saying he’s wrong about the fact that other big names are likely flying by under the radar…
But if the riders are going to be held accountable for their doping actions…then writers ought to be held accountable for inaccurate statements. Its too easy for the cycling establishment to point and say “well, obviously this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about…he’s forgotten DiLuca. He’s forgotten Rebellin. He’s forgotten Ricco. We ARE catching the cheats”…even if that’s a 1/2 truth.
“Walsh, author of, From Lance to Landis and* LA Confidentiel* told Cyclingnews, “The passport seemed like a good idea but I don’t believe that the system can catch the sophisticated cheater. The evidence we have so far is that the guys towards the winning end of the classification in big races are still significantly ahead of the UCI’s checks.””
To which I reply that he is conveniently overlooking DiLuca’s confirmed positive at the Giro.
I’m not saying he’s wrong about the fact that other big names are likely flying by under the radar…
But if the riders are going to be held accountable for their doping actions…then writers ought to be held accountable for inaccurate statements. Its too easy for the cycling establishment to point and say “well, obviously this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about…he’s forgotten DiLuca. He’s forgotten Rebellin. He’s forgotten Ricco. We ARE catching the cheats”…even if that’s a 1/2 truth.
His biggest mistake is that he’s basing his opinions mostly on the dubious calculations of Antoine Vayer…
they’re not even catching 10% of the cheaters so they caught DiLuca … probably 10 or 15 years after he got started with it. many others are out there who are still competing. Ricco, Kohl, Rebellin were only some of the suspected guys at last year’s TdF, which will probably not be prosecuted now that it’s not the AFLD but the UCI conducting the testing
True enough, Tom, and a comment I left out of my OP. Of course the more reputable names won’t give him the time of day…so he’s left slogging around with the discredited, dispossessed, outed members of the doping culture.
Walsh is clearly on an anti-cycling crusade and ought to be restricted to stating facts. The job of a writer is to report what happens and not report on what he thinks is happening. He’s made a name pointing the finger at cycling and unfortunately, not everyone has as much money as Lance to fight him in court.
Even more unfortunately, I tend to agree with him more and more. I do think there is more money to be had in cheating than in fighting cheating, but that doesn’t give anyone the right to make accusations without proof.
DiLuca strikes me as the kind of situation where a guy is desperate enough to take chances, knowing he might get caught. He’s not young and knew it might be his last chance to win another Giro and gain a little Italian immortality. To him, the risk was probably calculated.
Not everyone is going to be that desperate. I think they are catching SOME of the cheats, but only the very blatant users.
Chad
The article talks about the Giro positive and the Tour positives from last year all using CERA. So while Walsh may not have been quoted on DiLuca getting busted, it was still referenced in the article.
The point of the article was that Walsh is trying to show the inconsistency and political BS that is driving things like the passport program and testing. That there are still major players who are ahead of the testing curve. Etc.
Looking for attention? Sure he is. But one thing is consistent about him - he stays on his soapbox no matter what and keeps yelling about the topic …
Maybe for the power estimation (then again, make sure, as always, that you read and understand Alex Simmons’ comments on that subject)…but it’s that second step, translating those power values to an estimate of VO2max, that is completely fraught with error possibilities.
Also, don’t forget that the supposed “confirmation” on the power came from one of Vayer’s “colleagues”. “Some” others have suggested that Vayer isn’t even in the right ballpark…
it’s that second step, translating those power values to an estimate of VO2max, that is completely fraught with error possibilities.
Such as scaling up the power requirement to that needed by a 70 kg cyclist, then dividing the estimated VO2 in L/min not by 70 kg, but by 62 kg? Yeah, that might result in some degree of error.
EDIT: Don’t get me started on the claim that cyclists can only sustain 90% of VO2max for 40 min tops…
In sensationalist journalism, of which genre Mr. Walsh is a fantastic example, writers simply omit any evidence that does not directly support their thesis.
Journalists with integrity would have noted that while big names (such as those in my OP) have been caught via testing AND via passport targeting…the system appears to still be off the mark. They would state their position clearly. “I think we’re only catching 1 in 100 cheaters, and here’s why, backed up with real evidence (as opposed to questionable VAM and other metrics)”.
No, Mr. Walsh and other coward journalists simply tar the whole establishment and make lots of noise, cavorting with known doping personages…thereby accomplishing not much more than keeping their byline in circulation amongst the publishing gutter rats.
Basically, Mr Walsh gets by telling us a lot of shit we all suspect, but without ever telling us even as much as we already know.
I don’t believe that the system can catch the sophisticated cheater. The evidence we have so far is that the guys towards the winning end of the classification in big races are still significantly ahead of the UCI’s checks
Basically, Mr Walsh gets by telling us a lot of shit we all suspect, but without ever telling us even as much as we already know.
Maybe what you and I know but not the general public. As strange as it may seem by now.
So at what point is the testing system in place considered adequate? The problem is that no one can win at this point. If 10% of cyclists test positive, Walsh will say that clearly the problem is widespread and not enough people are being caught. If no one is caught, then he will claim the testing is inadequate. If everyone tests positive except for the winner, then the winner obviously doped.
Look at Contador, he won … so he obviously doped right. If he isn’t caught then the testing is inadequate.
Fuck all the testing, let them dope and get on with racing.
The truly disgusting part is that it has taken so long to get him.
i totally agree.
heck, that’s why some people (even “sensationalist” journalists) have said, “the passport seemed like a good idea but I don’t believe that the system can catch the sophisticated cheater” …
so they caught DiLuca … probably 10 or 15 years after he got started with it. many others are out there who are still competing. Ricco, Kohl, Rebellin were only some of the suspected guys at last year’s TdF, which will probably not be prosecuted now that it’s not the AFLD but the UCI conducting the testing