'Watchdogs Seek Doping Clues From a Distance' diff viewer (0/1)

This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on July 18, 2013 07:30 (UTC). It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/sports/cycling/during-tour-de-france-watchdogs-seek-doping-clues-from-a-distance.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Previous version 1 Next version

Previous version 1 Next version

Version 0	Version 1
Watchdogs Seek Doping Clues From a Distance	Watchdogs Seek Doping Clues From a Distance
2013-07-18 07:35:06 UTC	2013-07-30 04:35:45 UTC (12 days later)
GAP, France — As riders in the Tour de France churn their way up the towering Alpe d’Huez on Thursday, not once but twice, Ross Tucker will be watching on television in South Africa 5,500 miles away, laptop and stop watch at the ready, looking for clues to the Tour’s perennial question: Are any of the riders doping?	GAP, France — As riders in the Tour de France churn their way up the towering Alpe d’Huez on Thursday, not once but twice, Ross Tucker will be watching on television in South Africa 5,500 miles away, laptop and stop watch at the ready, looking for clues to the Tour’s perennial question: Are any of the riders doping?
Tucker, a 32-year-old physiologist, cannot know for sure, of course. But by using basic physics to estimate riders’ power output up the 13.8-kilometer climb, he said he believed he could compare current Tour performances with those of riders past, particularly those from the heyday of cycling’s doping culture.	Tucker, a 32-year-old physiologist, cannot know for sure, of course. But by using basic physics to estimate riders’ power output up the 13.8-kilometer climb, he said he believed he could compare current Tour performances with those of riders past, particularly those from the heyday of cycling’s doping culture.
His focus will be on one man in particular: Chris Froome, the race leader. In Stage 8 in the Pyrenees, Froome, a British rider on Sky Procycling, sped away from the pack with a power and speed not seen since Lance Armstrong, whose seven Tour titles were stripped because of doping.	His focus will be on one man in particular: Chris Froome, the race leader. In Stage 8 in the Pyrenees, Froome, a British rider on Sky Procycling, sped away from the pack with a power and speed not seen since Lance Armstrong, whose seven Tour titles were stripped because of doping.
Tucker is not accusing Froome of using banned substances, and Froome has never been tied to doping. But Tucker’s efforts to raise concerns have prompted Sky to deride his calculations as “pseudoscience.” Even many scientists in the field question the accuracy of his data and the fairness of his methodology.	Tucker is not accusing Froome of using banned substances, and Froome has never been tied to doping. But Tucker’s efforts to raise concerns have prompted Sky to deride his calculations as “pseudoscience.” Even many scientists in the field question the accuracy of his data and the fairness of his methodology.
“They want to sensationalize certain results,” said Edward Coyle, a professor of kinesiology at the University of Texas at Austin.	“They want to sensationalize certain results,” said Edward Coyle, a professor of kinesiology at the University of Texas at Austin.
But Tucker said that uncomfortable questions are what the sport needs right now to clean up its image. “The scrutiny the questions bring helps, in my opinion, to drive transparency, and build credibility,” he said.	But Tucker said that uncomfortable questions are what the sport needs right now to clean up its image. “The scrutiny the questions bring helps, in my opinion, to drive transparency, and build credibility,” he said.
In his gadfly quest, Tucker is part of a small group of physiologists, sports doctors and cycling enthusiasts from around the globe who have formed a loose alliance on the Internet to weed out doping in cycling. Like investigative journalists armed with calculators instead of note pads, they are pressing professional teams to allow independent analysis of riders’ doping tests and physiological data.	In his gadfly quest, Tucker is part of a small group of physiologists, sports doctors and cycling enthusiasts from around the globe who have formed a loose alliance on the Internet to weed out doping in cycling. Like investigative journalists armed with calculators instead of note pads, they are pressing professional teams to allow independent analysis of riders’ doping tests and physiological data.
Their outside scrutiny is essential, they argue, because many of the athletes revealed as dopers in recent years — including Armstrong — were not exposed by drug tests. Not only did the athletes manage to stay a step ahead of the testing protocols, but the sport itself seemed unwilling, or unable, to clean itself up.	Their outside scrutiny is essential, they argue, because many of the athletes revealed as dopers in recent years — including Armstrong — were not exposed by drug tests. Not only did the athletes manage to stay a step ahead of the testing protocols, but the sport itself seemed unwilling, or unable, to clean itself up.
“People want to believe the sport has changed,” said Tucker, a senior lecturer in sports science at Cape Town University, who runs a Web site called Sportsscientists.com. “But the sport is saying: ‘Trust me.’ Well, we trusted you before and before that and before that. And you’ve never, ever delivered on your promises. So let’s get some data.”	“People want to believe the sport has changed,” said Tucker, a senior lecturer in sports science at Cape Town University, who runs a Web site called Sportsscientists.com. “But the sport is saying: ‘Trust me.’ Well, we trusted you before and before that and before that. And you’ve never, ever delivered on your promises. So let’s get some data.”
Though their work is contentious and often criticized, it is also read by riders and cycling journalists. The debate it has sparked may be having an impact. This week Sky said it may be willing to release physiological information about Froome and other riders for scrutiny by the World Anti-Doping Agency.	Though their work is contentious and often criticized, it is also read by riders and cycling journalists. The debate it has sparked may be having an impact. This week Sky said it may be willing to release physiological information about Froome and other riders for scrutiny by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
“Then they could tell the world — and you — whether this is credible or not,” David Brailsford, the team general manager, told reporters on Monday.	“Then they could tell the world — and you — whether this is credible or not,” David Brailsford, the team general manager, told reporters on Monday.
In his mild-mannered way, Froome seems genuinely wounded by the questions. Hard training, including at high altitudes, and not drugs, is behind his remarkable run at this Tour, he said this week.	In his mild-mannered way, Froome seems genuinely wounded by the questions. Hard training, including at high altitudes, and not drugs, is behind his remarkable run at this Tour, he said this week.
“I think it’s sad that we’re sitting here on the day after the biggest win of my life talking about doping,” he said Monday, a day after he won Stage 15 atop Mont Ventoux. “Lance cheated. I’m not cheating.”	“I think it’s sad that we’re sitting here on the day after the biggest win of my life talking about doping,” he said Monday, a day after he won Stage 15 atop Mont Ventoux. “Lance cheated. I’m not cheating.”
Tucker and his allies talk in the cautious language of science, but at heart they are like scorned lovers, burned by doping revelations about their favorite racers. For Tucker, it was Armstrong. For one of his allies, Michael Puchowicz, a sports medicine doctor at Arizona State University, it was Floyd Landis, whose 2006 Tour victory was stripped after he tested positive for testosterone.	Tucker and his allies talk in the cautious language of science, but at heart they are like scorned lovers, burned by doping revelations about their favorite racers. For Tucker, it was Armstrong. For one of his allies, Michael Puchowicz, a sports medicine doctor at Arizona State University, it was Floyd Landis, whose 2006 Tour victory was stripped after he tested positive for testosterone.
“That was pretty hard,” Puchowicz said.	“That was pretty hard,” Puchowicz said.
Puchowicz, 34, is a former collegiate racer whose interest in cycling performance data was piqued after data on Armstrong was released a few years ago. He concluded the information showed that Armstrong had masked his doping during his comeback year of 2009. (Even after admitting to doping during his seven Tour victories, Armstrong has maintained he did not use banned substances in 2009.) To Puchowicz, it was evidence that the testing regimen could still be fooled.	Puchowicz, 34, is a former collegiate racer whose interest in cycling performance data was piqued after data on Armstrong was released a few years ago. He concluded the information showed that Armstrong had masked his doping during his comeback year of 2009. (Even after admitting to doping during his seven Tour victories, Armstrong has maintained he did not use banned substances in 2009.) To Puchowicz, it was evidence that the testing regimen could still be fooled.
He posted his analysis about Armstrong anonymously on a blog, and it drew so much attention that he continued to study performance data and place anonymous posts on Twitter as Doc. Only in the past few months has he begun attaching his name to his analyses, first in VeloNews and then in an essay on Outside Magazine’s Web site that questioned Froome’s Stage 8 ride.	He posted his analysis about Armstrong anonymously on a blog, and it drew so much attention that he continued to study performance data and place anonymous posts on Twitter as Doc. Only in the past few months has he begun attaching his name to his analyses, first in VeloNews and then in an essay on Outside Magazine’s Web site that questioned Froome’s Stage 8 ride.
“At first I didn’t want my boss to know,” he said of his cycling work. “But then I felt it was important enough to go public, to let people know I have credentials.”	“At first I didn’t want my boss to know,” he said of his cycling work. “But then I felt it was important enough to go public, to let people know I have credentials.”
There are others in the alliance who remain anonymous, including a Finnish writer, known as Vetooo on Twitter, who maintains a trove of historic records on cycling races. There are also scientists, doctors and cycling enthusiasts from several countries. Among them is Antoine Vayer, a former cycling coach who became an antidoping activist and helped write a recent e-book, “Not Normal?” that questions most of the top riders of the past generation, based on performance data analysis.	There are others in the alliance who remain anonymous, including a Finnish writer, known as Vetooo on Twitter, who maintains a trove of historic records on cycling races. There are also scientists, doctors and cycling enthusiasts from several countries. Among them is Antoine Vayer, a former cycling coach who became an antidoping activist and helped write a recent e-book, “Not Normal?” that questions most of the top riders of the past generation, based on performance data analysis.
The watchdogs do not agree in all their conclusions, and Tucker has said he feels Vayer is too harsh in his judgments about the sport. But they eagerly share data and observations on Twitter and Facebook, and a few have formed collaborations to do research.	The watchdogs do not agree in all their conclusions, and Tucker has said he feels Vayer is too harsh in his judgments about the sport. But they eagerly share data and observations on Twitter and Facebook, and a few have formed collaborations to do research.
Boiled down to its essence, their methodology uses physics to calculate the power required to climb a mountain at a certain speed. They study climbs because that is where wind resistance, a major factor in the equation, is least important. Using elements like the length and gradient of a stage segment, the time taken to climb it, the weight of the rider and his bike, and estimates on things like rolling and wind resistance, they calculate a figure in watts per kilogram that represents the power produced by a rider for a particular segment.	Boiled down to its essence, their methodology uses physics to calculate the power required to climb a mountain at a certain speed. They study climbs because that is where wind resistance, a major factor in the equation, is least important. Using elements like the length and gradient of a stage segment, the time taken to climb it, the weight of the rider and his bike, and estimates on things like rolling and wind resistance, they calculate a figure in watts per kilogram that represents the power produced by a rider for a particular segment.
Their rule of thumb, not universally accepted in the cycling world, is that power above 6 watts per kilogram deserves scrutiny. They consider anything above 6.5 watts per kilogram to be extraordinary and perhaps not humanly feasible. By some of their calculations, Froome in Stage 8 was over 6 watts per kilogram.	Their rule of thumb, not universally accepted in the cycling world, is that power above 6 watts per kilogram deserves scrutiny. They consider anything above 6.5 watts per kilogram to be extraordinary and perhaps not humanly feasible. By some of their calculations, Froome in Stage 8 was over 6 watts per kilogram.
For comparison purposes, the watchdogs have also calculated results for top riders in Grand Tours since 2002, breaking the data into two groups: the “doping era” of 2002 to 2007, and the “post-doping” era from 2007 to the present. During the post-doping period, times and power output have dropped, providing evidence for cautious optimism, Tucker and Puchowicz said. But for that reason, they believe that individual performances that spike into the doping-era range need to be questioned.	For comparison purposes, the watchdogs have also calculated results for top riders in Grand Tours since 2002, breaking the data into two groups: the “doping era” of 2002 to 2007, and the “post-doping” era from 2007 to the present. During the post-doping period, times and power output have dropped, providing evidence for cautious optimism, Tucker and Puchowicz said. But for that reason, they believe that individual performances that spike into the doping-era range need to be questioned.
Critics question the accuracy of their calculations, saying they do not account for all the factors that can affect a rider’s performance, including not only wind and rolling resistance, but also technological advancements in bikes and clothing, riding efficiency and team dynamics.	Critics question the accuracy of their calculations, saying they do not account for all the factors that can affect a rider’s performance, including not only wind and rolling resistance, but also technological advancements in bikes and clothing, riding efficiency and team dynamics.
A more accurate picture of a rider’s physiology would require a much fuller range of biological and laboratory data, those critics said, including blood surveys and measurements of aerobic energy production. Without that fuller portrait, no one can fairly say whether an improved performance was the result of doping, genetics or hard training, the critics said.	A more accurate picture of a rider’s physiology would require a much fuller range of biological and laboratory data, those critics said, including blood surveys and measurements of aerobic energy production. Without that fuller portrait, no one can fairly say whether an improved performance was the result of doping, genetics or hard training, the critics said.
“They don’t have enough baseline data,” said Coyle, who studied Armstrong early in his career. “They run the risk of accusing someone of doping when in fact they’re not.”	“They don’t have enough baseline data,” said Coyle, who studied Armstrong early in his career. “They run the risk of accusing someone of doping when in fact they’re not.”
The watchdogs’ methodology also does not seem to allow for the possibility of remarkable athletes who break the mold without cheating, critics said. A rider like Froome may simply produce power more efficiently than other riders because of his natural physiology, said Andrew R. Coggan, an exercise physiologist at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.	The watchdogs’ methodology also does not seem to allow for the possibility of remarkable athletes who break the mold without cheating, critics said. A rider like Froome may simply produce power more efficiently than other riders because of his natural physiology, said Andrew R. Coggan, an exercise physiologist at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
“There is no sound physiological ~~reason”~~ to ~~doubt~~ ~~some~~ of ~~today’s~~ ~~top~~ ~~performances,~~ Coggan said. As the cycling world expands beyond Europe, he said he expected record-breaking riders to be found ~~routinely.~~ Froome, a Briton, was raised in Kenya.	“There is no sound physiological reason" power outputs higher than previously recorded could not occur naturally, Coggan said. As the cycling world expands beyond Europe, he said he expected record-breaking riders to be found more often. Froome, a Briton, was raised in Kenya.
“The odds of finding a Secretariat cyclist would seem to be higher than ever,” he said.	“The odds of finding a Secretariat cyclist would seem to be higher than ever,” he said.
Tucker agreed that there was a margin for error in his work, but noted that when riders have released their power data, it has corroborated his estimates. He also acknowledged that he and his allies were not producing a full picture of the riders. But without biological data from doping tests and blood surveys — data the teams will not release — they are working with the next best thing, he argued.	Tucker agreed that there was a margin for error in his work, but noted that when riders have released their power data, it has corroborated his estimates. He also acknowledged that he and his allies were not producing a full picture of the riders. But without biological data from doping tests and blood surveys — data the teams will not release — they are working with the next best thing, he argued.
“No formula will ever conclusively show that X equals doping and Y equals clean,” Tucker said. “Mostly we’ll be in that gray area of uncertainty.”	“No formula will ever conclusively show that X equals doping and Y equals clean,” Tucker said. “Mostly we’ll be in that gray area of uncertainty.”
Their calls for cyclists to release power data and blood work have been met with skepticism from even riders widely thought to be clean. Those riders said that giving away personal information would be like a company releasing trade secrets to rivals, because it would allow other riders to understand their training techniques.	Their calls for cyclists to release power data and blood work have been met with skepticism from even riders widely thought to be clean. Those riders said that giving away personal information would be like a company releasing trade secrets to rivals, because it would allow other riders to understand their training techniques.
Riders also worry that no one other than their personal coaches and trainers can fully understand what the data means. “Everybody’s physiology is different,” said Andrew Talansky, an American rider with Garmin Sharp on his first Tour. “You’d have to study a person’s individual physiology and understand what they are individually capable of, and that goes far, far beyond any threshold test.”	Riders also worry that no one other than their personal coaches and trainers can fully understand what the data means. “Everybody’s physiology is different,” said Andrew Talansky, an American rider with Garmin Sharp on his first Tour. “You’d have to study a person’s individual physiology and understand what they are individually capable of, and that goes far, far beyond any threshold test.”
For all their skepticism, Tucker and Puchowicz said they believe doping is less common today. The introduction in 2009 of the biological passport, which uses baseline blood measurements to detect changes that might indicate banned substances, has made a big difference, they said. Positives results on drug tests are down, and speeds in races have declined.	For all their skepticism, Tucker and Puchowicz said they believe doping is less common today. The introduction in 2009 of the biological passport, which uses baseline blood measurements to detect changes that might indicate banned substances, has made a big difference, they said. Positives results on drug tests are down, and speeds in races have declined.
But riders have long found ways to fool testers. Some scientists believe cheating continues today, with new masking techniques and hard-to-detect drugs.	But riders have long found ways to fool testers. Some scientists believe cheating continues today, with new masking techniques and hard-to-detect drugs.
“The idea of using performance data is to flag times when you can say: ‘Hey, maybe the EPO tests aren’t ~~working,’ ”~~ Puchowicz said. “It’s not an indictment of any one rider. But instead of getting blindsided by another Armstrong era, we have to think about doubling down.”	“The idea of using performance data is to flag times when you can say: ‘Hey, maybe the EPO tests aren’t working,' ” Puchowicz said. “It’s not an indictment of any one rider. But instead of getting blindsided by another Armstrong era, we have to think about doubling down.”
	This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
	Correction: July 29, 2013