Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 11-12-12, 21:39
armchairclimber armchairclimber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandillusion View Post
Bit overconfident in those jingoistic assertions. I would have thought MJM's and hogs ruminations might have given you a little food for thought.
Jingoistic? Moi?
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-12-12, 21:49
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armchairclimber View Post
That was precisely my point. It isn't a legal setting. It's froth. Fun, sometimes interesting but froth. What constitutes "proof" here is a moveable and meaningless feast.
If that was your point all along - then why bring legalize in to it?

To the highlighted - proof is proof in a court, in a forum "proof" is entirely individual. I have no problem if a poster remain skeptical or believing, it's a forum - I do have a problem when they apply different standards to different riders or teams.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-12-12, 22:23
martinvickers's Avatar
martinvickers martinvickers is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peterst6906 View Post
Not being loaded or derogatory, but I think this quote is the flip side of the statement you made to Krebs. It shows that in many cases lawyers don't understand science (or the limits of what scientists are able to do while sticking to good science) and so don't understand the significance of issues around method validation.

Having dealt with many lawyers on both sides of criminal law over the years, very, very few have had anything more than a high school level grasp of the science underlying arguments they have been making. I've almost slapped myself sometimes with the stupidity of lines of questioning, both when sitting in court listening to testimony and when being questioned.

However, I think whether scientists are offering what they consider good scientific arguments/answers, or lawyers are looking at legal aspects, rarely are either of these groups the ultimate decision makers about the introduction of a test. There are a lot of groups/people involved and each of them has an important part to play.

The scientists have to be pedantic about the science because that's the role they are expected to play; and it's different (but complimentary) to the role that the lawyers are expected to play..
Lawyers, at least in common Law (anglo-phone) countries, are overwhelmingly from a humanities, liberal arts background.

As an example, when I went to Uni to do my law degree, eleven others from my Upper 6th form came to do it too (a number that was well outside the norm, but anyway...). Of those 11, 1 left within weeks - of the other ten, only 1 - me - had a mainly science (maths, physics & chemistry along with english) a-level background - the rest had all done English, classics, history, languages etc. - I think maybe 1 other had done a Maths a-level, but with other humanities.

Of those 10, maybe seven of us ended up as practising lawyers.

Where lawyers really, really tend to fall down is statistics - the famous Dr Roy Meadows debacle was caused by both doctors and Lawyers not understanding statistical information.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-12-12, 22:25
martinvickers's Avatar
martinvickers martinvickers is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
If that was your point all along - then why bring legalize in to it?
.
Because in the real, non-Clinic world, riders have both Legal rights, and lawyers.

And because inventing your own level of proof before making accusations is a good route to a defamation suit, and penury.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-12-12, 22:51
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
Because in the real, non-Clinic world, riders have both Legal rights, and lawyers.
But you are in the Clinic - take the wig and gown off - no-one here passes judgements, no rider gets sanctioned here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
And because inventing your own level of proof before making accusations is a good route to a defamation suit, and penury.
Really?
So you have no opinion on people doping?
You have no threshold that you go by to determine what you constitute doping?
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-12-12, 23:27
ElChingon's Avatar
ElChingon ElChingon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: En el Internet, and Hiding from the UCI
Posts: 5,833
Default

1. Always getting angry at being asked about it.
2. Never open to criticism of it.
3. Hire known banned people outside the team to train you.
4. Employ others to run propaganda on your behalf.
5. Hide under the cloak of a cause.
6. Always looking to the future and wanting to forget the past.
7. Can never answer a question about it to a reporter.
8. Claim to know nothing about it when the average fan knows what it is or what is going on.
9. Require a lawyer even when you've never tested positive.
10. Claim some homeopathic remedy is the root of your new found performance. (get it root )
11. Train in extremely remote locations away from home or the race schedule where the UCI/WADA testers have a tough time getting to.


Imagine if anyone of you's could get away with that your current school/work place?
__________________
CyclingNews Forum Member Number 1. (verified)
All my posts are of my own opinion.
October 10, 2012 The Reasoned Decision
Points: 10 CN Infraction Points
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 11-12-12, 23:51
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElChingon View Post
1. Always getting angry at being asked about it.
2. Never open to criticism of it.
3. Hire known banned people outside the team to train you.
4. Employ others to run propaganda on your behalf.
5. Hide under the cloak of a cause.
6. Always looking to the future and wanting to forget the past.
7. Can never answer a question about it to a reporter.
8. Claim to know nothing about it when the average fan knows what it is or what is going on.
9. Require a lawyer even when you've never tested positive.
10. Claim some homeopathic remedy is the root of your new found performance. (get it root )
11. Train in extremely remote locations away from home or the race schedule where the UCI/WADA testers have a tough time getting to.


Imagine if anyone of you's could get away with that your current school/work place?

Absolutely brilliant!

So apt & so true. Post of the centry!
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 11-12-12, 23:58
cineteq's Avatar
cineteq cineteq is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 5,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElChingon View Post
1. Always getting angry at being asked about it.
2. Never open to criticism of it.
3. Hire known banned people outside the team to train you.
4. Employ others to run propaganda on your behalf.
5. Hide under the cloak of a cause.
6. Always looking to the future and wanting to forget the past.
7. Can never answer a question about it to a reporter.
8. Claim to know nothing about it when the average fan knows what it is or what is going on.
9. Require a lawyer even when you've never tested positive.
10. Claim some homeopathic remedy is the root of your new found performance. (get it root )
11. Train in extremely remote locations away from home or the race schedule where the UCI/WADA testers have a tough time getting to.


Imagine if anyone of you's could get away with that your current school/work place?
+1 Good stuff. All symptoms checked except...

I'm not seeing being affected by a random illness, I don't know ... let's say Bilharzia? And being able to recover in few weeks and win races.

PS: No. 1 sounds like Wiggo
__________________
Quote:
The scientific explanation for Vincenzo Nibali's extraordinary descending ability is his large cojones, which lower his center of gravity, enabling him to corner with confidence on high speed descents
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 11-13-12, 00:39
martinvickers's Avatar
martinvickers martinvickers is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
But you are in the Clinic - take the wig and gown off - no-one here passes judgements, no rider gets sanctioned here.
The Clinic is not separate from real life - it exists within it, and is subject to it, including its laws...


Quote:
Really?
So you have no opinion on people doping?
Of course I do. As It happens, i think they should be jailed.

Quote:
You have no threshold that you go by to determine what you constitute doping?
"I constitute doping" makes absolutely no sense.

Perhaps you could reword this.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 11-13-12, 01:11
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
The Clinic is not separate from real life - it exists within it, and is subject to it, including its laws...
What?
Who said it was separate from real life (what does that even mean?).

It is a Internet forum - not a Court of Law. No one passes sanctions or judgements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
Of course I do. As It happens, i think they should be jailed.

"I constitute doping" makes absolutely no sense.

Perhaps you could reword this.
Constitute = establish.
What do you use to establish if someone has doped. What is your threshold?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:20.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.