Log in:  

Register

Most memorable doped perfomances?

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

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re:

25 May 2018 19:21

Saint Unix wrote:This might even usurp Ventoux and PSM as the most disgusting performance ever by Froome. His fluctuating form before today makes it even more unbelievable.

Oh well, time to wait for CAS to do their job and ban the idiot.

Might? 2013 had absolutely nothing on this. Today was a scar on the face of professional sport. The sheer arrogance of doing it while under investigation makes it worse still. Armstrong himself will be laughing in disbelief.
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,840
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

25 May 2018 19:30

I think Armstrong could've done the same if he had wanted to. I think people are forgetting how laughable PSM really was. It was a single climb stage and he beat everybody by over a minute. I would put this effort even behind A3D from his first tour victory.
Donald Trump: “If you go back to the Civil War, it was the Republicans who did the thing.”
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,279
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Re:

25 May 2018 19:48

Puckfiend wrote:
Frankschleck wrote:well i think we have an answer to the thread.


You know the saying: "Go big, or go home!"


Yeah hahaha.
Frankschleck
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: 17 Jul 2016 20:10

25 May 2018 19:50

He didn't even have the decency to fade a bit.
Frankschleck
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: 17 Jul 2016 20:10

25 May 2018 20:13

Remember Gabrovski faking the pain as he EPO'd his way up the climb...gotta respect that. He held that pain face for the entire duration even though he kept climbing faster and faster. Had the ES team fooled from the get go.
"I have seen many lean riders in the peloton, but very few Tour winners."
User avatar Pantani Attacks
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 07 Jul 2015 11:39

Re: Most memorable doped perfomances?

25 May 2018 20:35

#donewithprocycling

#donewithnfl

Another Landis.

I'll continue to watch the Spring Classics & Strade Bianchi.

The sport is dead.

I am mourning the death of the Grand Tours?
User avatar TubularBills
Member
 
Posts: 961
Joined: 15 Sep 2010 04:17
Location: Guest

26 May 2018 04:50

Well the only thing that can top this is Yates winning 40 minutes back tomorrow by attacking on the flat run in to the climbs, gaining 20 minutes, then gaining another 20 in the next mountain and downhills while finally holding this gap in the final climb while waving to the fans and taking a little time to have a good old Dumoshitbreak
User avatar Dekker_Tifosi
Veteran
 
Posts: 23,908
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:52
Location: Roermond, the Netherlands

Re:

26 May 2018 08:23

Frankschleck wrote:He didn't even have the decency to fade a bit.


Draw your conclusions about the ride as you will, but at least do so on true evidence. He lost time to all 5 of the following group in the last 10km: 33 seconds to Carapaz. And it was 6 minutes slower than the fastest predicted time.
User avatar Armchair cyclist
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,971
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 17:28
Location: East of England, West of Ireland

Re: Re:

26 May 2018 08:31

Armchair cyclist wrote:
Frankschleck wrote:He didn't even have the decency to fade a bit.


Draw your conclusions about the ride as you will, but at least do so on true evidence. He lost time to all 5 of the following group in the last 10km: 33 seconds to Carapaz. And it was 6 minutes slower than the fastest predicted time.

Time gained/lost by Froome - your starting point is, erm, rather peculiar.
Image
Image
User avatar Jagartrott
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,546
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 13:37

Re: Re:

26 May 2018 08:40

Armchair cyclist wrote:
Frankschleck wrote:He didn't even have the decency to fade a bit.


Draw your conclusions about the ride as you will, but at least do so on true evidence. He lost time to all 5 of the following group in the last 10km: 33 seconds to Carapaz. And it was 6 minutes slower than the fastest predicted time.


Does the fastest time predict a solo for 40% of the stage?
User avatar roundabout
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,120
Joined: 07 Jun 2010 11:43

Re: Re:

26 May 2018 09:04

Armchair cyclist wrote:
Frankschleck wrote:He didn't even have the decency to fade a bit.


Draw your conclusions about the ride as you will, but at least do so on true evidence. He lost time to all 5 of the following group in the last 10km: 33 seconds to Carapaz. And it was 6 minutes slower than the fastest predicted time.


:lol:
Bronstein
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 18:05

Re: Re:

26 May 2018 10:29

Jagartrott wrote:
Armchair cyclist wrote:
Frankschleck wrote:He didn't even have the decency to fade a bit.


Draw your conclusions about the ride as you will, but at least do so on true evidence. He lost time to all 5 of the following group in the last 10km: 33 seconds to Carapaz. And it was 6 minutes slower than the fastest predicted time.

Time gained/lost by Froome - your starting point is, erm, rather peculiar.
Image
Image

Your graph, far from illustrating anything peculiar about my first comment, proves it entirely.

I'm not saying it is clean, and I genuinely mean it: do draw conclusions if you wish to. But the comment I responded to is plainly false.

And if the idea that Froome can take 3 1/2 minutes out of Dumoulin needs to be explained, is the same not true of Dumoulin taking 5 minutes out of most of the rest of the top ten?

I have seen nothing in any comment about yesterday that is not a hardening of previously held positions: the reinforcement of prejudices. Those who have never liked Froome say the same as they always have, those who trust him implicitly consider it a heroic performance by their hero, and those who are sceptical but entertained were royally entertained.
User avatar Armchair cyclist
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,971
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 17:28
Location: East of England, West of Ireland

26 May 2018 10:41

I thought it was clear what I meant, namely that you cherry picked a particular point (i.e. the maximum advantage) to 'prove' something. Granted, cherry picking is rife here, but while lecturing others, it's best not to use intellectually dishonest tricks yourself. You can't judge a trend from a random starting point, you have to judge it in its entirety. The graph shows that Froome gained time fast the first 35 km, then at a slower pace the last 45 km.
User avatar Jagartrott
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,546
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 13:37

Re:

26 May 2018 10:50

Jagartrott wrote:I thought it was clear what I meant, namely that you cherry picked a particular point (i.e. the maximum advantage) to 'prove' something. Granted, cherry picking is rife here, but while lecturing others, it's best not to use intellectually dishonest tricks yourself. You can't judge a trend from a random starting point, you have to judge it in its entirety. The graph shows that Froome gained time fast the first 35 km, then at a slower pace the last 45 km.


Read the comment I replied to: that is the only element of the thread that I was commenting on. I did nothing dishonest: Frankschleck's comment was erroneous, and I pointed that out.

I have no idea what you think I was trying to prove, or what cherry I was trying to pick. But the graph proves that Froome lost some time in the last 10km, which is exactly what I said happened, and what Frankschleck said had not happened.

Tell me one thing that I have said that is intellectually dishonest, or retract and apologise.
User avatar Armchair cyclist
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,971
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 17:28
Location: East of England, West of Ireland

26 May 2018 10:52

How is only losing 1 second to Dumoulin on the last climb fading?
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,999
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

Re: Re:

26 May 2018 11:10

Armchair cyclist wrote:
Jagartrott wrote:I thought it was clear what I meant, namely that you cherry picked a particular point (i.e. the maximum advantage) to 'prove' something. Granted, cherry picking is rife here, but while lecturing others, it's best not to use intellectually dishonest tricks yourself. You can't judge a trend from a random starting point, you have to judge it in its entirety. The graph shows that Froome gained time fast the first 35 km, then at a slower pace the last 45 km.


Read the comment I replied to: that is the only element of the thread that I was commenting on. I did nothing dishonest: Frankschleck's comment was erroneous, and I pointed that out.

I have no idea what you think I was trying to prove, or what cherry I was trying to pick. But the graph proves that Froome lost some time in the last 10km, which is exactly what I said happened, and what Frankschleck said had not happened.

Tell me one thing that I have said that is intellectually dishonest, or retract and apologise.

Picking the maximum as a starting point is a science/statistical no-go; it is considered intellectually dishonest. You have to look a the whole trend, not a hand-picked window which 'proves' a point. Climate change deniers do it all the time, for instance.
Image
User avatar Jagartrott
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,546
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 13:37

Re: Re:

26 May 2018 11:36

GuyIncognito wrote:
JosephK wrote:Not even Landis's ride was quite like this one. On Floyd's ride to Morzine in 2006, there were various breakaway guys ahead of him when he began his surge. He had periodic/brief (very brief) respites coming up behind other riders.


Leading to Stuart O'Grady's contender for most retarded comment in cycling, after the positive.

"I knew he was doped because he dropped me and I'm not a bad bike rider"

Yes Stuey, dropping a sprinter on a mountain is the litmus test for doping, clearly.
Right up there with Sastre accusing the two breakaway guys of working together to get to the finish first.


I think the actual quote is "I knew he was doped because he dropped me and I've been full of juice for 15 years".
Ferminal
Veteran
 
Posts: 16,999
Joined: 03 Jul 2009 09:42

26 May 2018 12:14

If a lead that was constantly increases starts to decrease, the performance of that person relative to his competitors has faded.

You cannot say that it is invalid to identify the maximum as the point of comparison, when the contention that I disagreed with was that there was no point after which he declined.

If a rider loses more than half a minute in 10k to a rider of far poorer general pedigree, he has faded.

There is so much bias confirmation in this thread, it really is not worth my time.

Don't invent arguments that I was not making.
User avatar Armchair cyclist
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,971
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 17:28
Location: East of England, West of Ireland

Re: Most memorable doped perfomances?

26 May 2018 12:25

Image
User avatar GuyIncognito
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,099
Joined: 27 Jun 2013 21:19

26 May 2018 12:30

I further refer you to any statistical handbook. Not worth discussing this anymore if you don't know how statistics work. There is no trend break in the series depicted above (apart from the drop in time gain rate around 35 km), hence 'fading' cannot be made concrete.
User avatar Jagartrott
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,546
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 13:37

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: King Boonen, rick james, shalgo and 22 guests

Back to top