Dear Wiggo wrote:
I had 2 points wrt your claim of improvements in training:
1. DB said the same thing, therefore we can almost guarantee it is a lie / false
2. the paragraph I posted on training with dope vs training cleanPoint #2 is undeniable.
The bold bits highlight the problem for me. You don't trust Brailsford - fair enough - but you therefore assume everything he says is a lie. More to the point, you then use that entirely subjective opinion as incontravenable evidence that your opinion is correct. It might be, but presenting it as 'fact' or everything Brailsford says as a 'lie' is a flaw in your argument. It is neither.
As for point 2 being 'undeniable'... same thing. You know as well as I do that the science is not undeniable. As an example:
Dear Wiggo wrote:The only way times can improve is through training harder or more often.
Doping allows you to train harder and more often.
No clean training intervention will ever allow you to train harder or more often than a doped training intervention.
The fact that you walked into the other talking point of doping comparisons being a generation ago when they were still ongoing less than a decade ago. Well. Whatever dude.
Is it? So if a rider changed their diet, would that help? If a rider changed where they trained, or the frequency that they trained certain climbs? What if the weather was better? What if a rider changed X Y or Z... again, you are presenting your opinion as fact when it is pseudoscientific at best. There are dozens of factors that can help a rider ride faster, as well you know, however to acknowledge this, I suppose that would point out a pretty fundamental flaw in your theory.
And as an example, you use that fundamentally flawed viewpoint to then stack it up with a good point t create the impression that your whole point is sound - 'No clean training intervention will ever allow you to train harder or more often than a doped training intervention.' - that is correct, but nobody is suggesting that. They're suggesting that over a period of a decade, it is possible that the next generation of athletes will emerge that have different or better natural and nurtured ability (ie: talent identified and nurtured in a more refined way, or people from certain areas being funnelled towards professional sports when traits are identified). Note the word POSSIBLE. I don't necessarily say it is what has happened here, but if you deny it is possible, that is equally flawed.
As for the 9-10 years argument... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression
as an example. You think all of those were doped performances? It's not an argument I want to get bogged down in because they are not like-for-like (nothing is) sports, but for a century we have watched times in all sporting arenas improve, we have seen people get stronger, leaner, fitter, refine their training to a quite amazing degree. To deny that any of that can help is to deny some pretty fundamental stuff...
Anyway look, you've got me sitting here talking myself into believing the 'marginal gains' argument and that's A) not something I'm convinced of in SKY's case, over such a short time and B) not what I wish to do. I am not in any way some Sky shill. I hate sky, I hate Rupert Murdoch, I hate the Times, and I really hate that they have effectively bought the yellow jersey 3 times, even if it does one day turn out to have been clean.