Recent content by Casual cyclist

This is an argument of the form "this is so because so it is". When comparing running and cycling, one should also note that in cycling drafting is the big thing and the majority of time in every race is spent in a tight group, aka peloton. That does not work in running and contributes towards...

A big motor.:)

I am not dismissing them, just stating the obvious: they are sub 1% relative improvement. See, if Pogo were to improve on that Pantani time by 1% (i.e. by 30 seconds or so), we would conclude that he has to be doped on some similar stuff, like full-on EPO. But nothing would point to an external...

"Short distance running", huh? That's your last trench? Implying, I take it, that such 10-15% improvements are rather commonplace in long distance running? I could ask for an example, but we both know how that would end, don't we? Well, they are bigger now. From last year, to be more precise...

It's good that you at least use that qualifier "I think". What can I say? Sadly, this time around, you think wrong. The thing is the Muur de Huy seated searing attack that made all other world class hilly specialists look like "they were on their brakes" put all dots on i's even if those dots...

Smoke will be easily "explained" by a short. Do not forget that modern bikes are already fully "legally" stuffed with battery-powered equipment: from shifters to transponders to god knows what else. :) Edit: P.S. And wheels spinning on their own have been observed already. People even posted...

Simply put, they do not. The absolute improvements become smaller, and the relative ones should be in the same ballpark. Last time Bolt improved on his own record (from 9.69 to 9.58) it was almost exactly by 1%. Also Bolt is not in an endurance sport, so the comparisons here can be questioned...

Absolutely correct. And neither can it be explained by the use of same or equivalent doping program.

One more time for the folks with exclusively humanitarian education (but you still have to be able to count money, right?). We are talking relative improvement, the so called percentages, for the mathematically uninitiated. Example: if the previous record in anything was equal to 1 hour, then 1%...

For these guys, it is not that important. In their arguments, they mostly rely on the "magic of words". "Grey-area", "grey-zone" simply sounds mysteriously enough to amount to -- in their view -- an explanation of the inexplicable. Same with "generational" talent.

I understand that not everyone is a scientist or mathematician, and that's perfectly fine. But I used to assume that, in the modern world, everyone was aware of what percentage change is in things that can be quantified, like, for example, elapsed time -- in the case at hand. I just checked the...

I said micro-dosing as opposed to mega-dosing EPO plus some "grey-zone", repeating your statements. Ok, now it is clearer. Pretty much all of this 10% has to be due to that unnamed "grey-area". Actually it has to be more than 10% since the micro-dosing is quite a step back from mega-dosing of...

About 40% of this sub-forum participants respectfully disagree. And 2/3 of those 40% disagree most decisively. You wonder why? It's called empirical evidence. This is what scientists sometimes call..., you know, things that can be seen directly by somebody's (pretty much everybody's in this...

Could not have said it better myself. You've got to love that magical power of money in the modern mostly one-dimensional society. For the sake of quote completeness, I would only add "...anyone and anything..." which includes -- in the case at hand -- various cutting edge "smart assist"...

Please do share the source for that crystal ball you used to come to that conclusion. I certainly would like to have one. And other folks on this forum likely would not mind.