2014 Cleanest Peloton Ever

[Von Mises]

There are 3 possibilties:

1. incomplete data (works for both years)
2. less doping (bahahahahhahahahaa ahem)
3. anti-doping is now less effective than it was in 1998 (most likely imo)

Positive tests registered on dopeology.com:

1998: 30 matches for your search

2013: 18 matches for your search

That's a 40% reduction in positive tests, despite the alleged increase in testing.

Dopers are improving year on year. Testing is not keeping up.

The problem with your raw numbers is LA never tested positive. Khol only tested positive once. etc.

The problem with your answer is that you try to read into my post things there werent. So, once again, Bennotti lied, I showed his lie.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The problem with your answer is that you try to read into my post things there werent. So, once again, Bennotti lied, I showed his lie.

Benotti's point, which is what you actually quoted, is that testing is less effective.

Either way, you are splitting hairs in some strange attempt at point scoring - not sure who for though.

Looks like less testing 2012 -> 2013 to me.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Benotti's point, which is what you actually quoted, is that testing is less effective.

Either way, you are splitting hairs in some strange attempt at point scoring - not sure who for though.

Looks like less testing 2012 -> 2013 to me.

Did you read anything he wrote.

Here is a hint...

Anti doping doing less testing than ever before. Fact.

So why don't you go back every year, post the results and see if it is still a fact?

 

[Netserk]

http://iconosquare.com/p/728384307780958193_28664140

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Unbelievable ugly...

 

[Benotti69]

I am not saying that test are effective, I do not know how effective or noneffective they are, I can speculate about it, but thats it.

Thre only thing I did, I pointed out your lie. Simple. You lied. I showed your lie.

You showed nothing. Simple.

Testing in 2013 down on 2102.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

You showed nothing. Simple.

Testing in 2013 down on 2102.

No, Marty McFly. He showed you lied or are just plain wrong. Take your pick.

 

[Benotti69]

........

Anti doping doing less testing than ever before. Fact.

Looks like less testing 2012 -> 2013 to me.

Less tests in 2013 compared to 2012. 1,156 less tests. FACT.

 

[Ferminal]

I cbf looking, are those numbers just male road?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Less tests in 2013 compared to 2012. 1,156 less tests. FACT.

I don't believe I disputed that? So why pretend that was what you meant... anyone can read the history so just stop digging.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Dear Wiggo likes his data points so I am sure he will crunch the numbers for testing back to when they were introduced. A year on year should suffice.

 

[thehog]

Dear Wiggo likes his data points so I am sure he will crunch the numbers for testing back to when they were introduced. A year on year should suffice.

The number or tests, often means little.

When & where and what type is critical.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I cbf looking, are those numbers just male road?

CADF are unsurprisingly very late with their business report for 2013.

The slide preceding the one I posted says,

More than 1,000 professional riders in registered testing pool
(mandatory for professional road riders)
And more than 1000 races in the UCI International Calendar
All cycling disciplines
On all five continents

So (at a guess) it is all RTP riders and then the ones who are sucked in for whatever reason on top of that.

http://www.icic2014.nl/pic/3. RequirementsTest Distribution, Planning, Coordination_F. Rossi.pdf

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I don't want to cause another tizzy in the pedants attacking Benotti and myself, but how about a bit of perspective?

Surely the reduced number of positives can be discussed vs splitting hairs with posts?

 

[Franklin]

2. less doping (bahahahahhahahahaa ahem)
3. anti-doping is now less effective than it was in 1998 (most likely imo)

I'm amused that you are convinced that #2 can not be the case when there is no data to back it up.

And the same goes for #3, indeed considering that they couldn't test for EPO, nor did they detect dope on the tiniest level as they do now this is also in need for some data.

It's easy to scream "nothing changed", but if someone says "yes it did"he sure has as much if not more support so shouldn't deserve scorn as is shown here.

Oh and can we please stop erecting strawmen? Von Misses demolished Benotti's claim, don't draw in things he didn't say nor imply. Just admit "well, I was wrong, sorry".

Because, seriously, "Anti doping doing less testing than ever before. Fact" is simply flat out false. Or are we going to say if there were more tests in for example 1995? 1985? 1975? The word ever disqualified the statement the moment it was posted.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I don't want to cause another tizzy in the pedants attacking Benotti and myself, but how about a bit of perspective?

Surely the reduced number of positives can be discussed vs splitting hairs with posts?

You two posted ********. People called you out on your ********. And they are the pedants? You are like the Fox News of the forum. Dress up opinion as fact and no doubt claim to be fair and balanced.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm amused that you are convinced that #2 can not be the case when there is no data to back it up.

And the same goes for #3, indeed considering that they couldn't test for EPO, nor did they detect dope on the tiniest level as they do now this is also in need for some data.

It's easy to scream "nothing changed", but if someone says "yes it did"he sure has as much if not more support so shouldn't deserve scorn as is shown here.

If you think I am screaming when I post things, you are overly sensitive.

I realise you will call it false (because I am in fact not screaming at all), but it's rhetoric, and it does not help the conversation.

It's like me saying, you guys keep p1ssing your pants every time someone shows more evidence that cheating is part of the human condition, that yes, everyone does it, and to say cyclists, all of a sudden, in 2006 or something, stopped doing it, is so ridiculous that your sanity needs to be questioned.

You're amused. Well bully for you.

I'm amused that you think people decided to stop doping in 2006. Oh wait. You didn't write that. You just wrote you think it may have happened. Or did you even do that.

Did you just write a post to insult me, without actually putting a stake in the ground and taking a position?

Hmm yes. That's it. You're disagreeing with me, insulting me in the process, but not actually saying anything yourself.

Meh.

 

[Franklin]

DW, what did I say about strawmen?

I dare you to point out where Pedro, me or Von Mises hold one of those ridiculous positions.

Strawmen are a show of insincerity.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

DW, what did I say about strawmen?

I dare you to point out where Pedro, me or Von Mises hold one of those ridiculous positions.

Strawmen are a show of insincerity.

You posted purely to disagree with me and insult me. That is not a strawman, that's what you did.

If you think there is a strawman, you're reading my post wrong. Your English must be worse than I thought.

ETA: I have no idea who Pedro is or what he posts.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Hint: when someone says:

2. XYZ could expain it (but I don't believe it, I think it's a joke)

and you reply,

XYZ has no data to be proven false

Then clearly you think it is true, otherwise you would not argue about it.

End of.

 

[Franklin]

DW, paranoid much?

Why not answer the problem:

There's as much support for things having improved as for no improvement. Indeed the "no improvement" position strongly hinges on a lack of data which can only be caused by corruption/ineffective tests.

That's not impossible, not even unlikely, but it's certainly not a stronger position as the assumption that things did get better. And yes, things certainly changed, though the effectiveness is anyone's guess.

 

[Franklin]

Hint: when someone says:

2. XYZ could expain it (but I don't believe it, I think it's a joke)

and you reply,

XYZ has no data to be proven false

Then clearly you think it is true, otherwise you would not argue about it.

End of.

Oh boy, so it's BLACK or WHITE?

If you can only see extremes (friend or foe!) than you have disqualified yourself from discussions. The world isnt black or white.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

ETA: I have no idea who Pedro is or what he posts.

That cuts deep.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Oh boy, so it's BLACK or WHITE?

I say "less doping" is a joke / laughable.

And you look like you are disagreeing with me.

I mean. It is binary right? There is either less doping or there is not, right? Your post goes to great pains to say it could be true.

Are you saying you don't know if it's true or not? That there might be the same or more doping, or there might be less, but you don't know?



If so, I really do not understand the point of you even responding.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Strawmen are a show of insincerity.

Still waiting for you to quote the strawman I allegedly set up.


tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock