• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

2014 Cleanest Peloton Ever

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dear Wiggo said:
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.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Von Mises said:
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.

 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
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?
 
Benotti69 said:

1171219_619467921483279_1933567185_n.jpg
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Von Mises said:
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.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Ferminal said:
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
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
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?
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
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.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
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.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Franklin said:
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.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
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.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Franklin said:
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.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
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.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
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.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
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.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Franklin said:
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?

:confused:

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

TRENDING THREADS