BigMac said:
He went from 0 wins last year to 1 this year. That's an infinite% improvement.
Must be drugs.
-
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
He went from 0 wins last year to 1 this year. That's an infinite% improvement.
Must be drugs.
Their basic assumption is that the trend of improvement shown prior to 1932 should have increased or at least stayed the same, whereas in most sports it decreased. IOW, there was evidence of a plateau being approached, which sports scientists have long argued is expected.
Yet instead of describing their results as evidence of a plateau or asymptote, they say their results indicate “degradation”. They mean by this that the earlier trend was not maintained, but that is exactly what it means to say an asymptote or plateau is approached. They don’t seem to understand this at all. Their results confirm this, yet they insist on denying this.
Then they claim that the earlier trends are maintained for the most part in winter sports. IOW, there has been more improvement in winter sports records than in summer sports records. Yet they interpret this as evidence that winter sports are cleaner (like cross-country skiing?). Why? Because they’ve already concluded that the asymptote in summer sports, which they call degradation, is the result of a negative effect of doping. Since winter sports records are improving, it must be because they don’t have doping holding them back.
So if results increase more in some sports than in others, it must be that those sports are cleaner, not negatively impacted by doping. They never consider the possibility that there might be other reasons for the slower improvement in summer sports, which I will point out below.
Then there is their really weird theory that more skills are required in winter sports, therefore more variety of PEDs are required, therefore athletes in winter sports would be more likely to get caught. As evidence for this, they cite stats indicating that detection rates are lower in certain winter sports than in summer sports. If athletes in winter sports are more likely to get caught, why are the detection rates lower? Because they know they will get caught, so are less likely to dope. With arguments like this, one can prove anything.
It remains to explain why the trends for summer sports generally show less increase over time. I think there’s a very simple explanation. Most of the summer sports studied involve very basic human activities like running, jumping, throwing, etc. The authors themselves emphasize this. Anyone can participate in these events without a lot of financial investment. Hence poor African-Americans, or people from third world countries, had a relatively good chance of becoming world-class sprinters, marathon runners, shot putters, etc. This being the case, the athlete pool became saturated very soon after the Olympics began. Everyone who might excel at some sport got a chance to try. Of course, as the world population increased, the pool increased, but the % of people did not.
In contrast, the winter sports are more specialized, not just in terms of the needed skills, but in the financial investment needed, and even the environment needed. Not everyone in the world can take up skiing or skating in a big way, in some cases because there is no snow or mountains where they live, in other cases because they are too poor to have access to the needed equipment. As time goes on, these possibilities become more available. In developed countries, more people gain access to the needed equipment, and in some cases, like skating, the environment can be transported to warm weather environments. So the potential pool of athletes grows much faster.
There are other factors that could explain their data. E.g., to the extent the authors are correct that winter sports are more skill-based, there is more room for improvement in learning the skills. Being a world-class runner is much more a case of raw talent. Also, in many countries, the growth of pro sports like MLB, NBA, NFL, Euro soccer has competed for talented summer sport athletes, reducing the pool, whereas if you are talented in a winter sport, there is nothing else that competes for that.
Yet instead of describing their results as evidence of a plateau or asymptote, they say their results indicate “degradation”. They mean by this that the earlier trend was not maintained, but that is exactly what it means to say an asymptote or plateau is approached. They don’t seem to understand this at all. Their results confirm this, yet they insist on denying this.
Then they claim that the earlier trends are maintained for the most part in winter sports. IOW, there has been more improvement in winter sports records than in summer sports records. Yet they interpret this as evidence that winter sports are cleaner (like cross-country skiing?). Why? Because they’ve already concluded that the asymptote in summer sports, which they call degradation, is the result of a negative effect of doping. Since winter sports records are improving, it must be because they don’t have doping holding them back.
So if results increase more in some sports than in others, it must be that those sports are cleaner, not negatively impacted by doping. They never consider the possibility that there might be other reasons for the slower improvement in summer sports, which I will point out below.
Then there is their really weird theory that more skills are required in winter sports, therefore more variety of PEDs are required, therefore athletes in winter sports would be more likely to get caught. As evidence for this, they cite stats indicating that detection rates are lower in certain winter sports than in summer sports. If athletes in winter sports are more likely to get caught, why are the detection rates lower? Because they know they will get caught, so are less likely to dope. With arguments like this, one can prove anything.
It remains to explain why the trends for summer sports generally show less increase over time. I think there’s a very simple explanation. Most of the summer sports studied involve very basic human activities like running, jumping, throwing, etc. The authors themselves emphasize this. Anyone can participate in these events without a lot of financial investment. Hence poor African-Americans, or people from third world countries, had a relatively good chance of becoming world-class sprinters, marathon runners, shot putters, etc. This being the case, the athlete pool became saturated very soon after the Olympics began. Everyone who might excel at some sport got a chance to try. Of course, as the world population increased, the pool increased, but the % of people did not.
In contrast, the winter sports are more specialized, not just in terms of the needed skills, but in the financial investment needed, and even the environment needed. Not everyone in the world can take up skiing or skating in a big way, in some cases because there is no snow or mountains where they live, in other cases because they are too poor to have access to the needed equipment. As time goes on, these possibilities become more available. In developed countries, more people gain access to the needed equipment, and in some cases, like skating, the environment can be transported to warm weather environments. So the potential pool of athletes grows much faster.
There are other factors that could explain their data. E.g., to the extent the authors are correct that winter sports are more skill-based, there is more room for improvement in learning the skills. Being a world-class runner is much more a case of raw talent. Also, in many countries, the growth of pro sports like MLB, NBA, NFL, Euro soccer has competed for talented summer sport athletes, reducing the pool, whereas if you are talented in a winter sport, there is nothing else that competes for that.
Re:
The winter sports they have looked at are speed skating and ski jumping, no cross country. "World records" is the clue here, no such thing in cross country.Merckx index said:
Re:
Yeah it's just absurdly bad. Not even when I worked as a consultant and talked *** to clients all the time did my "analyses" ever stoop to this level. Gotta have some self respectDear Wiggo said:
I mentioned the degrees because it means he has studied, and is not dumb per se. So his graphs and their use as "evidence" seems duplicitous.
Was expecting a *** study design. I clicked the link and guess what I found
Anyone know if that's a legit scientific journal?
Oh god, lead author actually has a PhD
I feel ashamed of being a student medical sciences right now
Anyone know if that's a legit scientific journal?
Oh god, lead author actually has a PhD
I feel ashamed of being a student medical sciences right now
Re:
I'm getting worried, you training to be the next Ferrari or something?
You study medical sciences?Red Rick said:
I'm getting worried, you training to be the next Ferrari or something?
Re: Re:
From the old jobs thread in the general forum
Not gonna be a doping doctor though, think you have to be a physician to do that
Also not gonna save the world
The Hitch said:
From the old jobs thread in the general forum
Red Rick said:I'm gonna study Biomedical Sciences, so all diseases will be gone in 10 years or they will fly up the Alp in less than half an hour because of me
Not gonna be a doping doctor though, think you have to be a physician to do that
Also not gonna save the world
Re: Re:
Or a veterinarianRed Rick said:Not gonna be a doping doctor though, think you have to be a physician to do that
Re: Re:
Including the Ski jumping WR is indeed hilarious. I think they don't actually recognise new WR's as such anymore, cuz it might lead to the jumpers taking extra risks
Including the Ski jumping WR is indeed hilarious. I think they don't actually recognise new WR's as such anymore, cuz it might lead to the jumpers taking extra risks
Have a look at this numbskull's other studies. Claims no difference in doped vs non-doped 100m sprint times between 1980 and 2011.
Except he ignores anyone not running quicker than 9.98. So each Olympics between 1980 and 2008 you have to ignore half the podium getters ffs. Then assume all dopers were caught or confessed - Balco much?
I am embarrassed to be an Australian with the thread of this title discussing such spurious "research".
Except he ignores anyone not running quicker than 9.98. So each Olympics between 1980 and 2008 you have to ignore half the podium getters ffs. Then assume all dopers were caught or confessed - Balco much?
I am embarrassed to be an Australian with the thread of this title discussing such spurious "research".
Re: Re:
Records are being recognised in ski jumping. The mens record is 251.5 m, set this season.Red Rick said:
But serious:
Lol, dumbest study ever. It seems today every idiot could work at an university...[/quote]
Yes, universities have the market cornered on idiots...
Lol, dumbest study ever. It seems today every idiot could work at an university...[/quote]
Yes, universities have the market cornered on idiots...
yep no difference at all from 1980 to 2012 in the Olympic finals.
Red convicted doper
Yellow, positive test but dodged sanction
Green, unquestionable links to doping, but no conviction
White, questioned links to doping, but no conviction
Pink with purple dots = 100% take it to the bank clean
Sh!t, Coggan has been telling us this for years. I don't know why you guys won't listen to such a humble, well respected dude like that. The Clinic should have been closed years ago.
In fact, thank Sky that we've seen the total neutralization of microdosing and other nefarious performance enhancements by cleans riders. Brailsford could have told you this stuff too if you were just willing to listen.
Lock all the threads and make sure that the last person to leave here turns the lights off.
In fact, thank Sky that we've seen the total neutralization of microdosing and other nefarious performance enhancements by cleans riders. Brailsford could have told you this stuff too if you were just willing to listen.
Lock all the threads and make sure that the last person to leave here turns the lights off.
Re:
lol
Catwhoorg said:
yep no difference at all from 1980 to 2012 in the Olympic finals.
Red convicted doper
Yellow, positive test but dodged sanction
Green, unquestionable links to doping, but no conviction
White, questioned links to doping, but no conviction
Pink with purple dots = 100% take it to the bank clean
lol
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 359
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Latest posts
-
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Latest: gregrowlerson
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram