JimmyFingers said:Just added a small caveat for you. Apart from that I have no problem with your paradigm.
I like that. You guys made a good team.
-
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!
I like that. You guys made a good team.
Ferminal said:
martinvickers said:
JimmyFingers said:Dumb as a post but he means well
Ferminal said:
Best laugh of the week!
Cheers, y'all!
A picture sometimes says more than a thousand words:Berzin said:
http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1993/05/23/pagina-37/1271432/pdf.html#&mode=fullScreen
en la última semana, intentará ganar el Giro y se mostró en desacuerdo con el doctor Conconi sobre su estado físic
23rd of may 1993
martinvickers
BANNED
hiero2 said:
Is there any way we could get some mid ranker in the Peleton to deed-poll change his name to "The Might Clinic"?
The thought of the "the Mighty Clinic" taking a pull at the front, or going back for the bottles, or even being dope tested after an all day break, for some reasons tickles me.
i know somebody from Tonga or Samoa was going to change their name to Paddy Power at the last World Cup. since the Clinic isn't (yet) a commercial enterprise, I'm not sure it could be banned
Fearless-I've seen the picture, and I still don't get what you mean.
A photo may say a thousand words, but what I was talking about aren't vague and shady associations with other like-minded dopers.
I'm talking about an ex-rider or riders coming out and giving details about an organized doping program on the team.
A photo may say a thousand words, but what I was talking about aren't vague and shady associations with other like-minded dopers.
I'm talking about an ex-rider or riders coming out and giving details about an organized doping program on the team.
Okay, like that. The picture was more a response on you post on the other page, where you want Indurain stripped. Or, lets say held accountable?Berzin said:
This picture shows the Ferrara topclients before the start of the Giro 1993, evrything leads back to the alchemists from 1986 onwards. The 'DBLAB LISTA NERA' files speak volume for those four on the picture. Or would Indurain be the only one that worked with Conconi since 1987 that didnt use PED's, nah.
The lines with the Carrera/Chateau teams are way too obvious, and, are still active. Even at Orica Greenedge now.
The same goes for Spain and the Reynolds/Banesto setup.
Same goes for every nation.
So, thinking of ''I'm talking about an ex-rider or riders coming out and giving details about an organized doping program on the team.'' is an utopia. Omerta rides.
sideshadow said:
What do you expect him to declare agreement with anti dopers?
Be shooting himself in the foot.
kingjr said:What do you not understand about it?
I looked up the word and can only assume he did not use it appropriately, I have to assume he meant something else. Unless he would categorize a silly opinion piece in a throw away rag as a Reign of Terror.
Having read about the Vayer book here, I downloaded it today and had a read.
There's something that I don't quite get. What I don't understand is how Hinaults performance rates as suspicious? He wasn't racing in the EPO era when the massive gains were made, so where does that leave the people who have the same rating as him but were most likely loaded on EPO?
What am I missing?
There's something that I don't quite get. What I don't understand is how Hinaults performance rates as suspicious? He wasn't racing in the EPO era when the massive gains were made, so where does that leave the people who have the same rating as him but were most likely loaded on EPO?
What am I missing?
Yeah, that's a point I raised originally, since he's "suspicious" for some ITTs, they're probably implying he took stuff that worked short term, like cortisone...he probably got "flagged" because there is a (little) bit of dirt on him (ruined knees and crit test refused), like for Fignon (two positives) and unlike for Lemond.
I'm taking a lot of that rag with a grain of salt but it's certainly nice to have a one place stop to remember all these eventful climbs!
I'm taking a lot of that rag with a grain of salt but it's certainly nice to have a one place stop to remember all these eventful climbs!
Dirty Dennis said:
2 interpretations possible :
1) The very best racer is by definition performing at the limit of what is possible for any human being.
On the days in which said racer is in top shape, I would think he should normally turn in a suspicious performance, I would say, again, by definition.
2) Even though EPO didn't appear on the sport scene until the end of the 80's and in GTs until the 90's, drugs available in the 80's permitted a non negligible gain in performance, as shown by the fact that Guimard, as a DS, never turned to EPO, still holding on to cortisone and such products until 1993, i.e. the end of his career as DS.
sideshadow said:
It looks from those answers that, while may be not a real DR, HE IS REAL LIAR .
He lied on two accounts :
1) the standard cyclist for vayer is 70 kg, not 72 kg. A 3% lie.
2) for most top cyclists 1 liter O2 does not yield 80-90 watts, say at anaerobic threshold, but around 80 watts. Example L.A. in his last "Coyle test" produced 404 watts with 5 liters O2, i.e. 80.8 watts/liter O2. But of course that's just an approximation.
Hence an 11-12% lie.
Add the 2 lies together and you get the power gain expected from EPO + extras. QED.
90 watts/liter O2 would imply an outlandish mechanical efficiency à la Lucia et al.
Most of us produce 78 watts per liter O2.
I've just now read this thread, and bought "Not Normal", which I'm reading and enjoying. My take on this thus far is that Antoine Vayer provides a powerful tool for the future of pro cycling.
Anti-doping, so called, has up to now been a Tom and Jerry cat-and-mouse game, a charade played out for political, marketing reasons, and thus a joke, even as the teams have had to take it seriously. Those who take it seriously enough can always stay two steps ahead of the game, as we all know, and the utter corruption of the UCI ensures the status quo is maintained.
Statistical analysis, which is essentially I think what Vayer is doing, cuts through this smog of corruption and lies. You could call it common sense applied to sport. Where a performance lies on a so called normal distribution determines its degree of believability. Looks too good to be true? It very likely is.
Common sense says believable, legitimate, honest human sport is far more dramatic and compelling than mere "entertainment". Dramatic and compelling will outsell entertainment any day. Jaimie Fuller apparently realizes this. He may also be just a good guy. In any case, he is leading by example for commercial cycling interests. He demonstrates that they can play a progressive, constructive role.
I think this is huge for cycling, and a huge threat to its corrupt interests. Expect them to ignore it, dismiss it, ignore it again. And to raise a hue and cry when (if) that doesn't work.
Anti-doping, so called, has up to now been a Tom and Jerry cat-and-mouse game, a charade played out for political, marketing reasons, and thus a joke, even as the teams have had to take it seriously. Those who take it seriously enough can always stay two steps ahead of the game, as we all know, and the utter corruption of the UCI ensures the status quo is maintained.
Statistical analysis, which is essentially I think what Vayer is doing, cuts through this smog of corruption and lies. You could call it common sense applied to sport. Where a performance lies on a so called normal distribution determines its degree of believability. Looks too good to be true? It very likely is.
Common sense says believable, legitimate, honest human sport is far more dramatic and compelling than mere "entertainment". Dramatic and compelling will outsell entertainment any day. Jaimie Fuller apparently realizes this. He may also be just a good guy. In any case, he is leading by example for commercial cycling interests. He demonstrates that they can play a progressive, constructive role.
I think this is huge for cycling, and a huge threat to its corrupt interests. Expect them to ignore it, dismiss it, ignore it again. And to raise a hue and cry when (if) that doesn't work.
Le breton said:
FTFY
At lower VO utilisation rates, e.g. functional threshold power (which might be at 80-90% of VO2max), it would be less.
Maxiton said:
A sound/common sense statistical analysis could be applied to the climbing time trends, but not the W/kg estimates which are the result of occasional mistaken maths and various uncontrolled/unknown assumptions and potentially inaccurate climb data. Why introduce various random and/or systematic biases to a data set when it's not necessary?
GIGO
It's main purpose presumably is to make money.
As a doping detection tool, the Vayer method adds no value. Climb times highlight the top end/winners (targeted anyway) and tells us nothing about 98% of riders.
Alex Simmons/RST said:
I bow to your expertise when it comes to W/kg estimates. I'll take your word for it. But if his math is mistaken and some of his assumptions misplaced, how does that invalidate Vayer's essential thesis that statistical analysis can be applied to athletic performance to reveal that which remains opaque to conventional drug testing: continued cheating in sport? And furthermore, how do his presumed errors indicate that his sole motive is to make money?
Under the current state of affairs drug testers are a fig leaf for continued cheating. They certify the legitimacy of teams and riders, are paid handsomely for it, and business goes on pretty much as before, even as their numbers are beyond reproach (think Catlin/Astana). In the case where something goes wrong, arrangements can somehow be made (LA/Swiss lab). And when for whatever reason a positive is needed, one can be ordered up (Landis? Contador?). Drug testing has been going on in cycling for over 45 years, since the death of Tom Simpson. All it's done is add another group to the pool of corruption and enable further developments in cheating.
For all the nickles and dimes Vayer and Jaimie Fuller might make off this single publication, it seems to me they could make a great deal more by doing what all the bigger players do in cycling: follow the UCI's marching orders, or at the very least stand in complicit silence. Those who rock the boat are usually confined to the lower decks.
Statistical analysis is the least assailable method of finding patterns of cheating in sport. Where the numbers are wrong, plug in more accurate numbers for an improved model and better results When used in conjunction with a serious testing regime, Vayer's method (also long endorsed by Greg Lemond) could help lead to a truly healthy sport.
It seems to me that this or that error in math is a straw man here, and that only those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo could object to Vayer on that basis.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 986
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Started by Logic-is-your-friend
- Replies: 751
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
-
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: Oldermanish
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram