Dan Martin - "Now I know you can win clean"

[Rip:30]

Ryder started blood doping with Roland Green on the mtnbike circuit, which was witnessed by Subaru-Gary Fisher staffers. Ya sure he cleaned up and then developed into a GT winner after switching to clean operations like Rabo, Phonak and Disco.

The question is not if, but how and how much.

Also: What is up with Dan Martin's head??? That's an interesting genotype for sure.

 

[Rip:30]

No disrespect to you or this claim, or Ryder, but how are we to know your claim is true?

Armstrong was a low(ish) risk according to the often referenced TdF list and THAT guy was red-hot positive. We were supposed to believe Tyler had an ephemeral twin. We know there were positives languishing in the APMU too. The well has been poisoned.

Unfortunately, you learned the hard way, if you release something super-technical like blood profiles, you better back it up with plenty of explanation. And again, the extraordinary lies over decades don't help your honest effort at some transparency.

The APMU is BS, it's a non-peer reviewed statistical black box. If JV et al. really wanted to be "transparent" they would release all the data and have it analysed and published in actual scientific journals, which it's not.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The APMU is BS, it's a non-peer reviewed statistical black box. If JV et al. really wanted to be "transparent" they would release all the data and have it analysed and published in actual scientific journals, which it's not.

Yeah, there's a need for some transparency in the entire process. I'm not ready to throw out the APMU. I'd like to see anonymous results analyzed independently and compared.

To the bolded, Ed Coyle's Armstrong content is published in peer reviewed actual scientific journals. It's not a cure-all.

A little trip into the wayback machine:http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=riders/2005/interviews/roland_green05

 

[Rip:30]

Yeah, there's a need for some transparency in the entire process. I'm not ready to throw out the APMU. I'd like to see anonymous results analyzed independently and compared.

To the bolded, Ed Coyle's Armstrong content is published in peer reviewed actual scientific journals. It's not a cure-all.

Most published science is wrong. It can take years and lifetimes to figure something out but on the way you publish what you think is right and then move forward. People freak about Coyle's paper as if it even matters...

The point is you need to have your statistical method reviewed and you need to store all your data in a public database so others can review/replicate the results at anytime to get the process moving. Eventually the truth comes up through the scientific process but hiding it in some black box is a joke--obviously the methods are flawed and would not pass review and or the greater sum of the data show rampant doping in the peloton.

 

[Caruut]

Most published science is wrong. It can takes years and lifetimes to figure something out but on the way you publish what you think is right and then move forward. People freak about Coyle's paper as if it even matters...

The point is you need to have your statistical method reviewed and you need to store all your data in a public data base so other's can review/replicate the results at anytime to get the process moving. Eventually the truth comes up through the scientific process but hiding it in some black box is joke--obviously the methods are flawed and would not pass review and or the greater sum of the data show rampant doping in the peloton.

Yeah I heard that 95% of statistics are made up on the spot. Seriously, have you anything to substantiate this rather large claim? It's quite a serious allegation to say that over half of all science published is wrong.

 

[Rip:30]

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Start with this...

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Hitch,

its not just the folks here.
Its trivial for a so called 'journalist' who wants to make a story to some data, and shop around until they find a so called "scientist" in the field who will say what they want usually for an appropriate fee.

They do it with all sorts of things, not just blood profiles.

Us back and forthing is relatively harmless. Someone in the mainstream media would be much less so.

That guy, whats his name, uhh, Damsgaard, what is he up to these days...

Funny thing about releasing blood values, do people know how much an individual rider must have screwed up to come near that nice 133 index score? Even the supposed bloodtransfusion[s?] of Armstrong in the 2009 Tour de France didnt get his off score above 100.

 

[armchairclimber]

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Start with this...

Trouble is Ioannidis just publishes any old crap...total nonsense.

 

[Rip:30]

Then read this (not open access, sorry):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html

"Fifty-three papers were deemed 'landmark' studies (see 'Reproducibility of research findings'). It was acknowledged from the outset that some of the data might not hold up, because papers were deliberately selected that described something completely new, such as fresh approaches to targeting cancers or alternative clinical uses for existing therapeutics. Nevertheless, scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research, this was a shocking result."

I make a living experimenting, publishing and reviewing, so also I see what goes into these and the types of pressures that dirve investigators to publish.

So "most" might not be the best word choice, but at least for biology/medicine many many published results are very wrong.

http://www.nature.com/news/arsenic-life-bacterium-prefers-phosphorus-after-all-1.11520

Here's another account that shows the corrective process of open and reviewed science at work though! Science works...... eventually.

Back to work--cheers!

 

[gooner]

How are his allergies situation?

On the radio tonight he said besides an illness which affected him in February, he had none of the health issues which hindered him in the past.

 

[Rip:30]

Trouble is Ioannidis just publishes any old crap...total nonsense.

Trouble is you didn't read or understand the paper, but fortunately journals don't work the way a message board does.

 

[Caruut]

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Start with this...

Interesting. I think that the title is that bold to grab attention, rather than actually most research being wrong. Also worth noting he is talking about medical research where there is a vested interest - hardly all science.

Still, I see your point that simply analysing it might not produce the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I would only add that whatever "truth" you do gain is probably better than no truth.

I would also like to apologise for my flippant tone.

 

[L'arriviste]

On the radio tonight he said besides an illness which affected him in February, he had none of the health issues which hindered him in the past.

No doubt he's also been helped on by one of the most appalling European Springs I can remember. I was thinking that on Sunday: Dan's sneezing usually starts around now, doesn't it? Usually equates to instant GT mediocrity, though of course there are other reasons for that. LBL was pretty cold. Not Hinault finger freezing cold, but cold all the same.

So there's a silver lining in all that crap weather!

 

[Caruut]

Trouble is Ioannidis just publishes any old crap...total nonsense.

Got a source for that?

 

[blackcat]

That's an impressive misunderstanding of basic hematology. Good lord. As a rule of thumb, commenting on things you aren't educated in tends to strengthen the argument of your adversary.

thanks for coming back. i had enough hubris to think my harlequin self had managed to send you back to boulder. not the sisyphean clinic boulder.

so good to see you back.

stupid people say stupid things. i am evidence.

but i dont necessarily think dirtyworks lack of grad studies in hema at cedars sinai are strengthening others arguments. they should stand or fall and exist on their own merit.

otherwise it would be easy to lampoon anyone saying that the crit measuring devices are incorrectly calibrated when the tests do not necessarily equate with the presupposition.

this criticism of dirtyworks goes both ways.

i am happy to be the bulwark for criticism. heck, i deserve it.

 

[Rip:30]

Interesting. I think that the title is that bold to grab attention, rather than actually most research being wrong. Also worth noting he is talking about medical research where there is a vested interest - hardly all science.

Still, I see your point that simply analysing it might not produce the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I would only add that whatever "truth" you do gain is probably better than no truth.

I would also like to apologise for my flippant tone.

It's a good point about medical research, but in fact all academic science is extremely competitive and so the pressure to publish "novel" "ground breaking" results is very high. Research awards are granted based on past productivity in the US, Can, and EU...

Agree math physics engineering ect. probably have very different error rates (lower?).

 

[BroDeal]

Ryder started blood doping with Roland Green on the mtnbike circuit, which was witnessed by Subaru-Gary Fisher staffers. Ya sure he cleaned up and then developed into a GT winner after switching to clean operations like Rabo, Phonak and Disco.

The question is not if, but how and how much.

This is one of the interesting things about Vaughters' "experiment." Let's for the sake of argument concede that Ryder won the Giro clean. He is now locked into lying about his previous doping. He cannot go to the Canadian public as Canada's only GT winner and say, "I doped for most of my career, right from the beginning, but trust me. I was clean for that Giro." No one will believe him.

Floyd Landis had a good take on not telling the whole truth when he was planning on admitting. He said that if he were to lie to save others then he might as well keep lying to save himself. So if Ryder is going to live a lie about his past then how hard is it to continue doing what he was doing in the past? What is the reason to stop?

 

[armchairclimber]

Trouble is you didn't read or understand the paper, but fortunately journals don't work the way a message board does.

Trouble is, you're slow to spot a joke.

 

[blackcat]

Nows a good time for another one of those Libertine Seguros posts demonstrating the difference between what sky claim to have done in the name of clean cycling, what they promised, and what they actually have done.

well, DimSpace/SkyCyclingFan is good for that demonstration, oh, sheeeet, thats for Armstrong and Radioshack and TailWind and USACycling and USPS and Wiesel and Naggs and Stapleton and Och.

Dim should come back and do the same thing for Brailsford

 

[Benotti69]

So, once again, you guys win. Bravo. Cycling: Everyone's doping. Especially Garmin.

Have at it.

Posting every once in a while with tit bits from the top table is not tranparency.

This has been proven, by virtue of the amount of positives, to be the dirtiest sport and yet you think because blood doping is not longer possible to the levels of 1990 - 2008 it somehow has become clean enough to allow clean riders to win.

Nope i dont believe that. Why dont i believe it? Because all those teams that doped have not changed, they may be redeveloping programs but anyone with half a brain can see that it is not natural for auschwitz looking athletes to perform at the highest levels for 3 weeks without even a slight off day nor any loss of power.

We are being informed by wada of new PEDs which strip the fat of athletes and we can see they are in use on teams, but nope cycling is cleanER.

Of course it is cleanER to those with a vested interest.

 

[blackcat]

Not saying you're a crackpot. Just saying the blood profile was almost exactly what you should see in a clean rider. The analysis by Dr. Mike Puchowicz, known as veloclinic on twitter or capn', pretty much said the same thing. Drop him a line, if you think my interpretation is wrong.

And yes, you are correct, that the biggest issue facing cycling now is that it's difficult to believe anyone about anything. I get that.

cap'n Tbag damn hilarious.

big props to da cap'n

more glorious than hookers and blow

but cap'n was not galea from quebec and asked tiger about his one wood and just how glorious the vegas cocktails waitress revolving door was.

apart from that, best former blog on the webz

 

[blackcat]

Posting every once in a while with tit bits from the top table is not tranparency.

This has been proven, by virtue of the amount of positives, to be the dirtiest sport and yet you think because blood doping is not longer possible to the levels of 1990 - 2008 it somehow has become clean enough to allow clean riders to win.

Nope i dont believe that. Why dont i believe it? Because all those teams that doped have not changed, they may be redeveloping programs but anyone with half a brain can see that it is not natural for auschwitz looking athletes to perform at the highest levels for 3 weeks without even a slight off day nor any loss of power.

We are being informed by wada of new PEDs which strip the fat of athletes and we can see they are in use on teams, but nope cycling is cleanER.

Of course it is cleanER to those with a vested interest.

cos you need a calorie equilibrium to train at 100%. And Froomedawg and Wiggo were in caloric deficit to lose 7-8kgs, but maintained the power to timetrial at the level of spartacus.

'nuff zed.

in da words of da cap'n. NOT NORMAL.

 

[thehog]

This is one of the interesting things about Vaughters' "experiment." Let's for the sake of argument concede that Ryder won the Giro clean. He is now locked into lying about his previous doping. He cannot go to the Canadian public as Canada's only GT winner and say, "I doped for most of my career, right from the beginning, but trust me. I was clean for that Giro." No one will believe him.

Floyd Landis had a good take on not telling the whole truth when he was planning on admitting. He said that if he were to lie to save others then he might as well keep lying to save himself. So if Ryder is going to live a lie about his past then how hard is it to continue doing what he was doing in the past? What is the reason to stop?

This is very true.

That's why they prop goofy Dan Martin in front of the cameras to say they're clean.

No way goofy Dan Martin use drugs? No way!

 

[Rip:30]

To the bolded, Ed Coyle's Armstrong content is published in peer reviewed actual scientific journals. It's not a cure-all.

Still, I see your point that simply analysing it might not produce the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I would only add that whatever "truth" you do gain is probably better than no truth.

Right this is a perfect example of the process at work: if Coyle had not published his work and interpretations, others might never have been able to explore and further test that hypothesis. So even if his findings are now disputed or rejected I hope you can see the value the in process of publishing detailed methods and data for getting to the truth.

 

[armchairclimber]

This is very true.

That's why they prop goofy Dan Martin in front of the cameras to say they're clean.

No way goofy Dan Martin use drugs? No way!

Good post Hog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak7J3AOElXk