Evidence vs proof

Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
This post struck a chord and I wanted to replay it and perhaps flesh it out a bit. It applies across all threads in the clinic, so I felt it deserved its own thread.

red_flanders said:
Actually, they are. Not even in question.

ev·i·dence

noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.


Performances are however not proof. People do seem to get those words confused pretty often. The powers that be have decided that performances are not enough evidence to sanction anyone, and that's the correct decision. But evidence they are, and in some cases the evidence is overwhelming.

The difference: definitions
ev·i·dence; noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.


proof; noun
1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.


Forgive the wording here, I am no lawyer, but by way of "explanation", I would say:

* You start with a belief or proposition.
* You have evidence that supports that proposition or belief "indicating the belief is valid" - in fact it's usually the thing that creates the belief in the first place.
* Your evidence may also support a contrary proposition or belief, or there may be other evidence to the contrary.
* When you have overwhelming evidence that supports one proposition or belief or evidence strong enough as to be conclusive, you have proof.


Evidence: supports the validity of a belief.
Proof: establishes a belief as factual, or true, via conclusive, overwhelming, irrefutable evidence.


How does this apply to the clinic?
We have no proof [riders from Team XYZ who have no positive tests (yet)] are / have been doping. We have a lot of (inconclusive) evidence of same, however.

The clinic is not a court of law, however. This is something that has been posted about 10,000 times in discussions regarding "evidence" vs "proof" when it comes to doping and rider performances.

So when people post things like, "Bradley Wiggins doped", they are personally convinced that the evidence is sufficient to prove their belief, even if that evidence does not stand up to scrutiny as iron clad, conclusive proof, and cannot be used by the UCI (for example) to accuse a rider.

NB: that scrutiny is applied by both Sky believers and non-believers alike. I won't get negative with posters who tend to take extreme positions, but can confidently say people like red_flanders and TheHitch do not believe in Sky, but will definitely call bvllsh!t on people making spurious cases against Sky.

A non-clinic specific example:
I want you to imagine leaving a block of chocolate on the counter at home and saying to your children, "Do not eat the chocolate", as you head out to do some groceries.

Upon arriving home, the chocolate is gone, and your 5 year old is standing in the kitchen, looking as guilty as hell, chocolatey lips quivering in anticipation of the telling off coming.

In this scenario, you have the following evidence:
1. the chocolate is gone
2. one child has chocolate on their lips and looks like they are about to cry / lips quivering

You immediately form a belief: this child ate the chocolate left on the bench.

You do not, however, have proof that this child ate this particular chocolate bar.

The evidence also supports the following scenario:
A race of space aliens, whose bodies are comprised of chocolate, invaded your home and rescued their child (the block of chocolate). Your 5 year old child, upon seeing this event, launched a savage attack, biting the space aliens in the process.

1. the chocolate is gone (the aliens were successful)
2. one child has chocolate on their lips and looks like they are about to cry / lips quivering (they bit the aliens, and have been emotionally traumatised by the home invasion and subsequent fight)

Upon asking your 5 year old what happened (seeking additional evidence), why they look upset, what happened to the chocolate, you get a story. You then call your 7 year old in, and ask them the same questions. She's a bit older and wiser, and has no chocolate on her face, and a quick breath test reveals unusually clean teeth that have been freshly brushed with copious quantities of tooth paste.

5 year old says 7 year old offered him some chocolate in his room, and before he'd thought about it, had eaten said gift. When he went out to the kitchen later, 7 year old was scoffing the chocolate. 5 year old realises he'd been duped, and is most upset that he only got to eat 2 pieces, while she scoffed the rest. And can he have some more please, because it's unfair.

You still only have evidence, not proof. A video camera in the kitchen, capturing the consumption would provide proof.

7 year old naturally denies the story, but her story seems a bit wonky and she blushes the whole time in the telling.

I'll leave the final verdict up to you, this is simply to provide an illustration of evidence vs proof, and why some people in the Clinic are confident when proclaiming rider XYZ doped / dopes.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
This post struck a chord and I wanted to replay it and perhaps flesh it out a bit. It applies across all threads in the clinic, so I felt it deserved its own thread.



The difference: definitions
ev·i·dence; noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.


proof; noun
1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.


Forgive the wording here, I am no lawyer, but by way of "explanation", I would say:

* You start with a belief or proposition.
* You have evidence that supports that proposition or belief "indicating the belief is valid" - in fact it's usually the thing that creates the belief in the first place.
* Your evidence may also support a contrary proposition or belief, or there may be other evidence to the contrary.
* When you have overwhelming evidence that supports one proposition or belief or evidence strong enough as to be conclusive, you have proof.


How does this apply to the clinic?
We have no proof [riders from Team XYZ who have no positive tests (yet)] are / have been doping. We have a lot of (inconclusive) evidence of same, however.

The clinic is not a court of law, however. This is something that has been posted about 10,000 times in discussions regarding "evidence" vs "proof" when it comes to doping and rider performances.

So when people post things like, "Bradley Wiggins doped", they are personally convinced that the evidence is sufficient to prove their belief, even if that evidence does not stand up to scrutiny as iron clad, conclusive proof, and cannot be used by the UCI (for example) to accuse a rider.

NB: that scrutiny is applied by both Sky believers and non-believers alike. I won't get negative with posters who tend to take extreme positions, but can confidently say people like red_flanders and TheHitch do not believe in Sky, but will definitely call bvllsh!t on people making spurious cases against Sky.

A non-clinic specific example:
I want you to imagine leaving a block of chocolate on the counter at home and saying to your children, "Do not eat the chocolate", as you head out to do some groceries.

Upon arriving home, the chocolate is gone, and your 5 year old is standing in the kitchen, looking as guilty as hell, chocolatey lips quivering in anticipation of the telling off coming.

In this scenario, you have the following evidence:
1. the chocolate is gone
2. one child has chocolate on their lips and looks like they are about to cry / lips quivering

You immediately form a belief: this child ate the chocolate left on the bench.

You do not, however, have proof that this child ate this particular chocolate bar.

The evidence also supports the following scenario:
A race of space aliens, whose bodies comprise chocolate, invaded your home and rescued their child (the block of chocolate). Your 5 year old child, upon seeing this event, launched a savage attack, biting the space aliens in the process.

1. the chocolate is gone (the aliens were successful)
2. one child has chocolate on their lips and looks like they are about to cry / lips quivering (they bit the aliens, and have been emotionally traumatised by the home invasion and subsequent fight)

Upon asking your 5 year old what happened, why they look upset, what happened to the chocolate, you get a story. You then call your 7 year old in, and ask them the same questions. She's a bit older and wiser, and has no chocolate on their face, and a quick breath test reveals unusually clean teeth that have been freshly brushed with copious quantities of tooth paste.

5 year old says 7 year old offered him some chocolate in his room, and before he'd thought about it, had eaten said gift. When he went out to the kitchen later, 7 year old was scoffing the chocolate. 5 year old realises he'd been duped, and is most upset that he only got to eat 2 pieces, while she scoffed the rest. And can he have some more please, because it's unfair.

You still only have evidence, not proof. A video camera in the kitchen, capturing the consumption would provide proof.

7 year old naturally denies the story, but hers seems a bit wonky and she blushes the whole time in the telling.

I'll leave the final verdict up to you, this is simply to provide an illustration.

You can simplify what you said down to this: Evidence is a brick. Sufficient proof is a brick wall.

But what is sufficient proof? Reasonable minds differ all over the place.

The debate goes on.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
saying things like "there is no proof" and "innocent until proven guilty" is just the skybot way of saying never tested positive.

Maybe some genuine confusion, but most who say that are trolling.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
I wasn't quite able to follow all of that. Is this what you're getting at?


normal_va-va-froome-tribute-chocolate-bar.jpg


le-tour-gifts-froome-gift-chocolate-bar-P0568.jpg


normal_wiggins-cycling-tribute-chocolate-bar.jpg
 
Aug 1, 2011
234
2
0
I'd like to see a hard evidence/link thread, where there's actual facts, data, not just speculation. The speculation off performance is old, and does not offer much for discussion. I'm a cyclist since 1991, mtb racing, road riding, hard core passion for it. I have my days, or weeks where my performace is much better than the norm. I'm not on anything, but beer. If I sleep well, eat well, and have a well being in me, I'm killing it. Sure these guys train, and eat well, but there's pressure, life issues, health issues, there's a lot at play. I'm sick of pure speculation, show me some facts.

For example, Geert Leinders working for Sky is a fact. Sky employed a dopping doctor. To me, hmmm, Sky surely could have looked into Leinders background more thoroughly, something fishy there. They have no tolerance policy, but not really, you just sign a paper, they don't fact check?

I can now make some assumptions off of this. Is Team Sky management that inept? Did they employ him for a program, or does he offer value beyond doping? I don't know. Of course Froome's sky rocket to the top is eye opening, but this is not totally uncommon in sport.

Migel Indurain rode the tour for 6 years before winning. He dropped out on several occasions. Why is he not receiving the heat in here? Why doesn't Lemond question his wins? So much double standard?
 
Granville57 said:
I wasn't quite able to follow all of that. Is this what you're getting at?


F off! No way! That's is totally spastic! F that S.

Total BS considering he keeps saying how he avoids the media and is a regular guy from NW.

SW18 will teach a bike lesson right now :rolleyes:

Wiggins is full of so much sh1&.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
RiccoDinko said:
I'd like to see a hard evidence/link thread, where there's actual facts, data, not just speculation. The speculation off performance is old, and does not offer much for discussion. I'm a cyclist since 1991, mtb racing, road riding, hard core passion for it. I have my days, or weeks where my performace is much better than the norm. I'm not on anything, but beer. If I sleep well, eat well, and have a well being in me, I'm killing it. Sure these guys train, and eat well, but there's pressure, life issues, health issues, there's a lot at play. I'm sick of pure speculation, show me some facts.

For example, Geert Leinders working for Sky is a fact. Sky employed a dopping doctor. To me, hmmm, Sky surely could have looked into Leinders background more thoroughly, something fishy there. They have no tolerance policy, but not really, you just sign a paper, they don't fact check?

I can now make some assumptions off of this. Is Team Sky management that inept? Did they employ him for a program, or does he offer value beyond doping? I don't know. Of course Froome's sky rocket to the top is eye opening, but this is not totally uncommon in sport.

Migel Indurain rode the tour for 6 years before winning. He dropped out on several occasions. Why is he not receiving the heat in here? Why doesn't Lemond question his wins? So much double standard?

Nobody cares what you're sick of. If you don't like it, don't post here.

As for Indurain, I guess you've missed the fact that many here are convinced he was doped up to the gills on EPO.

Lemond...well, that's a radioactive argument there, and has been gone over several thousand times. But feel free to start is up again if you want...of just leave and don't come back. It will solve your problem.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
RiccoDinko said:
Of course Froome's sky rocket to the top is eye opening, but this is not totally uncommon in sport.

But what he has done, and the manner in which he has done it, is quite uncommon in this sport. Hence...
 
It's very late, or very early, but I'm not sure I "get" this thread.

Are you wanting to discuss the difference? Or point out that we'll never have evidence here until it is released to the public? Or discuss what weight of evidence is required to be classed as proof?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
King Boonen said:
It's very late, or very early, but I'm not sure I "get" this thread.

Are you wanting to discuss the difference? Or point out that we'll never have evidence here until it is released to the public? Or discuss what weight of evidence is required to be classed as proof?

Dear Wiggo said:

Evidence: supports the validity of a belief.
Proof: establishes a belief as factual, or true, via conclusive, overwhelming, irrefutable evidence.

We already have lots of evidence (Leinders, doper staff, doping associated riders, incredible performances, etc).

We have no proof (positive test).

Some people feel the evidence is sufficient to prove some riders dope, despite never being "caught".

Other people feel the contrary evidence (pineapple juice, pillows, 4km pursuits, hand washing, seatpost bolts) provides sufficient evidence (but not proof) to the contrary, that the riders are clean.

I just want to draw the distinction between evidence and proof.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
I just want to draw the distinction between evidence and proof.

The problem being, however, is that no matter where you draw that line, there will never be a consensus. Nothing short of a full admission will be enough for some.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,854
1
0
RiccoDinko said:
Migel Indurain rode the tour for 6 years before winning. He dropped out on several occasions. Why is he not receiving the heat in here? Why doesn't Lemond question his wins? So much double standard?

Indurain has been covered here over and over. Padilla, Conconi, Davy. Indurain doped. Nobody is saying he didn't. Even LeMond says Indurain doped.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Race Radio said:
Indurain has been covered here over and over. Padilla, Conconi, Davy. Indurain doped. Nobody is saying he didn't. Even LeMond says Indurain doped.

Were lucky Indurain isnt british.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Granville57 said:
The problem being, however, is that no matter where you draw that line, there will never be a consensus. Nothing short of a full admission will be enough for some.

Or a positive doping test.

My goal was not to establish a consensus, but more to explain, particularly to the (accused) defenders, that no, posters do not have proof (conclusive, irrefutable evidence), they only have evidence. But there is enough such evidence to convince them.

If you ask a non-believer, they will say the evidence is the proof - indicating simply that the evidence is enough. But it is only proof for them, subjectively, and does not constitute sufficient evidence for UCI, WADA, and certainly not a court of law.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
MarkvW said:
So proof is evidence that says a belief is fact? Or is proof somehow divorced from evidence?

(IMO) proof is a quantity (beyond all reasonable doubt) or quality (irrefutable, incontrovertible) of evidence that a belief is a fact or "the truth".

1 positive doping test would be proof that someone was doping, right? Well, not necessarily. The rider can appeal to CAS, there can be questions as to test protocol, etc, etc. Even now, Alberto maintains he ate steak that was tainted with Clenbuterol. In his eyes, the test result was not proof he took Clenbuterol, only evidence that it was present in his system. Let's not get bogged down in what CAS thought. Good grief.

Video evidence of someone injecting a substance would be proof of breaking the no needles policy, but not necessarily proof of doping, without knowing what was in the needle.

Someone asked, "Why does the Clinic exist?"

It's my belief that it exists to discuss the evidence - for and against. To test the evidence to see if it supports a belief.

As another example, joining dots can be evidence, but I doubt it would ever be anywhere near proof.
 
Aug 1, 2011
234
2
0
Race Radio said:
Indurain has been covered here over and over. Padilla, Conconi, Davy. Indurain doped. Nobody is saying he didn't. Even LeMond says Indurain doped.


So the UCI should put a strike through Indurain's records right? There's endless Lance threads and discussion in the Clinic. Is that because it's a fresher topic, or people hate Lance? I don't think personality should play into who's a cheat and who's not. I believe cheating is cheating, you could be on cocaine, EPO, hanging on to your team car, it's all to get a competitive advantage. Some methods work better than others, the bottom line , you're cheating. I guess the Clinic is more about Oxygen doping. I just don't see where one is worse than the other. I don't follow how everyone can make an example out of the late 90s, 2000s, when it started long before, and still going.

What is the point of the Clinic? To gossip? If there were just hard facts, believable threads in here, maybe someone would pay attention. Maybe the contributors here, can make a difference?