Evidence vs proof

[Dear Wiggo]

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?

Sorry but I think this is a naive position. There is an incredible amount of evidence and probably only 1% "fact" as you like to call it.

The threads are believable, and the evidence is also believable.

The evidence discussed and debated doesn't constitute proof, any more than Leinders being hired by Sky constitutes proof that they are dirty, or being fired by Sky that they are clean. It is only evidence.

 

[MarkvW]

(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.

Your definition of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is highly arguable. No sporting body uses such an extremely high standard of proof. If you're trying to start a discussion about which dopers meet your impossibly high standard, good luck.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Another example:

In a scenario where dope tests were 100% reliable, and the anti-doping system 100% reliable, not testing positive could constitute proof of cleanliness.

As it stands, plenty of cyclists have been caught and told us that they doped 100s of times and were not caught, despite being tested. Tests are unrealiable.

Other riders were tested positive but managed to wiggle out of it. The testing system is unreliable.

Some riders do not even get tested.

In fact, the tests and the system are so unreliable, that not testing positive is not only not proof of being clean, it is not even evidence to support the belief that someone is clean.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Your definition of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is highly arguable. No sporting body uses such an extremely high standard of proof. If you're trying to start a discussion about which dopers meet your impossibly high standard, good luck.

Oh good Christ, it's son of vortex.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Your definition of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is highly arguable. No sporting body uses such an extremely high standard of proof. If you're trying to start a discussion about which dopers meet your impossibly high standard, good luck.

No offense Mark, but my post was a direct response to your question on whether evidence and proof are linked, or entirely separate, rather than seeking to define proof as used by any sporting body.

So proof is evidence that says a belief is fact? Or is proof somehow divorced from evidence?

Nowhere do I say this thread has anything to do with a sporting body, either. In fact, the entire thread is centered around attempting to help conversations within the Clinic.

It also related to "quantity of evidence". This is not an extremely high standard, it just means, "lots". Forgive me for using a law court turn of phrase and expecting people to apply it as expected in the Clinic forum, which is not a court of law.

In all this, it is entirely subjective.

Example: (Please correct me if I am wrong, these are my impressions).
MVickers still doesn't think Froome doped, despite all the evidence.
King Boonen didn't think Froome doped either, but after discussions here, the weight of evidence has been enough to sway him, and he now shares the opinion that Froome did / does dope.

For MVickers, there is still reasonable doubt.
For King Boonen, reasonable doubt is gone.

 

[Hugh Januss]

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?

The simple point is, if you start from a position that most pro's don't dope and the testers are doing a pretty good job of catching the few that do, you will be proven wrong over and over again. If, on the other hand, you espouse the theory that almost all pro cyclists dope to some degree or more, and they are way ahead of the testers when it comes to new protocols and new substances, you will be proven right over and over again. But you are free to pick whatever position you feel comfortable with in this discussion.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Your definition of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is highly arguable. No sporting body uses such an extremely high standard of proof. If you're trying to start a discussion about which dopers meet your impossibly high standard, good luck.

No offense Mark, but my post was a direct response to your question on whether evidence and proof are linked, or entirely separate, rather than seeking to define proof as used by a sporting body.

So proof is evidence that says a belief is fact? Or is proof somehow divorced from evidence?

Nowhere do I say this thread has anything to do with a sporting body, either. In fact, the entire question is centered around attempting to help conversations / communication within the Clinic.

It also relates to "quantity of evidence". This is not an extremely high standard, it just means, "lots of things, not necessarily all the same type". Forgive me for using a law court turn of phrase and expecting people to apply it as expected in the Clinic forum, which is not a court of law.

I've split the sentence up to make it clearer what I am attempting to convey

(IMO) proof is a
quantity (beyond reasonable doubt ie LOTS of different things) or
quality (irrefutable, incontrovertible, eg a confession or positive test)
of evidence that a belief is a fact or "the truth".

In all this, it is entirely subjective.

Example: (Please correct me if I am wrong, these are my impressions).
MVickers is still unsure whether Froome doped, despite all the evidence.
King Boonen didn't think Froome doped either, but after discussions here, the weight of evidence has been enough to sway him, and he now shares the opinion that Froome did / does dope.

For MVickers, there is still reasonable doubt.
For King Boonen, reasonable doubt is gone.

 

[MarkvW]

No offense Mark, but my post was a direct response to your question on whether evidence and proof are linked, or entirely separate, rather than seeking to define proof as used by any sporting body.



Nowhere do I say this thread has anything to do with a sporting body, either. In fact, the entire thread is centered around attempting to help conversations within the Clinic.

It also related to "quantity of evidence". This is not an extremely high standard, it just means, "lots". Forgive me for using a law court turn of phrase and expecting people to apply it as expected in the Clinic forum, which is not a court of law.

In all this, it is entirely subjective.

Example: (Please correct me if I am wrong, these are my impressions).
MVickers still doesn't think Froome doped, despite all the evidence.
King Boonen didn't think Froome doped either, but after discussions here, the weight of evidence has been enough to sway him, and he now shares the opinion that Froome did / does dope.

For MVickers, there is still reasonable doubt.
For King Boonen, reasonable doubt is gone.

But you're the only one arguing for a "reasonable doubt" standard. And that is a REALLY high standard of proof.

It's like you're saying: Here's my standard of proof. Do any dopers meet my standards?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

But you're the only one arguing for a "reasonable doubt" standard. And that is a REALLY high standard of proof.

It's like you're saying: Here's my standard of proof. Do any dopers meet my standards?

You're getting hung up on the terminology, almost pedantically, too. Are you reading my post, or trying to play lawyer?

I rewrote what I meant. Let me try, one more time, here:

(IMO) proof is a quantity (LOTS of different things) or quality (a confession or positive test) of evidence that a belief is a fact or "the truth".

The quantity and quality are linked, too.

As an enhanced example, imagine if all we had for Wiggins was his performances. That's evidence, no question. But if that's all we had, despite the number of performances (let's say he had 10 performances that were WOW wtf!?), it would not really constitute 10 pieces of evidence per se. It's really only 1 piece of evidence : he rode better than anyone expected him to, including the guy who coached him to Olympic and World champion success.

If we add:

Leinders,
doping back office staff,
his love of Lance,
change in public attitude towards dopers and doping,
his dramatic weightloss while increasing his absolute power
his subsequent flop in form,
performance against dopers in 2009,
6 month peak / performance in 2012
...
etc

for example, we now have 8 pieces of evidence. Some are better quality than others, but in the end it's all subjective.

For the pro side, we have:

marginal gains
4km pursuit legend
never tried
British
...
etc

People compare one side to the other and make their decision based on this evidence.

 

[Race Radio]

So the UCI should put a strike through Indurain's records right?

Nope. Indurain never signed the WADA code. The UCI did not become a signatory intill almost 10 years after he retired.

Most can see that crying about Indurain will result in nothing so they don't waste their time

 

[FKLance]

You're getting hung up on the terminology, almost pedantically, too. Are you reading my post, or trying to play lawyer?

I rewrote what I meant. Let me try, one more time, here:

(IMO) proof is a quantity (LOTS of different things) or quality (a confession or positive test) of evidence that a belief is a fact or "the truth".

The quantity and quality are linked, too.

As an enhanced example, imagine if all we had for Wiggins was his performances. That's evidence, no question. But if that's all we had, despite the number of performances (let's say he had 10 performances that were WOW wtf!?), it would not really constitute 10 pieces of evidence per se. It's really only 1 piece of evidence : he rode better than anyone expected him to, including the guy who coached him to Olympic and World champion success.

If we add:

Leinders,
doping back office staff,
his love of Lance,
change in public attitude towards dopers and doping,
his dramatic weightloss while increasing his absolute power
his subsequent flop in form,
performance against dopers in 2009,
6 month peak / performance in 2012
...
etc

for example, we now have 8 pieces of evidence. Some are better quality than others, but in the end it's all subjective.

For the pro side, we have:

marginal gains
4km pursuit legend
never tried
British
...
etc

People compare one side to the other and make their decision based on this evidence.

I am not convinced of your "evidence". Had to look up the word:

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

I would say those 8 pieces of evidence are pretty weak evidence. Certainly not even close to proof. Yet you seem to act like they are proof. I sense I'm not the only one irritated by it.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I would say those 8 pieces of evidence are pretty weak evidence. Certainly not even close to proof. Yet you seem to act like they are proof. I sense I'm not the only one irritated by it.

But they are weak only in your opinion. And others, yes.

But in my opinion, as a collection, they form a cohesive and damning whole. In others' minds as well.

"Your" (meaning people who disagree with me) opinion of my valuation of this evidence and constant denigration and misdirection (anti-Sky / anti-Briitsh / haters, etc) is equally irritating, to me and others labeled with those terms.

And this is the thing: it's a forum. On the Internet. I do not have to convince anyone. If I am convinced, that's enough for me. I may be attempting to convince others, but it's no skin off my nose if I do not.

If you or anyone else cares to offer evidence to the contrary, I am more than prepared to hear it, read it and judge it accordingly.

Evidence like Wiggos' L'Avenir stage win is trotted out every now and then, as an example. And easily debunked. If you can debunk the evidence offered above, go for it. The best people like you tend to do is simply say, "that's not good enough, that's just your opinion, etc". Well duh.

Here's a big clue for all the pro-Sky people: introducing something David Brailsford has said, which cannot be proven or appears incorrect (eg: washing hands but people are getting sick still; warming down post-stage but riders not doing so, "scientifically superior" yet Froome did not go to a wind-tunnel until 2013, etc, etc) are going to be treated as 0 evidence, because of the counter argument that directly contradicts the assertion.

 

[MarkvW]

But they are weak only in your opinion. And others, yes.

But in my opinion, as a collection, they form a cohesive and damning whole. In others' minds as well.

"Your" (meaning people who disagree with me) opinion of my valuation of this evidence and constant denigration and misdirection (anti-Sky / anti-Briitsh / haters, etc) is equally irritating, to me and others labeled with those terms.

And this is the thing: it's a forum. On the Internet. I do not have to convince anyone. If I am convinced, that's enough for me.

If you or anyone else cares to offer evidence to the contrary, I am more than prepared to hear it, read it and judge it accordingly.

Evidence like Wiggos' L'Avenir stage win is trotted out every now and then, as an example. And easily debunked. If you can debunk the evidence offered above, go for it. The best people like you tend to do is simply say, "that's not good enough, that's just your opinion, etc".

Here's a big clue for all the pro-Sky people: introducing something David Brailsford has said, which cannot be proven or appears incorrect (eg: washing hands but people are getting sick still; warming down post-stage but riders not doing so, "scientifically superior" yet Froome did not go to a wind-tunnel until 2013, etc, etc) are going to be treated as 0 evidence, because of the counter argument.

You're suggesting not only that the evidence that Sky is doping is not only sufficient--but has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

Robespierre would LOVE you!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You're suggesting not only that the evidence that Sky is doping is not only sufficient--but has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

Robespierre would LOVE you!

Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? Banging on about "beyond a reasonable doubt" like this is a court of law is getting really, really old.

I have no doubt Wiggins doped. None at all. Therefore, the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt FOR ME.

Do you understand what I just wrote? Or is there something causing partial blindness in your reading areas that means you read only what you want to read and not what I have written?

I am not talking about the legal definition of "beyond a resasonable doubt" but simply - I no longer doubt the evidence is sufficient to constitute proof.

Whilst I watched your original posts carrying on for some time trying to sound and act like a lawyer, I am pretty sure it's been established that you are in fact not one.

From wiki:

Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.

is not what I am talking about. This is a forum, not an adversarial legal system. I have stated this a number of times. I can only posit from your repeated claim to the contrary that you are in fact trolling.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

To wit:

If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt".

I consider I am a reasonable person. Doubt does not affect my belief that (for example) Wiggins is guilty of doping. Therefore I am satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt".

 

[del1962]

You're suggesting not only that the evidence that Sky is doping is not only sufficient--but has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

Robespierre would LOVE you!

Love the robspierre reference.

Ok here is a piece of evidence against a rider that is not proof.

For the sake of argument we will call him rider 15, another rider claims that he heard him say that he used a performance enhancing drug a number of years ago. Stronger evidence would be if the rider had claimed he had seen him using those drugs.

 

[MarkvW]

To wit:



I consider I am a reasonable person. Doubt does not affect my belief that (for example) Wiggins is guilty of doping. Therefore I am satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt".

If you want to redefine words outside their normal meaning, don't be surprised if people have difficulty communicating with you.

 

[FKLance]

But they are weak only in your opinion. And others, yes.

But in my opinion, as a collection, they form a cohesive and damning whole. In others' minds as well.

"Your" (meaning people who disagree with me) opinion of my valuation of this evidence and constant denigration and misdirection (anti-Sky / anti-Briitsh / haters, etc) is equally irritating, to me and others labeled with those terms.

And this is the thing: it's a forum. On the Internet. I do not have to convince anyone. If I am convinced, that's enough for me. I may be attempting to convince others, but it's no skin off my nose if I do not.

If you or anyone else cares to offer evidence to the contrary, I am more than prepared to hear it, read it and judge it accordingly.

Evidence like Wiggos' L'Avenir stage win is trotted out every now and then, as an example. And easily debunked. If you can debunk the evidence offered above, go for it. The best people like you tend to do is simply say, "that's not good enough, that's just your opinion, etc". Well duh.

Here's a big clue for all the pro-Sky people: introducing something David Brailsford has said, which cannot be proven or appears incorrect (eg: washing hands but people are getting sick still; warming down post-stage but riders not doing so, "scientifically superior" yet Froome did not go to a wind-tunnel until 2013, etc, etc) are going to be treated as 0 evidence, because of the counter argument that directly contradicts the assertion.

Fair enough. I know it's the internet and I don't know why I even bother. Everyone forms their own opinions. People find the facts they like the most anyway.

 

[doperhopper]

Well, being too strict on "beyond a resasonable doubt" one can even claim that Uniballer is still innocent - this "confession" where he just said "I doped", providing almost no details nor evidence was staged by his lawyers as a damage limitation just to avoid possible jailtime risks... and then you have just a bunch of LA haters with their "testimonies" that will be shattered by any good lawyer in the court, not talking about such a dubious "evidence" like thise "retests" of 1999 samples (invalid even by UCI standards, far from court-quality).

End of story, innocent, clean, no smoking gun evidence, passed 600 tests.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Fair enough. I know it's the internet and I don't know why I even bother. Everyone forms their own opinions. People find the facts they like the most anyway.

I'm curious what you think about this assertion:

'If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France

 

[Benotti69]

........<snip>

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?

This is an internet forum. The clinic is where doping in cycling (and other sports) are discussed.

You know this and are doing nothing but trying to derail and obfuscate threads relating to Sky.

As DW has pointed out, and it needed pointing out for some, evidence about Sky's doping is readily available, the proof isn't 'out' yet, but proof is extremely hard to come by when the majority(99.9%) of the sport are covering it up from the head down.

 

[Benotti69]

I am not convinced of your "evidence". Had to look up the word:


I would say those 8 pieces of evidence are pretty weak evidence. Certainly not even close to proof. Yet you seem to act like they are proof. I sense I'm not the only one irritated by it.

Hiring a doping doctor is weak evidence in cycling? Since when?

Going from grupetto to top step of the podium is weak evidence? Since when?

A team telling lies (vo2max, ZTP) to cover up their riders wins is weak evidence? Since when?

Sky look like, walk like and talk like ducks.

 

[FKLance]

I'm curious what you think about this assertion:

I think hiring Leinders was suspicious.

Then again, you could argue that good cycling doctors with a clean reputation are few and far between. You could argue that Brailsford was an idiot at that moment and made an honest mistake when he quickly hired a capable doctor after the sudden death of the soigneur. You could argue that they got rid of him right after the whole rabobank case started to emerge.

Then you could argue that in Leinders they wanted a doping doctor. Wiggins has said some things that could be interpreted as pro-doping.

I think you should not forget these things while you wait for the real evidence...

 

[FKLance]

Hiring a doping doctor is weak evidence in cycling? Since when?

Going from grupetto to top step of the podium is weak evidence? Since when?

A team telling lies (vo2max, ZTP) to cover up their riders wins is weak evidence? Since when?

Sky look like, walk like and talk like ducks.

Going from grupetto to top step of the podium can happen in clean sports. It's not all linear and mathematical. I'm against measuring things like vo2max, weight and FTP in anti-doping testing because of this.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

But they are weak only in your opinion. And others, yes.

But in my opinion, as a collection, they form a cohesive and damning whole. In others' minds as well.

"Your" (meaning people who disagree with me) opinion of my valuation of this evidence and constant denigration and misdirection (anti-Sky / anti-Briitsh / haters, etc) is equally irritating, to me and others labeled with those terms.

And this is the thing: it's a forum. On the Internet. I do not have to convince anyone. If I am convinced, that's enough for me. I may be attempting to convince others, but it's no skin off my nose if I do not.

If you or anyone else cares to offer evidence to the contrary, I am more than prepared to hear it, read it and judge it accordingly.

Evidence like Wiggos' L'Avenir stage win is trotted out every now and then, as an example. And easily debunked. If you can debunk the evidence offered above, go for it. The best people like you tend to do is simply say, "that's not good enough, that's just your opinion, etc". Well duh.

Here's a big clue for all the pro-Sky people: introducing something David Brailsford has said, which cannot be proven or appears incorrect (eg: washing hands but people are getting sick still; warming down post-stage but riders not doing so, "scientifically superior" yet Froome did not go to a wind-tunnel until 2013, etc, etc) are going to be treated as 0 evidence, because of the counter argument that directly contradicts the assertion.

This is a very, very good post.