Evidence vs proof

[Justinr]

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.

I agree with that whole heartedly.

 

[veganrob]

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.

And what are those clean sports you refer to?

 

[Benotti69]

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.

Got any examples?

The riders should demand full transparency of everything. Why? They should be trying their hardest to prove they are clean. That they aren't tells us all we need to know.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I was thinking about this some more and perhaps it is lacking in logic, but the most believable source of evidence is precedent.

Anywhere you look, the discussion invariably comes back to: has this happened / been done before / by anyone else?

I think this partly stems from the argument that seems to follow the logic of, "Sky are doing this, therefore it is evidence that they are clean".

Painful.

When someone says, "He has never tested positive" - this is indeed evidence. However the precedent for using this as a reliable piece of evidence has been irrevocably destroyed by people like Kohl and Lance Armstrong.

When you see an unimaginable leap from pack fodder to fourth in a heavily doper filled Tour in 2009, or zero to hero with a 2nd place at the 2011 Vuelta, the question comes back to: have we seen this meteoric rise before, in someone impartial to the current climate and team, who might be believable?

There are similar rises (Riis ~= Wiggins GT trajectory, for example), where the precedent provides evidence that it can be done; it's just that it was done by a doper.

We can leap right into, "advances in training and science" later ;-)

 

[zigmeister]

Close thread...waste of space.

 

[deviant]

My own inate skepticism is that most elite level athletes doep, there was enough of it going on when i competed at a national level in various sports!

However i'm loathe to throw mud around based on evidence that wouldnt stand up in court, people on this thread are at pains to state this isnt a court room and we dont need proof in the legal sense but from my point of view we're talking about professional international sport and people whose livelihood is earned from this....in my opinion any evidence has to stand up to legal scrutiny in order to be considered proof, otherwise you're judge, jury and executioner based on hugely subjective evidence and could conceivably ruin somebody's living/career on evidence that wouldnt stand up in court.

For me anyway that is wrong.

I'm not naive, i know this sport is dirty but i'm happy to wait for national federations, governing bodies, teams etc to do their own testing and prove to me that rider-X is doping or not.

There are enough disgruntled employees and rivals around that could drop people in the crap if they wanted to but it doesnt happen all that often....i know the whole omerta thing but really that only applies to riders, look at the ****-storm Willy Voets created when he was ostracised from pro cycling after Festina, he named names, there is a precedent....why doesnt it happen more?

Lastly i wouldnt trust a team owner like Oleg Tinkov as far as i could throw him, i'm sure if he had proof that stood up to scrutiny about a rival team doping then he'd happily go public or report to the relevant authority and have them removed from competition so his boy Contador could win big again.

 

[ChrisE]

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...

Yes, but some of those things you argue do not pass the smell test in context, and some definitely do. From where I'm sitting, and taking the 'evidence' that DW listed along with the context of what we know about this sport and sport in general, giving benefit of the doubt as you seem to want to do is foolish. The issue of Sky is not happening in a vacuum.

A lot of times it all comes down to who we like driving our prejudices, and a lot of times the public persona. People like Berzin with their doper username and avatar railing against dopers, and people like you with your username with your head-in-the-sand position on Sky. People like DQ being a fan of Basso even after his BS lies to this very day. A lot of times this is not a fact based and logical food fight in here.

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

Yes, I am waiting for this list as well. Your last sentence is not worth commenting on.

 

[TailWindHome]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvSTjvDYUk4

 

[FKLance]

Yes, but some of those things you argue do not pass the smell test in context, and some definitely do. From where I'm sitting, and taking the 'evidence' that DW listed along with the context of what we know about this sport and sport in general, giving benefit of the doubt as you seem to want to do is foolish. The issue of Sky is not happening in a vacuum.

A lot of times it all comes down to who we like driving our prejudices, and a lot of times the public persona. People like Berzin with their doper username and avatar railing against dopers, and people like you with your username with your head-in-the-sand position on Sky. People like DQ being a fan of Basso even after his BS lies to this very day. A lot of times this is not a fact based and logical food fight in here.



Yes, I am waiting for this list as well. Your last sentence is not worth commenting on.

So how do you define the maximum speed of athletic development? What are the actual physical limits on human potential? How do things like individual talent and psychology affect it? Not even the best experts on sports physiology can claim they know the absolute numbers. Add to that all the variables in cycling like team dynamics. I don't have a list for you, sorry.

If I did not make myself clear, I would not be surprised at all if Sky is doping. I don't care and my head's not in the sand. I don't trust them at all. But I like to give people a chance. It's possible that they are clean, so I'm not accusing them publicly(internet), especially the riders who have their careers and reputation.

 

[FKLance]

Got any examples?

The riders should demand full transparency of everything. Why? They should be trying their hardest to prove they are clean. That they aren't tells us all we need to know.

If by transparency you mean making them public(weight, ftp etc.) all that would do is give people like you more fuel.

 

[ChrisE]

So how do you define the maximum speed of athletic development? What are the actual physical limits on human potential? How do things like individual talent and psychology affect it? Not even the best experts on sports physiology can claim they know the absolute numbers. Add to that all the variables in cycling like team dynamics. I don't have a list for you, sorry.

If I did not make myself clear, I would not be surprised at all if Sky is doping. I don't care and my head's not in the sand. I don't trust them at all. But I like to give people a chance. It's possible that they are clean, so I'm not accusing them publicly(internet), especially the riders who have their careers and reputation.

Oh, I don't know about the limits. Maybe an 8 second 100m. AdH in 30 mins? How far do you want to move the goalposts to support willful prejudiced ignorance in the name of fairness to the athlete?

And no, you didn't make yourself clear. It sounds as if you are backing off from your initial posts in this thread, and that is OK. It is OK to reassess our beliefs in light of new evidence or after taking into account opinions of others that perhaps we did not consider before.

The subject has meandered as usual to Sky, as a lot of things do nowadays. This issue is Froome coming out of nowhere and Wiggins transformation as evidence of doping vs proof. "Individual talent and psychology" as you say has nothing to do with such a feat when taken in context with the sport and their past performances. You 'don't trust them at all' but want to give them a chance. How would you go about that in this context?

 

[FKLance]

Oh, I don't know about the limits. Maybe an 8 second 100m. AdH in 30 mins? How far do you want to move the goalposts to support willful prejudiced ignorance in the name of fairness to the athlete?

And no, you didn't make yourself clear. It sounds as if you are backing off from your initial posts in this thread, and that is OK. It is OK to reassess our beliefs in light of new evidence or after taking into account opinions of others that perhaps we did not consider before.

The subject has meandered as usual to Sky, as a lot of things do nowadays. This issue is Froome coming out of nowhere and Wiggins transformation as evidence of doping vs proof. "Individual talent and psychology" as you say has nothing to do with such a feat when taken in context with the sport and their past performances. You 'don't trust them at all' but want to give them a chance. How would you go about that in this context?

Ok, I have not been clear enough but this thread has not changed my views.

About context: I know cycling historically has not had many clean top performances but I believe they are still possible and I like to give people a chance when I have no proof...

With Froome/Wiggins I see the same pieces of the puzzle as you, I just want more pieces before I put them together... Feels like you people go crazy after the first piece.

 

[FKLance]

Oh, I don't know about the limits. Maybe an 8 second 100m. AdH in 30 mins? How far do you want to move the goalposts to support willful prejudiced ignorance in the name of fairness to the athlete?

What if someone gives you a 8.001? 30.001? What about 7.999 or a 29.599? Are you really saying these should be defined?

 

[Benotti69]

If by transparency you mean making them public(weight, ftp etc.) all that would do is give people like you more fuel.

So no examples....i thought so.

As for 'people like you',l i have been watching cycling since early 80s and i am still here.

There is no fuel if what they are doing is clean.

If they gave everything they had to give, then more 'people like you' would not be questioning.

 

[ChrisE]

Ok, I have not been clear enough but this thread has not changed my views.

About context: I know cycling historically has not had many clean top performances but I believe they are still possible and I like to give people a chance when I have no proof...

With Froome/Wiggins I see the same pieces of the puzzle as you, I just want more pieces before I put them together... Feels like you people go crazy after the first piece.

But you are not making sense. You say you don't trust them, but then want to give them the benefit of the doubt. You say you know the history of the sport, and admit the 'evidence' that DW provides which is blatantly damming and you see the same puzzle as me, but then say that is not proof? FYI you don't trust them because the evidence says you would be a fool to. You didn't just randomly pick something not to trust.

But playing along, is your proof, despite your alleged non-trusting nature, an athlete getting caught redhanded hooked up with an IV, and the contents of that IV being confirmed on the spot? Or, would you then need further 'proof' that the contents were actually flowing, and enough was in their body to have a benefit?

Where is your line in the sand? Full confidence in the tests that we know can be beaten, so we just wait for that before we start discussing the possibility of doping on an internet forum?

What if someone gives you a 8.001? 30.001? What about 7.999 or a 29.599? Are you really saying these should be defined?

I'm saying that to dismiss what is impossible just because it is not exactly defined is a fool's game, and a illogical one. You are the one that brought it up; since human limits are not defined, then you cannot use performance as a part of the evidence. I don't buy that, and I don't think most other rational people do either. YMMV.

 

[FKLance]

But you are not making sense. You say you don't trust them, but then want to give them the benefit of the doubt. You say you know the history of the sport, and admit the 'evidence' that DW provides which is blatantly damming and you see the same puzzle as me, but then say that is not proof? FYI you don't trust them because the evidence says you would be a fool to. You didn't just randomly pick something not to trust.

But playing along, is your proof, despite your alleged non-trusting nature, an athlete getting caught redhanded hooked up with an IV, and the contents of that IV being confirmed on the spot? Or, would you then need further 'proof' that the contents were actually flowing, and enough was in their body to have a benefit?

Where is your line in the sand? Full confidence in the tests that we know can be beaten, so we just wait for that before we start discussing the possibility of doping on an internet forum?

My line in the sand. If there are good arguments that can be made against the evidence, then it's no proof. If we talk about Froome/Wiggins, there are good, at least decent arguments against all the 'evidence'. I can still admit it's very possible they are doping, but I hold back until I get more clues.

Wouldn't you feel stupid if after all these years somehow you find out they were clean all along? But there's no way to find out so you keep at it...

 

[RiccoDinko]

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

Not crying, just pointing out the double standards in this forum. It seems a lot of posters give everything before 1998 a free pass, like doping was OK before 1998.


I've learned a lot in the Clinic. It seems all performances are suspect, unless you don't perform at all. The entire peloton is guilty, there's no proving innocence. You can only be proven dirty. Riders and Doctors will always be ahead of game when it comes to doping. So why even bother with all this?

 

[ChrisE]

My line in the sand. If there are good arguments that can be made against the evidence, then it's no proof. If we talk about Froome/Wiggins, there are good, at least decent arguments against all the 'evidence'. I can still admit it's very possible they are doping, but I hold back until I get more clues.

Wouldn't you feel stupid if after all these years somehow you find out they were clean all along? But there's no way to find out so you keep at it...

If there are good arguments that can be made against each piece of evidence unto themselves, I can agree. It is the totality of the evidence, especially in the context of this sport, that is hard to dismiss.

You admit it is possible Froome/Wiggins are doping? Why? Is it of the same possibility a bird may **** on your head when you go outside today? Or, the same possibility you will have to take a pis today?

Something made you think that. If you are dismissing this evidence because you can come up with good reasons that you can use as an excuse, for all of them in totality, then so be it. But then why do you hold out this possibility they are doping?

But, ignoring your contradictions, how sure are you of each of your excuses of the 8 items? 80%? 100% Let's deduce it to a math problem. I think if you put a % on your conviction of each of your arguments, by statistical analysis you would be hard pressed to come to the conclusion they are not doping, using your own opinions on each.

 

[Benotti69]

Not crying, just pointing out the double standards in this forum. It seems a lot of posters give everything before 1998 a free pass, like doping was OK before 1998.

Have you bothered to do a search for Indurain, Kelly, Roche, Delgado, Hinault, Fignon etc. Most have their own threads. Most admit they were doping.

I've learned a lot in the Clinic. It seems all performances are suspect, unless you don't perform at all. The entire peloton is guilty, there's no proving innocence. You can only be proven dirty. Riders and Doctors will always be ahead of game when it comes to doping. So why even bother with all this?

Why bother? yet here you are!

The clinic is important because it is a place to discuss the doping, ask JV, Michelle Cound, Armstrong, Betsy Andreu who have all posted here.

Most in the clinic want the sport's doping culture eradicated. Dont you?

 

[Jeremiah]

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

But you've got to admit that it's really annoying reading in the Star about Indurain boning the Olsen twins, hanging around with heads of state, Bono, and McConahey....

 

[Jeremiah]

Have you bothered to do a search for Indurain, Kelly, Roche, Delgado, Hinault, Fignon etc. Most have their own threads. Most admit they were doping.



Why bother? yet here you are!

The clinic is important because it is a place to discuss the doping, ask JV, Michelle Cound, Armstrong, Betsy Andreu who have all posted here.

Most in the clinic want the sport's doping culture eradicated. Dont you?

Armstrong posted here? We were supposed to go riding in Miami together. Tell him to DM and unblock me on Twitter so we can get a ride in!

 

[Benotti69]

Armstrong posted here? We were supposed to go riding in Miami together. Tell him to DM and unblock me on Twitter so we can get a ride in!

Guy has nowt better to do. He wants you to get to Hawaii and toss the salad, baby!

 

[FKLance]

If there are good arguments that can be made against each piece of evidence unto themselves, I can agree. It is the totality of the evidence, especially in the context of this sport, that is hard to dismiss.

You admit it is possible Froome/Wiggins are doping? Why? Is it of the same possibility a bird may **** on your head when you go outside today? Or, the same possibility you will have to take a pis today?

Something made you think that. If you are dismissing this evidence because you can come up with good reasons that you can use as an excuse, for all of them in totality, then so be it. But then why do you hold out this possibility they are doping?

But, ignoring your contradictions, how sure are you of each of your excuses of the 8 items? 80%? 100% Let's deduce it to a math problem. I think if you put a % on your conviction of each of your arguments, by statistical analysis you would be hard pressed to come to the conclusion they are not doping, using your own opinions on each.

Now I think I understand our differences better. You seem to think only in numbers and statistics. Traditionally cycling winners have been found doping = Sky is doping. You don't even need this 'evidence', but they are nice confirming factors.

I refrain from giving numbers because I don't use them in my thinking. I don't like statistics, because I feel they have little to do with real life.

To me it's a good possibility they are doping but not enough to say aloud they are doping for sure. You seem to be 100% convinced, I'm still not sure why.

 

[Netserk]

Now I think I understand our differences better. You seem to think only in numbers and statistics. Traditionally cycling winners have been found doping = Sky is doping. You don't even need this 'evidence', but they are nice confirming factors.

I refrain from giving numbers because I don't use them in my thinking. I don't like statistics, because I feel they have little to do with real life.

To me it's a good possibility they are doping but not enough to say aloud they are doping for sure. You seem to be 100% convinced, I'm still not sure why.

What do you think is most likely: Sky clean, or Sky dirty?

 

[ChrisE]

Now I think I understand our differences better. You seem to think only in numbers and statistics. Traditionally cycling winners have been found doping = Sky is doping. You don't even need this 'evidence', but they are nice confirming factors.

I refrain from giving numbers because I don't use them in my thinking. I don't like statistics, because I feel they have little to do with real life.

To me it's a good possibility they are doping but not enough to say aloud they are doping for sure. You seem to be 100% convinced, I'm still not sure why.

Not quite inre to you understanding me; I think we are on totally different wavelengths when it comes to deductive reasoning and understanding why we think like we do. Your posts are full of contradictions and I am pretty convinced you have no reason why that is so. Your post above in terms of whittling this down to doping in cycling = doping by Sky proves that point. That is only one of the many issues that taken by itself could be argued away IMO. Again, it is the totality of things other than just that one issue that rational people use to form opinions.

I only used statistical analysis example to further illustrate my point, in a doomed attempt to help you see the discussion another way.

Little did I realize by doing that I unlocked the hidden FKLance secret to life of ignoring odds, likelihoods, statistics etc. because they 'have little to do with real life'. OK.