You obviously didn't check the U23 results???LaFlorecita said:36th
![]()
LMAO
wait no offense but where is the Dawg?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_UCI_Road_World_Championships_–_Men's_time_trial
You obviously didn't check the U23 results???LaFlorecita said:36th
![]()
LMAO
wait no offense but where is the Dawg?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_UCI_Road_World_Championships_–_Men's_time_trial
Would you not say, however, that somebody who showed great results as an espoir but didn't show good results as a pro doesn't look as suspicious as somebody who showed few, or sporadic results as an espoir but then became the best cyclist on the planet as a pro?hektoren said:It is relevant because performing well in cycling is down to a lot more factors than physical capacity. Tactical know-how, aligning all the bits and pieces that makes up a complete person's life making him/her perform at their optimum, equipment, nourishment, etc. etc. all factors that will have an impact on the end-result.
Actually in 1973 Merckx was invited not to ride the Tour. The punch was in 1975. I think that not inviting someone to a party is somewhat more civilised than punching him.Coolair2970 said:He could end up like Merckx in 1973. The spectators sick and tired with and then a solid punch to the ribs and then that TDF are gone.
Problem is, you're making a classic statistical ecological fallacy. You're interpreting statistical data where inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inference for the group to which those individuals belong. Could've, should've, but just ain't. Go figure!Libertine Seguros said:Would you not say, however, that somebody who showed great results as an espoir but didn't show good results as a pro doesn't look as suspicious as somebody who showed few, or sporadic results as an espoir but then became the best cyclist on the planet as a pro?
I mean, the annals of history are littered with riders who were great youth and u23 riders but weren't able, for a variety of reasons, to set the world alight as pros. Just in recent memory you have Jamie Burrow, Mikhail Ignatiev, Remmert Wielinga and Kai Reus. Romain Sicard could be headed that way too. But how many riders - who haven't subsequently been shown to be enormous cheats - have gone from sporadic glimpses of potential to be a decent top level pro for a few years, to being head and shoulders the best climber and TTer of the world's GC field? Much smaller set of historic values to judge against.
Dude, welcome to the bandwagon!the sceptic said:im calling it, Ruslan Sambris is gonna win the tour one day
But there's the problem in your question. With a tiny handful of exceptions, historically they've ALL been proven to be cheats; the early prodigies, the late transformed bloomers, the steady improvers - makes no difference - every last man jack bar a tiny handful, cheats.Libertine Seguros said:Would you not say, however, that somebody who showed great results as an espoir but didn't show good results as a pro doesn't look as suspicious as somebody who showed few, or sporadic results as an espoir but then became the best cyclist on the planet as a pro?
I mean, the annals of history are littered with riders who were great youth and u23 riders but weren't able, for a variety of reasons, to set the world alight as pros. Just in recent memory you have Jamie Burrow, Mikhail Ignatiev, Remmert Wielinga and Kai Reus. Romain Sicard could be headed that way too. But how many riders - who haven't subsequently been shown to be enormous cheats - have gone from sporadic glimpses of potential to be a decent top level pro for a few years, to being head and shoulders the best climber and TTer of the world's GC field? Much smaller set of historic values to judge against.
http://www.nieuwsblad.be/sportwereld/cnt/DMF20121102_00356011Froome19 said:A Procycling interview of his from last year.
Yes if he supposedly had it prior to 2010 the UCI passport tests didn't pick it up?Fearless Greg Lemond said:http://www.nieuwsblad.be/sportwereld/cnt/DMF20121102_00356011
"I was late 2010 at the wedding of my brother in Kenya, when the International Cycling Union (UCI) checked me for the blood passport. I immediately asked to examine all parameters. When she discovered that I suffer from the disease.''
Compare that with earlier articles:
http://froome19.blogspot.nl/2013/01/chris-froome-doping.html
“Either in Kenya or South Africa, I got a water parasite, which is really difficult to get rid of.
"We found out that I had it last December, I had a full blood screening in Africa as they regularly check for it over there.
“It feeds on red blood cells so for an endurance athlete it’s a nightmare. It’s something I’m conscious of, in a three-week race you’re bound to have ups and downs.''
Now, wasnt that funny?
Cool story, dont you agree?
Is your genuine belief that Froome is clean, or is your belief that we shouldn't be so quick to jump on him without more evidence?hektoren said:Problem is, you're making a classic statistical ecological fallacy. You're interpreting statistical data where inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inference for the group to which those individuals belong. Could've, should've, but just ain't. Go figure!
100% the latter. Test him to hell and back, every morning and every night, because his transformation has been remarkable. I've made my hunches clear elsewhere. I have absolutely, 101% no problem with anyone who says "i think he doped, my instinct is he dopes"Libertine Seguros said:Is your genuine belief that Froome is clean, or is your belief that we shouldn't be so quick to jump on him without more evidence?
You mean something similar to what happened to the chicken once he was wearing the MJ?thehog said:A lot of people are talking.
Lot of stuff going around.
Lets see what hits the press come July.
Dont forget that Froome has passed over 500 testsmartinvickers said:100% the latter. Test him to hell and back, every morning and every night, because his transformation has been remarkable. I've made my hunches clear elsewhere. I have absolutely, 101% no problem with anyone who says "i think he doped, my instinct is he dopes"
But hunches are all they are, worthless in and of themselves. Evidence matters. Facts matter. And most of those who think they can diagnose a doper on sight are, to be kind, mistaken about their abilities. As, i might add, are those who think they know a clean rider on sight.
So when we get the sneery "of course he dopes" "100% fact he dopes" I can't but feel, "you idiot" - not for the belief, but because of the insistence that belief is fact.
Hear, hear!martinvickers said:100% the latter. Test him to hell and back, every morning and every night, because his transformation has been remarkable. I've made my hunches clear elsewhere. I have absolutely, 101% no problem with anyone who says "i think he doped, my instinct is he dopes"
But hunches are all they are, worthless in and of themselves. Evidence matters. Facts matter. And most of those who think they can diagnose a doper on sight are, to be kind, mistaken about their abilities. As, i might add, are those who think they know a clean rider on sight.
So when we get the sneery "of course he dopes" "100% fact he dopes" I can't but feel, "you idiot" - not for the belief, but because of the insistence that belief is fact.
The unfortunate curse of the mellow johnnys jersey. All those little stories that were just back of the bus chatter becomes news.gatete said:You mean something similar to what happened to the chicken once he was wearing the MJ?
I'm sorry, your point is?the sceptic said:Dont forget that Froome has passed over 500 tests
The testing is irrelevant. They would never have caught Balco folks if some disgruntled coach did not send a syringe. I think for the top pros the only way to get caught is a "Reasoned decision". For the top pros who got caught via testing I still believe that they were side stabbed.martinvickers said:100% the latter. Test him to hell and back, every morning and every night, because his transformation has been remarkable. I've made my hunches clear elsewhere. I have absolutely, 101% no problem with anyone who says "i think he doped, my instinct is he dopes"
But hunches are all they are, worthless in and of themselves. Evidence matters. Facts matter. And most of those who think they can diagnose a doper on sight are, to be kind, mistaken about their abilities. As, i might add, are those who think they know a clean rider on sight.
So when we get the sneery "of course he dopes" "100% fact he dopes" I can't but feel, "you idiot" - not for the belief, but because of the insistence that belief is fact.
I think it is very pertinent to remember the Balco.jilbiker said:The testing is irrelevant. They would never have caught Balco folks if some disgruntled coach did not send a syringe. I think for the top pros the only way to get caught is a "Reasoned decision". For the top pros who got caught via testing I still believe that they were side stabbed.
The absurdity of Vickers statement that Froome should be tested morning, noon and night is he knows full well thats what won't and doesn't happen.jilbiker said:The testing is irrelevant. They would never have caught Balco folks if some disgruntled coach did not send a syringe. I think for the top pros the only way to get caught is a "Reasoned decision". For the top pros who got caught via testing I still believe that they were side stabbed.
Yes, this is very much a disease which affects people living in rural areas who are exposed to unclean water.Libertine Seguros said:More likely Kenya. Though South Africa is still more of a risk than most other places (besides Eritrea) with cycling heritage. Still, I'd wager that the South African incidence of the disease varies wildly from region to region.
My sentiment, exactly.martinvickers said:100% the latter. Test him to hell and back, every morning and every night, because his transformation has been remarkable. I've made my hunches clear elsewhere. I have absolutely, 101% no problem with anyone who says "i think he doped, my instinct is he dopes"
But hunches are all they are, worthless in and of themselves. Evidence matters. Facts matter. And most of those who think they can diagnose a doper on sight are, to be kind, mistaken about their abilities. As, i might add, are those who think they know a clean rider on sight.
So when we get the sneery "of course he dopes" "100% fact he dopes" I can't but feel, "you idiot" - not for the belief, but because of the insistence that belief is fact.
No, because you didn't say it was in the U23 racehektoren said:You obviously didn't check the U23 results???
Oh my... what... wait... are you sayiong that statistically the chances of a GT winner being clean is extremely remote? Say it ain't so....martinvickers said:But there's the problem in your question. With a tiny handful of exceptions, historically they've ALL been proven to be cheats; the early prodigies, the late transformed bloomers, the steady improvers - makes no difference - every last man jack bar a tiny handful, cheats.
There is literally NO career path that any top rider could take that would not lead to - "ah, but last time that happened, it was dope" - wunderkind - "Ullrich, Pantani" late bloomer "bjarne riis" steady improver "arguably indurain, roche"
No, it's absolutely not faith, it's exactly analysis. Anyone saying they know he's clean is using faith.But the only conclusion using your reasoning is that everybody cheats, everybody always has and everybody always will. Which is meaningless, in a way. A statement of faith, not an analysis
Okay, you get full marks on this one! This is absolutely true, there's a lot of "faith" on both sides of the equation.martinvickers said:100% the latter. Test him to hell and back, every morning and every night, because his transformation has been remarkable. I've made my hunches clear elsewhere. I have absolutely, 101% no problem with anyone who says "i think he doped, my instinct is he dopes"
But hunches are all they are, worthless in and of themselves. Evidence matters. Facts matter. And most of those who think they can diagnose a doper on sight are, to be kind, mistaken about their abilities. As, i might add, are those who think they know a clean rider on sight.
So when we get the sneery "of course he dopes" "100% fact he dopes" I can't but feel, "you idiot" - not for the belief, but because of the insistence that belief is fact.