• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

I think Vaughters really wants to sign Contador:

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
I remember the emergence of the Garmin team since it was, I believe, somehow associated with the ACA and a springboard for junior riders such as Danny Summerhill and Blake Caldwell as examples (the TIAA-CREF era?). The idea of a clean team is, at least to me, more appealing than yet another “win at any cost” team. Signing a huge name international star such as AC seems to move even further away from the initial idea of this team and towards the status quo. Perhaps that’s what economics demands at this point in the game, but if it were to happen, would dilute almost to the point of meaningless, the initial concept of a clean team…
One could also argue about Millar, and who knows who else, doing the same thing to this team.
 
Jun 15, 2009
52
0
0
JV1973 said:
Ok, I know I'm nuts for even bothering here, but here goes:

My major point had to do with the percentage of anearobic work done in a 20 minute efforts vs a 40 min effort. The bike weight, etc etc, probably does only account for 20 watts assuming a perfectly steady effort (which is an invalid assumption if you've ever watched a bike race). However, the amount of power produced beyond what is produced aerobically in a 20 minute effort is considerable, it is not in a 40 minute effort - in my experience!

So, that was my point. If you fellows would like to keep going on about how we dope Brad and Christian, then have at it. It's really silly, as they aren't, but whatever, I've spent enough time trying to fight windmills for today. Have at it boys.

Sorry that I no longer have your respect - JV

I am surprised you would waste your time trying to explain things to people who have their minds solidly made up and do not wish to be confused with facts. This is forum mostly made up of sad people who hate excellence, probably because they are not willing or able to work hard enough to achieve it themselves. I would not be at all surprised to discover that the majority of the loudest mouths have not been on a bike since they got their drivers license.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Ok, so answer the 20 min effort vs 40+ minute effort question, I only have limited information from elite athletes, so this isn't a University study....

That said: CVV can produce about 5.9 watts per kg in peak form for 40+ minute climbs, Wiggo is a bit more at 6.1 w/kg for this length of effort.
From the pre-Tour tests both riders have done up Rocacorba (a 33 minute climb) I know that Wiggo was at 6.1w/kg and CVV was 5.7 w/kg (He was off form a bit in June). However, Wiggo did a local 10 mile TT in GB about 2 weeks before the Tour, or 5 days before the Rocacorba test. He posted a time of 18mins flat (and was disqualified for using a 1080 wheel...funny rules over there). Anyhow, his power was 482 watts, so using his Tour weight of 72 kgs, so 6.7 w/kg. So, anecdotally, there's about a 9% decrease in power when going from a 20 min effort to a 40+ min effort. At 6.7 w/kg you certainly can climb at a VAM of 1750, but at 6.1 you wont even hit 1700 (again, anecdotal based on experience).
The last TT in the Tour Wiggo averaged 434 watts, consistent with his previous tests of 40+ minutes and just about 6.1 w/kg. I dont have any data for Wiggo up climbs in the Tour, as he didnt use a PowerTap.

JV
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
There is so much to wade thru here

JV makes a good point. There are just too many variables (Wind, steepness and duration of climb, strong leadout on the bottom of the climb) to get accurate estimates. A much better measurement would be the first 15km of Ventoux, does anyone have the numbers for this? He loses me on the equipment stuff. Hard see that as more then a minor contributor....but in re-reading his comments even JV describes these changes as "Tiny"

As well as Wiggens climbed for the Tour I have not seen anything that is unbelievable. If he was holding 460 for 40 minutes It would be hard not to question, but I have yet to see this.

Walsh choose the wrong word when he said the Passport was "useless".....Beatable might be a better word. We have been conditioned to think the UCI is worthless and corrupt. The long delay in rolling out the pasport only enhanced this perception. Regardless of the UCI ineptitude there is SOME value to the passport.

VAM. Now that I am old, fat, and slow my main competitive outlet is Italian GF's. The Italians are obsessed with VAM. Before and after every big climb they often have a timing mat. After the race you get an email with your VAM for each climb. The differences, with the same output, can be huge.... 10-15%, Length and steepness are big factors and a tailwind and temperature can make a good difference.

Altitude training doesn't explain the small increase in Wiggens HCT, he was riding the Tour not camping out up on the Stelvio. It is also not like he made a huge jump like Landis (43-48.5)

It would be great to see some real power numbers, off a powertap, from the Ventoux climb. I would expect he was in the 380 for 45 minutes range for the steep portion of the climb up to Chalet Reynard. Something I feel is achievable clean.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
JV1973 said:
Ok, so answer the 20 min effort vs 40+ minute effort question, I only have limited information from elite athletes, so this isn't a University study....

That said: CVV can produce about 5.9 watts per kg in peak form for 40+ minute climbs, Wiggo is a bit more at 6.1 w/kg for this length of effort.
From the pre-Tour tests both riders have done up Rocacorba (a 33 minute climb) I know that Wiggo was at 6.1w/kg and CVV was 5.7 w/kg (He was off form a bit in June). However, Wiggo did a local 10 mile TT in GB about 2 weeks before the Tour, or 5 days before the Rocacorba test. He posted a time of 18mins flat (and was disqualified for using a 1080 wheel...funny rules over there). Anyhow, his power was 482 watts, so using his Tour weight of 72 kgs, so 6.7 w/kg. So, anecdotally, there's about a 9% decrease in power when going from a 20 min effort to a 40+ min effort. At 6.7 w/kg you certainly can climb at a VAM of 1750, but at 6.1 you wont even hit 1700 (again, anecdotal based on experience).
The last TT in the Tour Wiggo averaged 434 watts, consistent with his previous tests of 40+ minutes and just about 6.1 w/kg. I dont have any data for Wiggo up climbs in the Tour, as he didnt use a PowerTap.

JV

Thanks JV. Good info. I would have to ask this question, please correct me if I am wrong as I am quoting from memory.

Prior to the introduction of EPO the Tour winners in the third week would be in the 380-420 watts range. Lemond for his final TT in 1989 was @ 420 watts for 27 minutes. What would you attribute the increase to?.......of course most of it could be having accurate tools (SRM) vs. a formula, but Contador's numbers are significantly higher then the legends of the sport.
 
JV1973 said:
Ok, so answer the 20 min effort vs 40+ minute effort question, I only have limited information from elite athletes, so this isn't a University study....

That said: CVV can produce about 5.9 watts per kg in peak form for 40+ minute climbs, Wiggo is a bit more at 6.1 w/kg for this length of effort.
From the pre-Tour tests both riders have done up Rocacorba (a 33 minute climb) I know that Wiggo was at 6.1w/kg and CVV was 5.7 w/kg (He was off form a bit in June). However, Wiggo did a local 10 mile TT in GB about 2 weeks before the Tour, or 5 days before the Rocacorba test. He posted a time of 18mins flat (and was disqualified for using a 1080 wheel...funny rules over there). Anyhow, his power was 482 watts, so using his Tour weight of 72 kgs, so 6.7 w/kg. So, anecdotally, there's about a 9% decrease in power when going from a 20 min effort to a 40+ min effort. At 6.7 w/kg you certainly can climb at a VAM of 1750, but at 6.1 you wont even hit 1700 (again, anecdotal based on experience).
The last TT in the Tour Wiggo averaged 434 watts, consistent with his previous tests of 40+ minutes and just about 6.1 w/kg. I dont have any data for Wiggo up climbs in the Tour, as he didnt use a PowerTap.

JV
Hi JV,

This is excellent information. I had Wiggins with 443 Watts in the final TT. So I was 2.073% off. I am still trying to get a handle on the Drag Factors for TT.

As for the 6.1 W/kg I had a range of values using a probabilistic model anywhere from 5.84 W/kg to 6.5 W/kg. With 6.13 W/kg being the middle point. So if previous test for longer climbs show to be around this number it is to expect that for shorter climbs the results could be equal or better. There is so limited data for Pros at this level.

I just hope that you are correct and you trust all of your riders.

Thanks for the feedback.
 
Race Radio said:
... A much better measurement would be the first 15km of Ventoux, does anyone have the numbers for this? ...

...

It would be great to see some real power numbers, off a powertap, from the Ventoux climb. I would expect he was in the 380 for 45 minutes range for the steep portion of the climb up to Chalet Reynard. Something I feel is achievable clean.
I have Wiggins at 405 watts (5.71 W/kg) for Ventoux using the same approach I have been using in this Forum.

The error using the probabilistic software has been around +-9% of the total power, but with the most likely case being the one in the middle (405 watts).

I hope this helps.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
JV1973 said:
Ok, so answer the 20 min effort vs 40+ minute effort question, I only have limited information from elite athletes, so this isn't a University study....

That said: CVV can produce about 5.9 watts per kg in peak form for 40+ minute climbs, Wiggo is a bit more at 6.1 w/kg for this length of effort.
From the pre-Tour tests both riders have done up Rocacorba (a 33 minute climb) I know that Wiggo was at 6.1w/kg and CVV was 5.7 w/kg (He was off form a bit in June). However, Wiggo did a local 10 mile TT in GB about 2 weeks before the Tour, or 5 days before the Rocacorba test. He posted a time of 18mins flat (and was disqualified for using a 1080 wheel...funny rules over there). Anyhow, his power was 482 watts, so using his Tour weight of 72 kgs, so 6.7 w/kg. So, anecdotally, there's about a 9% decrease in power when going from a 20 min effort to a 40+ min effort. At 6.7 w/kg you certainly can climb at a VAM of 1750, but at 6.1 you wont even hit 1700 (again, anecdotal based on experience).
The last TT in the Tour Wiggo averaged 434 watts, consistent with his previous tests of 40+ minutes and just about 6.1 w/kg. I dont have any data for Wiggo up climbs in the Tour, as he didnt use a PowerTap.

JV

1. Thanks for sharing!

2. Mind if I copy your post over to the wattage list on google?

3. Mostly as an aside: given Wiggins' success as a pursuiter, I'd expect that his power falls off a bit more when going from 20 to 40+ min than most. (But then again, the point-of-reference here is Contador, who is known to be a more "explosive" climber than, say, Evans, so a ~10% difference may still be quite reasonable.)
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
JV, is it possible we can get some verification, that the blood numbers Stefan Matschiner sent you (Bernhard Kohl's manager) were fraudulent and not part of the UCI's blood passport?

Because quite frankly, if you listened to Werner Franke, you would not touch Contador, let alone move on some financing strategy if the Herbalife story is not apocryphal. Seems a tad mealy mouthed. If Stefan Matschiner sent you incorrect numbers, you can call him on it, but it is hypocrisy in the extreme to bite on Contador.

I would like to see Kohl's numbers released, to see how his two intra-tour transfusions influenced his blood parmeters in those 3 weeks, and two weeks post transfusion. This assumes he came in over-natural capacity also. But the cera popped him.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
blackcat said:
JV, is it possible we can get some verification, that the blood numbers Stefan Matschiner sent you (Bernhard Kohl's manager) were fraudulent and not part of the UCI's blood passport?

Because quite frankly, if you listened to Werner Franke, you would not touch Contador, let alone move on some financing strategy if the Herbalife story is not apocryphal. Seems a tad mealy mouthed. If Stefan Matschiner sent you incorrect numbers, you can call him on it, but it is hypocrisy in the extreme to bite on Contador.

I would like to see Kohl's numbers released, to see how his two intra-tour transfusions influenced his blood parmeters in those 3 weeks, and two weeks post transfusion. This assumes he came in over-natural capacity also. But the cera popped him.

I would like to see the same thing also. It would be interesting to see how a rider who was caught compared to ones that weren't in terms of their values over a 3 week period.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Escarabajo said:
I have Wiggins at 405 watts (5.71 W/kg) for Ventoux using the same approach I have been using in this Forum.

The error using the probabilistic software has been around +-9% of the total power, but with the most likely case being the one in the middle (405 watts).

I hope this helps.

Thanks, Good info

Where id you get the times for AC and Wiggens up Ventoux? The wind may not have effected the first 15km but the last 5km it could have slowed them.
 
Race Radio said:
Thanks, Good info

Where id you get the times for AC and Wiggens up Ventoux? The wind may not have effected the first 15km but the last 5km it could have slowed them.
I calculated the power for 20 Km. I took into account the drafting they did at the base of the climb. And the wind towards the end. I am not sure how strong the wind could have hit the riders since there were a lot of people in the mountains. Armstrong said something about that. For whatever is worth that is the number I came up with +- 9%.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
To answer a few:

1. I have no idea if what I was sent re Kohl was fraudulent or not. What I didnt like was that it came from his manager, not the UCI. That was enough to stop me from going further.

2. I've never seen Contador's blood values. Of course I need to see these with any rider who wants to race for Garmin-Slipstream. I am Jeffersonian in my approach to this. I negotiate in good faith, assuming the values will be good. If when revealed they are not suitable for our team, then I end the final part of negotiation. This applies to any rider.

3. Re Wiggos change in hemoglobin in the Tour: He has the exact same profile in the Giro: 15 at the start, drops to 14 after 10 days, then up to 15 at two weeks, then down to 13 for Ventoux (or last day of Giro). I'm not sure what this is about, but there is no correlating change in retics, mcv, or mch, so I dont think much of it.
Sometimes transport or different analysis machines (Coulter vs Sysmex) can cause changes in hct and hb. Its only when those changes correlate to a change in retics, mcv, etc that I get concerned. The interesting part with Wiggo is that his profile is the same in both 3 week Tours. One in which he was riding for GC, the other which he was just riding grupetto the last 10 days. It may be some shift in plasma volume that Wiggo has as he adapts to the load. Another factor may be that the other tests were taken on race days, the "jump" one was on a rest day. I also dont have know what time these tests were taken, so AM vs PM plasma volume changes quite a bit, hydration status aside. Ever notice how you feel stiff and puffy in the AM, but then that clears out by the afternoon? Thats water shifting from under your skin/in your muscles to in your bloodstream. Its more pronounced in athletes that are undergoing extreme inflammation. Not saying I have any specific information that any of these things caused this, I'm just thinking out loud.
In my experience in viewing a lot of these profiles, this is not an "at risk" profile, but of course I understand the concern that a 1pt hb jump would cause you guys. Its not an invalid concern. However, I have seen a lot of these and I just dont have that concern.

JV
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
JV1973 said:
To answer a few:

1. I have no idea if what I was sent re Kohl was fraudulent or not. What I didnt like was that it came from his manager, not the UCI. That was enough to stop me from going further.

did you communicate this concern to Matschiner?

I am going to return to the CN story, but I believed it was implicit in comments, that there was something funny with the numbers. And not inferring the protocol, but the numbers themself. I need to check it and will now.

If you did not have a dialogue on the protocol, then that does not seem in such good faith. Seems a post-hoc justification. Remember we have heard this before, Aldag and Stapletong trying to recruit Valverde, the spin put on this was they needed a cast iron assurance in writing his was not involved in OP. But Valverde managed to Dutch auction himself and Caisse d'Epargne matched the offer. So, was this the real reason why they could not sign Valverde? Going after Valverde, and throwing Sinkewitz on the pyre for a little testo lotion. (channeling Armstrong's cookie jar)
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
I dont remember anything funny in the numbers. I do remember that there were no numbers at all for July 2008, which was odd. That combined with that the protocol wasnt up to snuff just made me give up. You have to remember, we didnt need Kohl, it was just a possibility. When stuff like blood values gets complex and weird, its usually best just to punt and find another rider.

Why purchase stress?

JV
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cach...:www.cyclingnews.com&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Vaughters was looking to bolster his 2009 roster during last year's Tour, and Kohl was one of the riders he approached to discuss a possible contract. The negotiations fell through when it came time to examine Kohl's blood profile results.

"We look at a lot of results and have very high standards when it comes to hiring," Vaughters said.

"When speaking with Kohl's manager, we asked for his UCI tests. The way this normally works is that the UCI would send the results with permission of the rider. However, in this case his manager emailed some test results. Since this did not follow protocol, there was no way to verify the authenticity. It was an action that did not meet our or other standards and made us lose interest in working with them."

Kohl:
The International Cycling Union 's (UCI) biological passport failed to prevent Kohl from practicing blood doping on a regular basis during his career, he said. "The top riders are so professional in their doping that they know very well they have to keep their blood values stable not to be detected. The UCI sent us the values resulting from the controls: we thus referred to those to mark the next ones. In a way, the passport almost helped us."

seems he may have had his numbers, and they were correct. I would put to you JV, that when he got popped, and offered his expose on the peloton, and said he had been in contact with teams who offered him more money, because his passport was clean, the you engaged in damage control. If you were interested in him, but did not relay any question about accessing a UCI release, this seems not entirely in good faith. Telling Matschiner and stressing the protocol and the requirement for a UCI release, would be genuine good faith.

Seems other issues may have played out. Kohl may have realised Garmin was not for him, and your budgetary and roster planning had alternate exigencies.

I would offer that as an alternative.

Ofcourse, you may be entirely correct, and speaking the truth. But message control, and massaging a narrative, has been the MO of Garmin.

The fact that Contador was on the radar, and you assert the Tour can be won clean, tells me something else is going on, than complete transparency. I would prefer to believe, but that is a little too comfortable, too blase. The sport has betrayed the fans like me, so I should be sceptical, and you should earn the trust.

I appreciate an expediency, in your assertion the Tour can be won clean. You cannot allege doping from your position, which is de facto that position to hold. I criticised the message that "we are clean" (ergo others are not), because I did not like the exceptionalism, and differentiation. Because I was not confident in your squad, but this was not good faith strategic positioning with your marketing. Hold that position and verbalise it, but only if the house is in order.

edit: JV replied whilst I was drafting this mail. My original stands, but the JV explanation answers and would alter it
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
JV,
I appreciate the dialogue. I am a fan of your team, but have to say that I do see things that cause me concern. I have to say that Walsh's contention that riders are ahead of the passport system seems logical considering the few actual positive tests. I can clearly see a link between a guy who gets busted doping and the fact that it wasn't his first rodeo yet somehow he was able to avoid detection for an extended period of time. I for one do understand that men like Ferrari are paid as much for their ability to avoid positives as they are their doping practices. To think that somehow innovation in beating doping controls has been put on hold because of the passport system is nonsensical. I still see smoke, and believe there is still fire, though I do see some riders who have quite obviously ceased their more systematic programs.

I don't come at any of this from a scientific standpoint unlike several of the people who post here. I just don't get that kind of thing very easily. What I see are the ways in which people react and perform. I still do not see anything that suggests real transparency and systemic change. I did see men like Cadel Evans riding in the fat part of the peloton this year, and that along with the rides of some others make me wonder why they fell off a cliff performance wise while others had very different rides than any in their past.

You will have to excuse the cynicism and doubt. I find calling into the question people who are also skeptical of the claims of those involved with cycling a bit disturbing. You didn't quite "flame" Walsh, but he is on the wrong end of the spectrum of people who actually deserve scrutiny. Maybe if you had made comments about McQuaid, I would not have had the same reaction.

However, thank you for the willingness to address people who in reality have little to no influence on what really happens in cycling. We are just fans and people who cycle because we love riding a bike for the most part, and what we want is to have some faith in professional cycling. You will have to understand if we are a bit reluctant to jump off the cliff of hope just yet.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
+1 TFF

personally, I am more aggrieved because I had belief, and thought they were genuine. And my posting is a manifestation of that betrayal.

I can appreciate Wiggins riding on the same terms as Armstrong and Contador. I don't like it but I do not deny him that opportunity. But I am indignant at the spin. Gone too far.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
1
0
Thoughtforfood said:
JV,
However, thank you for the willingness to address people who in reality have little to no influence on what really happens in cycling. We are just fans and people who cycle because we love riding a bike for the most part, and what we want is to have some faith in professional cycling. You will have to understand if we are a bit reluctant to jump off the cliff of hope just yet.

+1

Really nice to see you here, JV! :D

Most of us, while a little cynical, are still fairly objective in our thinking. If you really want to see us go after someone, just convince Bruyneel to sign up and start posting some of his thoughts! ;)
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Thoughtforfood said:
JV,
I appreciate the dialogue. I am a fan of your team, but have to say that I do see things that cause me concern. I have to say that Walsh's contention that riders are ahead of the passport system seems logical considering the few actual positive tests. I can clearly see a link between a guy who gets busted doping and the fact that it wasn't his first rodeo yet somehow he was able to avoid detection for an extended period of time. I for one do understand that men like Ferrari are paid as much for their ability to avoid positives as they are their doping practices. To think that somehow innovation in beating doping controls has been put on hold because of the passport system is nonsensical. I still see smoke, and believe there is still fire, though I do see some riders who have quite obviously ceased their more systematic programs.

I don't come at any of this from a scientific standpoint unlike several of the people who post here. I just don't get that kind of thing very easily. What I see are the ways in which people react and perform. I still do not see anything that suggests real transparency and systemic change. I did see men like Cadel Evans riding in the fat part of the peloton this year, and that along with the rides of some others make me wonder why they fell off a cliff performance wise while others had very different rides than any in their past.

You will have to excuse the cynicism and doubt. I find calling into the question people who are also skeptical of the claims of those involved with cycling a bit disturbing. You didn't quite "flame" Walsh, but he is on the wrong end of the spectrum of people who actually deserve scrutiny. Maybe if you had made comments about McQuaid, I would not have had the same reaction.

However, thank you for the willingness to address people who in reality have little to no influence on what really happens in cycling. We are just fans and people who cycle because we love riding a bike for the most part, and what we want is to have some faith in professional cycling. You will have to understand if we are a bit reluctant to jump off the cliff of hope just yet.

+1

Like TFF I struggle with the scientific part of the discussion. I do not use that as the datum for having suspicions on riders as there are too many variables that can effect the outcome.
I do however read Escarabajos posts with a lot of interest - as he is someone who has no agenda, he is just trying to present the data and let the numbers answer the questions.

Of course this leads us back to the original point- the fact that many here including myself still query certain riders performances and that JV has had to come on here to defend his athletes show how little faith the Bio-Passport has within the cycling community.

These forums can get pretty serious at times - so i will end on the lighter side.
It must be acknowledged that JV can get the most out of an individual and let them express themselves - I am not talking about Wiggo or CVV, I am of course talking about ThoughtForFood!
A full 4 paragraphs - thoughtful and insightful- we always knew you had it in you buddy ;)
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
blackcat said:
I criticised the message that "we are clean" (ergo others are not), because I did not like the exceptionalism, and differentiation.

That's nonsense, a non-sequitur. If I say I'm Muslim or 170 pounds, it doesn't exclude others being Muslim or circa 170 pounds. They can say they are clean, and others can say what they are. There's no connection, logically.

You are responsible for your own messaging, and I see openess here by JV (if one wants to talk about the "exceptional"). Never seen a DS post data on watts and blood values and discuss them openly.

And I'm not a Muslim or 170 pounds, by the way.

Cynicism equally corrupts the truth as naivety (Artistotle would have a thing or two to say to hot-heads here: virtue is often a median between extremes, so realism would be a mean between naivety and cynicism). This doesn't have to be a morality play of over-opinionated chest-thumping.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Parrot23 said:
That's nonsense, a non-sequitur. If I say I'm Muslim or 170 pounds, it doesn't exclude others being Muslim or circa 170 pounds. They can say they are clean, and others can say what they are. There's no connection, logically.

You are responsible for your own messaging, and I see openess here by JV (if one wants to talk about the "exceptional"). Never seen a DS post data on watts and blood values and discuss them openly.

And I'm not a Muslim or 170 pounds, by the way.


Cynicism equally corrupts the truth as naivety (Artistotle would have a thing or two to say to hot-heads here: virtue is often a median between extremes, so realism would be a mean between naivety and cynicism). This doesn't have to be a morality play of over-opinionated chest-thumping.

Show me where there has been a concerted effort to produce false doping positives that is the counterweight to Omerta, and I will acknowledge the equivalence you suggest.

This doesn't have to be game of one upmanship with Aristotle quoting chest thumping. Sometimes, things really are worse than you want to believe. Just ask the labs that were being paid by Kohl's doc to find ways around testing positive. I am going to just throw a dart here and suggest that he isn't the only one...
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
Parrot23 said:
That's nonsense, a non-sequitur. If I say I'm Muslim or 170 pounds, it doesn't exclude others being Muslim or circa 170 pounds. They can say they are clean, and others can say what they are. There's no connection, logically.

You are responsible for your own messaging, and I see openess here by JV (if one wants to talk about the "exceptional"). Never seen a DS post data on watts and blood values and discuss them openly.

And I'm not a Muslim or 170 pounds, by the way.

Cynicism equally corrupts the truth as naivety (Artistotle would have a thing or two to say to hot-heads here: virtue is often a median between extremes, so realism would be a mean between naivety and cynicism). This doesn't have to be a morality play of over-opinionated chest-thumping.
you are assuming a vacuum Parrot23.

This is cycling. Why is their a value increment to brand yourself as "clean".

Yes, your aphorism on Aristotlian virtue brings us a "fair and balanced" fox news paradigm of journalism. We have two opposing viewpoints, yet their is one truth. There is only one truth. If you want two opposing viewpoints, we have Twitter for Armstrong, and Public Strategies. In this corporate era, it allows those with resources to control the message, this writ large era of Bernays and doublespeak. I would prefer to use a rational mind of my own, and back my intellectual cognitition to come to a finding.

A study of professional cycling of those past two decades lends my pov credence. You can dismiss it as cynicism, but that is NY Times orthodoxy. Counter orthodoxy at your peril, look at the shills and apparatchiks come out of the backblocks to toe the Armstrong and Vaughters line. I prefer to hold them to account, and be a critic if there is seeming contradictions.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BanProCycling said:
You seem to be saying that everyone who disagrees with you is working for a corporation. Why would corporations bother hanging out on a cynical message board? Doesn't seem any point in wasting their time.

If there is a mainstream media orthodoxy, such as not denouncing athletes until they fail a proper test, then you part of the Internet orthodoxy where one has to be working for a corporation if they don't take the ultra cynical line on everything.

You are the mirror of everything you hate. You have become a cliche - you are 'those guys on the internet'.

You've always been one.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Parrot23 said:
..
Cynicism equally corrupts the truth as naivety (Artistotle would have a thing or two to say to hot-heads here: virtue is often a median between extremes, so realism would be a mean between naivety and cynicism). This doesn't have to be a morality play of over-opinionated chest-thumping.

You are correct that 'cynicism equally corrupts the truth' - but I wonder what Aristotle would think when:

No less a figure than Pat McQuaid says the Danilo Di Luca's Bio-Passport shows no abnormalities after an article in Spain claims the UCI are targeting him.
2 weeks later Di Luca is busted for CERA- the UCI say it is after targeted testing from data through the Bio-Passport.

The UCI refuse to retest the 2008 Giro samples for CERA- now they have done a U turn and say they want to retest them,this is of course after the Carabinieri have the same samples and are about to test them.

The UCI has a meeting with ASO owners EPA- the result of that meeting is Patric Clerc who was very strong on the fight against doping is removed and the AFLD are no longer in control of the anti-doping at the Tour.

When the AFLD claim the UCI are lax in their controls by having coffee with the team for an hour McQuaid jumps in and says he has faith in his testers - no investigation, just a blind acceptance that everything is ok.

I have decided to use just recent events- within the last 12 months.