• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

If there was one clean rider...

Page 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 15, 2014
361
0
0
Still... Does it mean that just because he was tested he's jumping from 0,5% to 33,33% ? It doesn't seem right...

EDIT : Ok, I know what's been bothering me. It's the formulation. The chances that CB doped cannot vary depending on wether he was tested to not. What varies is the field of possibilities. We reduced the field from 200 riders to 3 riders. I think the correct formulation would be : the chances of finding Boardman positive increased from 0,5% to 33,33%. But the chances he doped or not were always the same.
 
Wouldn't the chance be increased to 66% because the winner of the prologue is also the yellow jersey?

Out of the three tests, Boardman would have held 2 out of the 3 chances to win the positive... Just sayin. :D

Stage winner: Boardman

Yellow jersey: Boardman

Random: ???
 
Re:

Irondan said:
Wouldn't the chance be increased to 66% because the winner of the prologue is also the yellow jersey?

Out of the three tests, Boardman would have held 2 out of the 3 chances to win the positive... Just sayin. :D

Stage winner: Boardman

Yellow jersey: Boardman

Random: ???
Interesting hypotheses.

Its possible, I was actually accounting that Ullrich wore than yellow jersey as the previous years winner. But I like your thinking.
 
Feb 6, 2016
953
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
ebandit said:
1..boardman...2 ..olano.....3..jalabert.........

Mark L

assuming it was top 3
No. It was Boardman, Ullrich and one random.

In 1998 they tested the winner of the stage, the yellow jersey (Ullrich from 1997) and one random rider.

1 in 3 chance that is was Boardman.
Irondan said:
Wouldn't the chance be increased to 66% because the winner of the prologue is also the yellow jersey?

Out of the three tests, Boardman would have held 2 out of the 3 chances to win the positive... Just sayin. :D

Stage winner: Boardman

Yellow jersey: Boardman

Random: ???
This is an interesting question. My personal suggestion would be that they tested the person wearing the yellow jersey during the stage, not the yellow jersey after the stage, because that makes it less likely that the same person would fall into two different categories. However, that assumes that the authorities want to test as many people as possible (although my impression of '98 is that the testing got done, it just never got acted upon) and suggests that the purely ceremonial defending champion's jersey has in-race implications.
 
Re: Re:

Cannibal72 said:
thehog said:
ebandit said:
1..boardman...2 ..olano.....3..jalabert.........

Mark L

assuming it was top 3
No. It was Boardman, Ullrich and one random.

In 1998 they tested the winner of the stage, the yellow jersey (Ullrich from 1997) and one random rider.

1 in 3 chance that is was Boardman.
Irondan said:
Wouldn't the chance be increased to 66% because the winner of the prologue is also the yellow jersey?

Out of the three tests, Boardman would have held 2 out of the 3 chances to win the positive... Just sayin. :D

Stage winner: Boardman

Yellow jersey: Boardman

Random: ???
This is an interesting question. My personal suggestion would be that they tested the person wearing the yellow jersey during the stage, not the yellow jersey after the stage, because that makes it less likely that the same person would fall into two different categories. However, that assumes that the authorities want to test as many people as possible (although my impression of '98 is that the testing got done, it just never got acted upon) and suggests that the purely ceremonial defending champion's jersey has in-race implications.

Ullrich did wear the yellow on that stage as confirmed by a CN picture...

The dialogue is funny from 98:

Brief:

Chris Boardman finally saw the light on Saturday after a long period of self-doubt. He rode the 5.6 kms Prologue course in 6.12 at an average of 54.193 km/h. The Prologue would through the streets of Dublin as the 1998 Tour de France went away from the European continent to avoid the mondial. Abraham Olano came in second 4 seconds down with Laurent Jalabert at 5 seconds in third.

Boardman told the press afterwards that the has been going through a period of uncertainty and self-doubt about his abilities, especially to recover after hard races. He is quoted as saying: This is my best victory in a Tour prologue because I have been going through hard times. This win is a big surprise and I dedicate it to my wife Sally Anne. Without her I would not have been here today." He has been plagued by low testosterone levels. Perhaps he needs to see the Festina doctor!

Defending Tour winner, German Jan Ullrich was 5th at 5 seconds but he looked powerful and slim. He categorically said afterwards that the Tour was his goal for 1998 and that he had done the work necessary. He is reported as saying: "Many people had doubts but I have proved I am on the right road for another success in Paris. That was my aim for this prologue. Boardman is a specialist who takes risks to win but I am very happy with my prologue."

Meanwhile, Belgian Willy Voet a medical staff member of Festina who is the personal carer for team leader Richard Virenque, was arrested on Thursday near the Belgian border by customs officers. He was carrying steroids and EPO.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/tour98/prol.html

(Personal Carer? Isn't that what Sky call them, sorry!)
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Cannibal72 said:
thehog said:
ebandit said:
1..boardman...2 ..olano.....3..jalabert.........

Mark L

assuming it was top 3
No. It was Boardman, Ullrich and one random.

In 1998 they tested the winner of the stage, the yellow jersey (Ullrich from 1997) and one random rider.

1 in 3 chance that is was Boardman.
Irondan said:
Wouldn't the chance be increased to 66% because the winner of the prologue is also the yellow jersey?

Out of the three tests, Boardman would have held 2 out of the 3 chances to win the positive... Just sayin. :D

Stage winner: Boardman

Yellow jersey: Boardman

Random: ???
This is an interesting question. My personal suggestion would be that they tested the person wearing the yellow jersey during the stage, not the yellow jersey after the stage, because that makes it less likely that the same person would fall into two different categories. However, that assumes that the authorities want to test as many people as possible (although my impression of '98 is that the testing got done, it just never got acted upon) and suggests that the purely ceremonial defending champion's jersey has in-race implications.

Ullrich did wear the yellow on that stage as confirmed by a CN picture...

The dialogue is funny from 98:

Brief:

Chris Boardman finally saw the light on Saturday after a long period of self-doubt. He rode the 5.6 kms Prologue course in 6.12 at an average of 54.193 km/h. The Prologue would through the streets of Dublin as the 1998 Tour de France went away from the European continent to avoid the mondial. Abraham Olano came in second 4 seconds down with Laurent Jalabert at 5 seconds in third.

Boardman told the press afterwards that the has been going through a period of uncertainty and self-doubt about his abilities, especially to recover after hard races. He is quoted as saying: This is my best victory in a Tour prologue because I have been going through hard times. This win is a big surprise and I dedicate it to my wife Sally Anne. Without her I would not have been here today." He has been plagued by low testosterone levels. Perhaps he needs to see the Festina doctor!

Defending Tour winner, German Jan Ullrich was 5th at 5 seconds but he looked powerful and slim. He categorically said afterwards that the Tour was his goal for 1998 and that he had done the work necessary. He is reported as saying: "Many people had doubts but I have proved I am on the right road for another success in Paris. That was my aim for this prologue. Boardman is a specialist who takes risks to win but I am very happy with my prologue."

Meanwhile, Belgian Willy Voet a medical staff member of Festina who is the personal carer for team leader Richard Virenque, was arrested on Thursday near the Belgian border by customs officers. He was carrying steroids and EPO.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/tour98/prol.html

(Personal Carer? Isn't that what Sky call them, sorry!)
A totally irrelevant point ....
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Irondan said:
Wouldn't the chance be increased to 66% because the winner of the prologue is also the yellow jersey?

Out of the three tests, Boardman would have held 2 out of the 3 chances to win the positive... Just sayin. :D

Stage winner: Boardman

Yellow jersey: Boardman

Random: ???
Interesting hypotheses.

Its possible, I was actually accounting that Ullrich wore than yellow jersey as the previous years winner. But I like your thinking.
So you assumed it was Ullrich, but you don't know for sure.

It would be odd for CB to be counted as winner and yellow since that would be daft, and there are 3 tests on that record.
 
Mar 11, 2009
832
0
0
So if a dog and a cat are in a room and DNA tests show one animal was a cat then the logic of this thread lately the dog has a 50% chance of being a cat.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
ebandit said:
...............still more likely it was one of the others.....most of all as 1 was ulrich
Mark L
Its not "more likely", because the other two were "missing", they too could have been "EPO positive", there is a significant chance that all 3 were positive.

You don't appear have a handle on basic math and probability so its hard to take you seriously. I sense you're really not trying to contribute in a sensible fashion.
That's not entirely right.

Facts:
3 tests / samples were performed.
We know 1 rider was CB as the stage winner.
The chance that the indicated test is CB is 1 in 3 (33.3333%).
The chance that the indicated test is a rider not CB is 2 in 3 because there are 2 other riders who were tested(66.6666%).

What we cant comment on is the other two tests / samples since they are marked as 'missing' (and its not clear if that means the results are missing or the sample itself). No conclusion can be drawn on them at all.

Now if those other 2 weren't missing that would change the narrative somewhat - either way.
 
Re:

Nick C. said:
So if a dog and a cat are in a room and DNA tests show one animal was a cat then the logic of this thread lately the dog has a 50% chance of being a cat.
No that's not right.

If you said there are 2 animals in a room and DNA shows one is a cat, without knowing anything more you would be correct to say each animal has a 50% chance of being the cat. But your statement shows you know more - because you have said there is a cat and a dog in the same room.

In this thread all we can say is that 3 riders were tested, and 1 was the race winner. We cant say anything about the other 2 because we don't know who they are. Now, if we were to know that Jan was tested, then that's all we could really say. Anything about the indicated test being more likely to be Jan's because, well its Jan and he has a doping past, is supposition and opinion.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
thehog said:
ebandit said:
...............still more likely it was one of the others.....most of all as 1 was ulrich
Mark L
Its not "more likely", because the other two were "missing", they too could have been "EPO positive", there is a significant chance that all 3 were positive.

You don't appear have a handle on basic math and probability so its hard to take you seriously. I sense you're really not trying to contribute in a sensible fashion.
That's not entirely right.

Facts:
3 tests / samples were performed.
We know 1 rider was CB as the stage winner.
The chance that the indicated test is CB is 1 in 3 (33.3333%).
The chance that the indicated test is a rider not CB is 2 in 3 because there are 2 other riders who were tested(66.6666%).

What we cant comment on is the other two tests / samples since they are marked as 'missing' (and its not clear if that means the results are missing or the sample itself). No conclusion can be drawn on them at all.

Now if those other 2 weren't missing that would change the narrative somewhat - either way.

I don’t wish to make it any more complex however what you state is not true;

Within quantitative statistics you can draw a conclusion, of course the qualitative variable is important but you do not discount the fact that two tests do not have a result either way – i.e. a conclusion can most certainly be drawn on the 2 other tests but you are required to denote the qualitative aspect of those two.

In this case the 66.66% chance of the sample NOT being Boardman is reduced by the fact that the 2 missing samples are NOT negative (nor are they positive), they are 'unknown'. Therefore there is a 33.33% chance of one positive being Boardman but the probability of it NOT being Boardman would be less than 66.66%*.


* You could map this out by equation and get within a reasonable range
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
TheSpud said:
That's not entirely right.

Facts:
3 tests / samples were performed.
We know 1 rider was CB as the stage winner.
The chance that the indicated test is CB is 1 in 3 (33.3333%).
The chance that the indicated test is a rider not CB is 2 in 3 because there are 2 other riders who were tested(66.6666%).

What we cant comment on is the other two tests / samples since they are marked as 'missing' (and its not clear if that means the results are missing or the sample itself). No conclusion can be drawn on them at all.

Now if those other 2 weren't missing that would change the narrative somewhat - either way.

I don’t wish to make it any more complex however what you state is not true;

Within quantitative statistics you can draw a conclusion, of course the qualitative variable is important but you do not discount the fact that two tests do not have a result either way – i.e. a conclusion can most certainly be drawn on the 2 other tests but you are required to denote the qualitative aspect of those two.

In this case the 66.66% chance of the sample NOT being Boardman is reduced by the fact that the 2 missing samples are NOT negative (nor are they positive), they are 'unknown'. Therefore there is a 33.33% chance of one positive being Boardman but the probability of it NOT being Boardman would be less than 66.66%*.


* You could map this out by equation and get within a reasonable range
I'm sorry Hog but that is absolutely not true.

The chances of that test (ie the red one) being CB is 1 in 3
The chances of it being rider #2 is 1 in 3
The chances of it being rider #3 is 1 in 3

In fact the chances of that test being any one of the 3 tested riders is 1 in 3 - that's because 3 samples were taken from 3 different people (and lets assume 3 people were tested - to take 3 samples from 2 people would be odd).

As I'm sure you know the sum of all probabilities has to add up to 100% (or 3 in 3 in this case).

So if the chances of the sample belonging to CB is 1/3, the chance of it belonging to a rider other than CB is 2/3.

The results of the other tests are irrelevant, otherwise you are confusing the actual results with the who the test belongs to.

Now, where I do agree is that the chances that CB returned a +ve (if only visual) test are AT LEAST 33.3333%. If we knew the outcome of the other 2 we could be more precise (especially if all 3 were +ve :))
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
thehog said:
TheSpud said:
That's not entirely right.

Facts:
3 tests / samples were performed.
We know 1 rider was CB as the stage winner.
The chance that the indicated test is CB is 1 in 3 (33.3333%).
The chance that the indicated test is a rider not CB is 2 in 3 because there are 2 other riders who were tested(66.6666%).

What we cant comment on is the other two tests / samples since they are marked as 'missing' (and its not clear if that means the results are missing or the sample itself). No conclusion can be drawn on them at all.

Now if those other 2 weren't missing that would change the narrative somewhat - either way.

I don’t wish to make it any more complex however what you state is not true;

Within quantitative statistics you can draw a conclusion, of course the qualitative variable is important but you do not discount the fact that two tests do not have a result either way – i.e. a conclusion can most certainly be drawn on the 2 other tests but you are required to denote the qualitative aspect of those two.

In this case the 66.66% chance of the sample NOT being Boardman is reduced by the fact that the 2 missing samples are NOT negative (nor are they positive), they are 'unknown'. Therefore there is a 33.33% chance of one positive being Boardman but the probability of it NOT being Boardman would be less than 66.66%*.


* You could map this out by equation and get within a reasonable range
I'm sorry Hog but that is absolutely not true.

The chances of that test (ie the red one) being CB is 1 in 3
The chances of it being rider #2 is 1 in 3
The chances of it being rider #3 is 1 in 3

In fact the chances of that test being any one of the 3 tested riders is 1 in 3 - that's because 3 samples were taken from 3 different people (and lets assume 3 people were tested - to take 3 samples from 2 people would be odd).

As I'm sure you know the sum of all probabilities has to add up to 100% (or 3 in 3 in this case).

So if the chances of the sample belonging to CB is 1/3, the chance of it belonging to a rider other than CB is 2/3.

The results of the other tests are irrelevant, otherwise you are confusing the actual results with the who the test belongs to.

Now, where I do agree is that the chances that CB returned a +ve (if only visual) test are AT LEAST 33.3333%. If we knew the outcome of the other 2 we could be more precise (especially if all 3 were +ve :))

Let's not go there;

However you can't say "its not true"; in any study, a scientist (or analyst) is quite within in his right to include other data and provide probability to those data points and variables; unknown molecules are often added in chemistry testing.

I don't disagree with you that in this case its not worth it; the 33.33% chance of Boardman is enough to NOT have him passed as 100% clean (i.e. there is significant doubt). The 66.66% of it not being him would require much more detailed analysis.

I could write out the equation but it would take me an hour or two to get it somewhat right! :cry:
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
TheSpud said:
I'm sorry Hog but that is absolutely not true.

The chances of that test (ie the red one) being CB is 1 in 3
The chances of it being rider #2 is 1 in 3
The chances of it being rider #3 is 1 in 3

In fact the chances of that test being any one of the 3 tested riders is 1 in 3 - that's because 3 samples were taken from 3 different people (and lets assume 3 people were tested - to take 3 samples from 2 people would be odd).

As I'm sure you know the sum of all probabilities has to add up to 100% (or 3 in 3 in this case).

So if the chances of the sample belonging to CB is 1/3, the chance of it belonging to a rider other than CB is 2/3.

The results of the other tests are irrelevant, otherwise you are confusing the actual results with the who the test belongs to.

Now, where I do agree is that the chances that CB returned a +ve (if only visual) test are AT LEAST 33.3333%. If we knew the outcome of the other 2 we could be more precise (especially if all 3 were +ve :))

Let's not go there;

however you can't say "its not true"; in any study, a scientist is quite within in his right to include other data and provide probability to those data points and variables; unknown molecules are often added in chemistry testing.

I don't disagree with you that in this case its not worth it; the 33.33% chance of Boardman is enough to not have him passed as 100% clean but the 66.66% would require much more detailed analysis. I could write out the equation but it would take me an hour or two to get it right!
Lets make this simpler.

Assume 3 people pee in a test tube, and one of the tubes has a red dot marked on it, randomly.

Now put those 3 test tubes on the table. What are the chances that the tube with the red dot on belongs to person #1? Its 1 in 3 (1/3 or 33.3333%). Which means the chances of the tube NOT belonging to person #1 is 2 in 3.

Now, this time instead of putting all 3 tubes on the table just put the red dot tube on the table. What are the chances of that tube belonging to person #1? Its still 1 in 3. So similarly the chances it doesn't belong to person #1 is 2 in 3. This is the scenario we have here - we don't know the physical properties of the missing two (red dot or not, or blue dot, or whatever).

Now, the comment you make that the 33.33% is enough to have Boardman removed from the 100% clean list is somewhat based on opinion. What if those tests had included Bassons as the winner and had shown the same profile. Would you be saying the same thing - that Bassons should be excluded due to the 33.33%? If not - why not?
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
thehog said:
TheSpud said:
I'm sorry Hog but that is absolutely not true.

The chances of that test (ie the red one) being CB is 1 in 3
The chances of it being rider #2 is 1 in 3
The chances of it being rider #3 is 1 in 3

In fact the chances of that test being any one of the 3 tested riders is 1 in 3 - that's because 3 samples were taken from 3 different people (and lets assume 3 people were tested - to take 3 samples from 2 people would be odd).

As I'm sure you know the sum of all probabilities has to add up to 100% (or 3 in 3 in this case).

So if the chances of the sample belonging to CB is 1/3, the chance of it belonging to a rider other than CB is 2/3.

The results of the other tests are irrelevant, otherwise you are confusing the actual results with the who the test belongs to.

Now, where I do agree is that the chances that CB returned a +ve (if only visual) test are AT LEAST 33.3333%. If we knew the outcome of the other 2 we could be more precise (especially if all 3 were +ve :))

Let's not go there;

however you can't say "its not true"; in any study, a scientist is quite within in his right to include other data and provide probability to those data points and variables; unknown molecules are often added in chemistry testing.

I don't disagree with you that in this case its not worth it; the 33.33% chance of Boardman is enough to not have him passed as 100% clean but the 66.66% would require much more detailed analysis. I could write out the equation but it would take me an hour or two to get it right!
Lets make this simpler.

Assume 3 people pee in a test tube, and one of the tubes has a red dot marked on it, randomly.

Now put those 3 test tubes on the table. What are the chances that the tube with the red dot on belongs to person #1? Its 1 in 3 (1/3 or 33.3333%). Which means the chances of the tube NOT belonging to person #1 is 2 in 3.

Now, this time instead of putting all 3 tubes on the table just put the red dot tube on the table. What are the chances of that tube belonging to person #1? Its 1 in 3. So similarly the chances it doesn't belong to person #1 is 2 in 3. This is the scenario we have here - we don't know the physical properties of the missing two (red dot or not, or blue dot, or whatever).

Now, the comment you make that the 33.33% is enough to have Boardman removed from the 100% clean list is somewhat based on opinion. What if those tests had included Bassons as the winner and had shown the same profile. Would you be saying the same thing - that Bassons should be excluded due to the 33.33%? If not - why not?
We've been here before, always the problem when you include the riders name, there is the emotive aspect - "Lance would never dope" etc.

The 6 EPO positives from 2005, was a similar situation. If you conducted analysis purely on the data (and not on the emotive context or for formal sanction), then the likelihood that "Athlete #1" was doping was extremely high. The fact that it was Lance Armstrong cancer survivor and hero to millions clouded the analysis.

In this case it is NOT Bassons because the likelihood of him winning a prologue in an EPO fuelled field is extremely low. Even if he did win a stage and be tested (He won one in the Dauphiné Libéré) and the same result then, yes, he'd face the same statistical analysis and conclusion we have drawn here.

David Miller was consider clean on his comeback but hit a high mark on the 2010 suspicion list and rumors of him still using HGH so no one can be trusted.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Benotti69 said:
86TDFWinner said:
Benotti69 said:
When Bassons left the '99 tour so did the only clean rider in the race!
Was Boardman in that race too? If so, there's #2
Chris Boardman a clean rider? Not in my opinion!
What evidence do you have he wasn't ? If my memory is correct he used to concentrate on the prologues in the big tours which suited his background. Why would he dope ?
And Pantani focused on mountains which suited his background.

Really? Is this argument actually being used to defend a rider. "it suited his background". For the late 90's no less :rolleyes:
 
Re:

ebandit said:
i'm with boardman being trustworthy too............................

perhaps it's doubters that must do better....ie more than...they all

dope i tell ya


Mark L
In 1998 they did all dope. Even the Sky guys basically admit to this in the whole "Dave Brailsford cleaned up cycling on his own" narrative.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
#1 We've been here before, always the problem when you include the riders name, there is the emotive aspect - "Lance would never dope" etc.

The 6 EPO positives from 2005, was a similar situation. If you conducted analysis purely on the data (and not on the emotive context or for formal sanction), then the likelihood that "Athlete #1" was doping was extremely high. The fact that it was Lance Armstrong cancer survivor and hero to millions clouded the analysis.

#2In this case it is NOT Bassons because the likelihood of him winning a prologue in an EPO fuelled field is extremely low. Even if he did win a stage and be tested (He won one in the Dauphiné Libéré) and the same result then, yes, he'd face the same statistical analysis and conclusion we have drawn here.

#3David Miller was consider clean on his comeback but hit a high mark on the 2010 suspicion list and rumors of him still using HGH but that's for another thread.
Added in some # above.

#1 - totally agree, it becomes opinionated / subjective. And those 2005 tests are a great example of that - but in those tests they joined the rider ID to the rider himself. We don't have that here - we just have that 1 of the 3 tests is noted as being "visually" +ve. We cant draw any conclusions from the other two. All we can say is that there is a 1 in 3 chance it is CB.

I don't think the other 2 points were answering my points but I'll comment anyway:

#2 - true, this is not Bassons and I'm heartened to hear you say the same analysis would be undertaken and conclusion drawn (by you no doubt). It would be interesting to see the drug test results of that Dauphine stage - especially as Vino was in Yellow. I would imagine the profile could be quite revealing - probably showing at least one rider had an EPO +ve. Would that be a 33.33% chance? If so surely Bassons should be removed from the list?

#3 - I haven't really followed Millar's career in that much detail, I know he got busted, etc. + the stories of the aftermath but that was a period when I switched off from cycling for a while except the big stories (ie Landis, etc.) so I cant really comment. I will say though that the 2010 suspicion list has to be one of the laughs around, if only to have LA so low. Maybe their assessment of him was 'lowered' (ahem) before being put in the list. I'm not saying that makes him clean but that list - well ...
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
I will say though that the 2010 suspicion list has to be one of the laughs around, if only to have LA so low.
I'm sorry but you are missing very basic logic here.

Just because a doper passes a doping does not mean that someone who fails it is suddenly clean.
I think there are some words missing there - but pretty sure I know what you're getting at and agree Hitch. The point I was making was that I think most people have found that 2010 list rather amusing. And looking at where some of those names are you have to wonder whether they put that list together after smoking some very strange cigarettes ...

Just because LA is a 4 (or somewhere like that) doesn't make him clean, and other riders who are 7 or 8 doesn't make them dirty. The list is a farce.

The David Millar situation - I cant comment, as I said I switched off quite a bit around that time. I do think he comes across very sanctimonious and holier than thou (regardless of whether he is or not).
 
Boardman probably doped, which raises a big flag for Wiggins. Beating a doper by 2K is suspicious to say the least. Rominger, we already know. :rolleyes: .

To answer the title of the thread, "if there was one clean rider"...I think today, Tibopino has to be in the discussion. In case you haven't read the entire study, it's pretty compelling. Which is why, aside from him being my hometown guy, I'm a fan of his. So (disclaimer), I may be biased. Note that Benotti69, whom we can label a hardcore anti-doping advocate, as well as many others, haven't whacked him (yet?). Now, I would like to see the data since the study. I have been burned before. And I keep coming back for more :eek: .

I fear that Thibaut will end up with 2, 3 podiums, no GT win, the best rider of his generation, and he'll have nothing major to show for.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
The Hitch said:
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
I will say though that the 2010 suspicion list has to be one of the laughs around, if only to have LA so low.
I'm sorry but you are missing very basic logic here.

Just because a doper passes a doping does not mean that someone who fails it is suddenly clean.
I think there are some words missing there - but pretty sure I know what you're getting at and agree Hitch.
Well clearly you don't because a few lines down you post this

Just because LA is a 4 (or somewhere like that) doesn't make him clean, and other riders who are 7 or 8 doesn't make them dirty. The list is a farce.
First of all, no LA being a 4 does not make him clean. You know why? Because 4 on the list absolutely did not mean clean. Actually 4 meant suspicious. Not as suspicious as 8 but the list wasn't- "anyone under 5 is clean", it was "the higher anyone's score the higher the suspicion". LA did nothing that Tour de France and finished 23rd. And he was working with one of the most advanced doctors in sport. 4 is exactly where he should have finished.

secondly, someone who is 7 or 8 on a list where anything above 5 is deemed extremely suspicious, is almost certainly doping.

I wonder if you even read the list or if you are instead just trying to retrospectively invent excuses to trash it because it reveals some uncomfortable truths.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
TheSpud said:
The Hitch said:
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
I will say though that the 2010 suspicion list has to be one of the laughs around, if only to have LA so low.
I'm sorry but you are missing very basic logic here.

Just because a doper passes a doping does not mean that someone who fails it is suddenly clean.
I think there are some words missing there - but pretty sure I know what you're getting at and agree Hitch.
Well clearly you don't because a few lines down you post this

Just because LA is a 4 (or somewhere like that) doesn't make him clean, and other riders who are 7 or 8 doesn't make them dirty. The list is a farce.
First of all, no LA being a 4 does not make him clean. You know why? Because 4 on the list absolutely did not mean clean. Actually 4 meant suspicious. Not as suspicious as 8 but the list wasn't- "anyone under 5 is clean", it was "the higher anyone's score the higher the suspicion". LA did nothing that Tour de France and finished 23rd. And he was working with one of the most advanced doctors in sport. 4 is exactly where he should have finished.

secondly, someone who is 7 or 8 on a list where anything above 5 is deemed extremely suspicious, is almost certainly doping.

I wonder if you even read the list or if you are instead just trying to retrospectively invent excuses to trash it because it reveals some uncomfortable truths.
Actually Hitch i was agreeing with you - perhaps i should have said 'less suspicious' rather than clean. I wonder if you even read my post or if you are instead just trying to retrospectively invent an argument. It was Hog who brought up the list not me.
 
May 15, 2014
361
0
0
Tonton said:
I fear that Thibaut will end up with 2, 3 podiums, no GT win, the best rider of his generation, and he'll have nothing major to show for.
Given his recent progress in ITT, I'd say he has a chance of nailing a GT win in the next 3 years. But he'll probably have to focus on the Vuelta or the Giro rather than the TDF. Less competition, more mountain.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS