JV hits a new low

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Tyler'sTwin said:
@bambula @DanKalbacher please enlighten me on any anti doping agency he has ever worked for? As I know: none.

@RueFournier @CrueTrue again, please show me where he has worked for any anti doping authority?

@CrueTrue I'm not criticizing anyone. Merely stating that he doesn't work in anti doping.

@RueFournier @CrueTrue ... Sorry, but without "in the field" frontline anti doping experience, I do not consider him an expert. My opinion.

@bambula @DanKalbacher No, I said he wasn't an anti doping expert. A researcher, for sure, but not an expert.
What a clown.

Now, tell us again about how clean the peloton was in 2005, JV.
Can someone with a Twitter account reply and ask him if he would consider Ferrari, Victor Conte and Manolo Saiz to be unqualified as anti doping experts as they did not work in anti-doping.

Dave.
 
Jul 3, 2011
199
0
0
D-Queued said:
Can someone with a Twitter account reply and ask him if he would consider Ferrari, Victor Conte and Manolo Saiz to be unqualified as anti doping experts as they did not work in anti-doping.

Dave.
Could you call a black hat hacker a computer security expert? Same difference here.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
maltiv said:
For it to be relevant for analysis one would have to see a sample of completely clean riders' blood values during the TDF for comparison. Else, all we can do is speculate on how we think the blood values should look like.

I'm fairly confident that the blood values of those clean riders wouldn't be as predictable as one might think.
Nope. When you look at a "clean" profile side by side with suspicious ones the differences are made more obvious and even more striking.
 
Jun 18, 2012
165
0
0
Apollonius said:
This guy isn't an expert. Dozens of practical years work and experience within a field make a person an expert. Morkeberg is a graduate student researcher whom is at a very junior stage in his career and many of his views conflict with even those whom have collaborated with him on studies.
His comments in the past were simply words that he made to gain a reputation and that were seized upon by a hungry press pack, nothing more and nothing less.
The fact that even real experts with decades of knowledge can strongly disagree with one another on fundamental issues should tell people that sound bites from one researcher should always be taken with a liberal sprinkling of salt.

Vaughter's frankness on twitter is a breath of fresh air.
The term "expert" varies on the venue, and it surely doesn't rely on your opinion of such matter.

I think he would meet the standard of expert in a court of law...
 
Jun 18, 2012
165
0
0
Apollonius said:
Could you call a black hat hacker a computer security expert? Same difference here.
Um, since many hackers have been hired to be security experts, your arguments fail at logic or relevancy.
 
PedalPusher said:
The term "expert" varies on the venue, and it surely doesn't rely on your opinion of such matter.

I think he would meet the standard of expert in a court of law...
Extensive research in the field ... check
Extensive study at an accredited institution ... check
Research financially supported by known international organization that specializes in anti-doping ... check
Published multiple times in the field... in academically recognized, juried journals... check.

JV's and Apollonius' word on it.... Fail.

Dave.
 
Twitter is fun cinema :D

Shane Stokes cycling ‏@SSbike
@Vaughters @charliegirl2008 Jakob Morkeberg? He was involved in running of CSC and Astana anti doping programmes and, by Sept 2009

Mike Kaltoft Jensen ‏@CrueTrue
@SSbike @vaughters @charliegirl2008 That was mainly Damsgaard and Belhage's project, but yes, he was definitely involved to some extent

Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters
@CrueTrue @SSbike @charliegirl2008 Dasmsgaard i value his opinion more because he is aware of the pragmatic issues involved.

Shane Stokes cycling ‏@SSbike
@Vaughters @CrueTrue @SSbike @charliegirl2008 except he saw nothing suspicious about LA's profile in 2009, despite others seeing it

daveno7 ‏@daveno7
@SSbike @vaughters @cruetrue @charliegirl2008 his employers at the time?

Shane Stokes cycling ‏@SSbike
@daveno7 @vaughters @cruetrue @charliegirl2008 exactly, yes... Being paid by Astana, also received a bike as a gift

2m Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters
@SSbike @daveno7 @cruetrue @charliegirl2008 I don't know daamsgaard personally. Just noting his work seems good and knowledgable.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
To post biopasseport of a clean athlete, even suspected of cheating, would not do more harm.
But, if those values are coming from a doped athlete, it's better to keep them secret.

Of course, there is another possibility, to put online a reference of a clean athlete would set a difficult precedent and standard for doped athletes.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
Wtf!!!!

Zam_Olyas said:
Twitter is fun cinema :D

Shane Stokes cycling ‏@SSbike
@Vaughters @charliegirl2008 Jakob Morkeberg? He was involved in running of CSC and Astana anti doping programmes and, by Sept 2009

Mike Kaltoft Jensen ‏@CrueTrue
@SSbike @vaughters @charliegirl2008 That was mainly Damsgaard and Belhage's project, but yes, he was definitely involved to some extent

Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters
@CrueTrue @SSbike @charliegirl2008 Dasmsgaard i value his opinion more because he is aware of the pragmatic issues involved.

Shane Stokes cycling ‏@SSbike
@Vaughters @CrueTrue @SSbike @charliegirl2008 except he saw nothing suspicious about LA's profile in 2009, despite others seeing it

daveno7 ‏@daveno7
@SSbike @vaughters @cruetrue @charliegirl2008 his employers at the time?

Shane Stokes cycling ‏@SSbike
@daveno7 @vaughters @cruetrue @charliegirl2008 exactly, yes... Being paid by Astana, also received a bike as a gift

2m Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters
@SSbike @daveno7 @cruetrue @charliegirl2008 I don't know daamsgaard personally. Just noting his work seems good and knowledgable.


WTF does the bolded mean??? JV's pragmatism worries me????
 
Apr 8, 2010
329
0
0
Isn't the point about making the data generally available that anybody can comment and people can make uo their own minds about it?

Surely people are now getting quite sophisticated deciding which arguments presented on the internet are credible. Those with closed minds either way aren't going to be affected. Those who are open to evidence are going to be pushed in the wrong direction by being told that we can't be trusted with the data.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Apollonius said:
This guy isn't an expert. Dozens of practical years work and experience within a field make a person an expert. Morkeberg is a graduate student researcher whom is at a very junior stage in his career and many of his views conflict with even those whom have collaborated with him on studies.
His comments in the past were simply words that he made to gain a reputation and that were seized upon by a hungry press pack, nothing more and nothing less.
The fact that even real experts with decades of knowledge can strongly disagree with one another on fundamental issues should tell people that sound bites from one researcher should always be taken with a liberal sprinkling of salt.

Vaughter's frankness on twitter is a breath of fresh air.
Are you referring to Damsgaard, who defended LA's obviously juiced profile? :rolleyes:
 
Aug 9, 2010
6,264
0
0
poupou said:
To post biopasseport of a clean athlete, even suspected of cheating, would not do more harm.
But, if those values are coming from a doped athlete, it's better to keep them secret.

Of course, there is another possibility, to put online a reference of a clean athlete would set a difficult precedent and standard for doped athletes.
Nice post poupou, succinctly put.
I was thinking along these lines also...
 
Apr 13, 2011
1,070
0
0
andy1234 said:
The "expert" graduated uni 2 years earlier.
His comments were also not backed up by the main contributors of the paper he helped on

F### off is right.
Some wannabe phd trying to ride the media of doping in cycling and grab exposure for his own personal gain...never seen that before...eyesroll
 
From what's been said, he's junior post-doctoral researcher. Does that make him an expert ? Dunno, an expert in my opinion would be a senior researcher with decade(s) of experience, but he definitely knows more than any of us :D
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
bigcog said:
From what's been said, he's junior post-doctoral researcher. Does that make him an expert ? Dunno, an expert in my opinion would be a senior researcher with decade(s) of experience, but he definitely knows more than any of us :D
How many senior researchers with an expertise in (and publication list on) bloodoping similar to this guy's do you know?
This guy is an expert on blooddoping, period.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
Besides, what is the relevancy of decades of experience when the drug of choice changes every few years?
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
0
0
Skibby the bush kangaroo said:
Mørkeberg's main PhD supervisor was Bo Belhage and his co-supervisor was Damsgaard. It sounds like he sided more with Belhage in their dispute:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/damsgaard-faces-criticism-over-anti-doping-programme
Thanks for linking that article, which reminds folks that Damsgaard was the guy in charge of CSC's internal testing the year Basso won the Giro by like an hour.

I don't like his credibility.

I don't know if Vaughters is just woefully misinformed or just deliberately trying to obscure reality. I'd really like to believe the former, but it's becoming increasingly difficult.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
Perhaps JV places his trust in UCI's Dr. Mario Zorzoli, who is more acquainted with pragmatism?

As a further invitation to reconsider the credibility of the ABP system, I'll add an episode of which I came to know.

In the spring of 2010, some riders of a Pro-Tour team that were training at altitude (on Teide, Tenerife) were subjected to the normal ABP samples. One they received the results of the analysis, considering them unreliable (the values were too high), all it took was a phone call from the team doctor to his friend Dr. Zorzoli, in charge of UCI's doping department, in order to get the results of those tests cleared from the profiles, as deemed inconvenient for the Team and for the sake of the Biological Passport system, which tends not to consider the effects of altitude.
This behavior reminds me of the rather common habit of certain Researchers to hide or simply ignore "inconvenient data", i.e. furthest from the "truth" that they want to prove.

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=115
 
Aug 1, 2009
1,038
0
0
maltiv said:
For it to be relevant for analysis one would have to see a sample of completely clean riders' blood values during the TDF for comparison. Else, all we can do is speculate on how we think the blood values should look like.

I'm fairly confident that the blood values of those clean riders wouldn't be as predictable as one might think.
Wasn't that exactly what they did in "Changes in Blood Profiles during Tour de France 2007"

http://www.ugeskriftet.dk/portal/page/portal/LAEGERDK/UGESKRIFT_FOR_LAEGER/TIDLIGERE_NUMRE/2008/UFL_EKCMA_2008_22/UFL_EKCMA_2008_22_08070177

Nine (presumably clean) riders had agreed to be tested at three random times during the TdF of 2007. Seven of these finished the tour. The purpose was to find out how different parameters regarding to blood would react during the three weeks. From the article:




It would be interesting to know who the riders were. Anybody know?
 
Feb 23, 2010
2,102
0
0
Give the data in isolation to Morkeberg and to Ashenden. Compare their reports. Voilà.

Use it as a case study for other sports considering implementation of the passport. From what I read in the WADA meeting minutes, they still have a lot of persuading to do. :)
 
Caruut said:
Besides, what is the relevancy of decades of experience when the drug of choice changes every few years?
The first sort of EPO has been around since the late 80's, from then on there have been different variants created. Blood transfusions have been around for decades. So seems to me that decades of experience in this field is quite possible, no ?

Is this bloke a biochemist, physiologist, medical doctor or something else ?
 
Jul 17, 2009
406
0
0
Have not read this thread yet but I think we are talking about Mørkeberg??? If we are then I will comment on his research paper of about 5 years ago - it is a piece of dog doo, That paper needed to be flushed down the toilet years ago. When he wrote that paper he should have gone back to stats 101 class, etc.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
131313 said:
Thanks for linking that article, which reminds folks that Damsgaard was the guy in charge of CSC's internal testing the year Basso won the Giro by like an hour.

I don't like his credibility.

I don't know if Vaughters is just woefully misinformed or just deliberately trying to obscure reality. I'd really like to believe the former, but it's becoming increasingly difficult.
JV keeps feeding us bull****.

2005:

"But this year [2005!] was probably the cleanest Tour since the early '90s. It (doping) has decreased enormously since the '95-'96 period." Now, Vaughters estimated about "80-85 percent" of the field is clean.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/vaughters_1999

2012:

“As a whole the race is clean,” said Vaughters, who rode with Armstrong on the U.S. Postal Team in 1998 and 1999 before retiring in 2003. “I can’t speak to every single athlete, but the probability of the Tour being won by a clean rider is much higher than it being won by a doped rider.”
http://news.discovery.com/adventure/tour-de-france-drugs-120629.html

festinagirl ‏@festinagirl
@vaughters Zorxoli's statement that Drugs now “have a lower impact on the riders’ performance” seems key - not eradicated but controlled?

Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters
@festinagirl I would say controlled to the point that it's almost irrelevant, from a pure performance perspective.
http://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/218735807463297024
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY