JV hits a new low

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 1, 2009
1,038
0
0
goober said:
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.
Which research paper are you referring to?
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
goober said:
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.
You played the "dog doo" card first so i guess you win. JM will be returning his diploma and starting back in stats 101:confused: first thing Monday morning :rolleyes:
 
Bala Verde said:
Perhaps JV places his trust in UCI's Dr. Mario Zorzoli, who is more acquainted with pragmatism?
Zorzoli, apparently feeling some remorse over involvement in doping enablement, was actually the guy who released Lance's forms to L'Equipe that allowed all of us to find out about his '99 EPO positives.

Always love a good redemption story.

Dave.
 
Jun 18, 2009
374
0
0
D-Queued said:
Zorzoli, apparently feeling some remorse over involvement in doping enablement, was actually the guy who released Lance's forms to L'Equipe that allowed all of us to find out about his '99 EPO positives.

Always love a good redemption story.

Dave.
When the book about doping scandals over the years is written, Zorzoli's role will be one of the most fascinating chapters. His role in the Contador case alone is worthy of a short book.

Oh - and I can't reconcile JV with his stated aims. He let his DS send his rider to the wrong place, presumably paid the bill, and then dumped him after Kimmage found out. He looks out for number 1- first, second, third.
 
Runitout said:
When the book about doping scandals over the years is written, Zorzoli's role will be one of the most fascinating chapters. His role in the Contador case alone is worthy of a short book.

Oh - and I can't reconcile JV with his stated aims. He let his DS send his rider to the wrong place, presumably paid the bill, and then dumped him after Kimmage found out. He looks out for number 1- first, second, third.
Agreed. Zorzoli was also a witness for Tailwind/Lance at the SCA arbitration.

As for JV, I keep hoping, but he keeps working against me.

Dave.
 
will10 said:
Bradley has very little to gain from releasing his data, don't get too excited boys.
It's pointless anyway, those whose data looks "clean" are more likely to release it. If there's no (known) dopers releasing the data we don't know how "normal" a "dirty" profile can look.
 
Ferminal said:
It's pointless anyway, those whose data looks "clean" are more likely to release it. If there's no (known) dopers releasing the data we don't know how "normal" a "dirty" profile can look.
Assume the worst, and hope for the best. Unless they are all released, all profiles by definition should be regarded as dirty.

As such, not releasing a profile underscores it is dirty.

Dave.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
Ferminal said:
It's pointless anyway, those whose data looks "clean" are more likely to release it. If there's no (known) dopers releasing the data we don't know how "normal" a "dirty" profile can look.
Theoretically, a "dirty" profile could look quite normal. I'm willing to bet that a lot of profiles give the false appearance of cleanliness. This would be easier to accomplish for athletes who are tested less frequently.

In the end it's like the suspicion list of a year or two ago. A cleanish profile implies but does not guarantee abstinence. On the other hand, a highly variable profile, like a high ranking, clearly indicates the use of drugs/methods.

Even still, there's definitely something to be gained by releasing a pristine profile. It is not a no-win situation, far from it actually.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Ironically, the only rider to release a clean looking GT blood profile (or cleaner looking than LA's and Wiggo's anyway) is Ivan Basso.

Post ban, obviously.
 
lean said:
Theoretically, a "dirty" profile could look quite normal. I'm willing to bet that a lot of profiles give the false appearance of cleanliness. This would be easier to accomplish for athletes who are tested less frequently.

In the end it's like the suspicion list of a year or two ago. A cleanish profile implies but does not guarantee abstinence. On the other hand, a highly variable profile, like a high ranking, clearly indicates the use of drugs/methods.

Even still, there's definitely something to be gained by releasing a pristine profile. It is not a no-win situation, far from it actually.
Thanks, I struggle to disagree.
 
sniper said:
+1, nicely illustrated

these guys (vaughters, millar, even wiggans) are coming up with such a load of crap that it's hard to keep track.
"But this year 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.
 
Jul 3, 2012
682
0
0
Well, truth is that it doesn't really benefit them to release it, simply because there's always some expert out there who can squint sideways at it long enough and find something to be suspicious about.

An exact science this is not.
 
Jun 18, 2012
299
0
0
Something I found interesting amongst all of this:

Vaughters a few days ago:
So, we'd have to educate public on advanced hematology, first. difficult.
To which I asked him why that would be difficult for the public to understand if the riders were capable of understanding it, it not being a rider's field of expertise either. His response was telling:
I don't know any bike riders that really understand it. So, what's your point?
Presumably he doesn't consider himself in that category. I'd consider Damsgaard to know a hell of a lot more about blood transfusions than any other person in - or attached to - the peloton. Ridiculous from JV frankly.

No clean rider has anything to fear from releasing their passport. NONE.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Damsgaard is a joke. He will say whatever benifits the team that employees him

Sure I would love to see Biopassport results, but it makes no sense to release them to the public with zero context. The Fanboys will trumpet them as proof of a clean rider and the others will seize on the smallest fluctuation as proof of doping.

While I think it is unwise for a team to release raw data I would like to see it when it is part of a sanction. It has always puzzled me that the UCI has not given more info when they file a Biopassport sanction
 
Jun 18, 2012
299
0
0
That really doesn't validate what Vaughters has said. If what Damsgaard says is completely different to peer-accepted statements about the values, then it's irrelevant what he's got to say. And in that case, whatever comments he could make about one person's passport are irrelevant.

That's not a defence for not releasing the info. I'm of the opinion that the information should be freely accessible. There's really no reason for it not to be.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
Ironically, the only rider to release a clean looking GT blood profile (or cleaner looking than LA's and Wiggo's anyway) is Ivan Basso.

Post ban, obviously.
Yeah, about that. Basso was on the E train to TdF champ before he was busted. Since, not so much....he may be the best example of what it looks like to ride clean. He is not that old, but he has definitely dropped several notches.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
Cavalier said:
That really doesn't validate what Vaughters has said. If what Damsgaard says is completely different to peer-accepted statements about the values, then it's irrelevant what he's got to say. And in that case, whatever comments he could make about one person's passport are irrelevant.

That's not a defence for not releasing the info. I'm of the opinion that the information should be freely accessible. There's really no reason for it not to be.
I'm on the fence here. Publishing ABP data is really just a band aid. I'd rather cure the disease.

I personally would like the info available for my own curiosity and I'm all for transparency but I'm not sure broadcasting values is appropriate in the long run and in some ways it may be a violation of privacy. We are essentially talking about individual medical histories. It only seems like a good idea right now because major flaws exist in the present system. We're clamoring for this because we don't have faith in current anti-doping efforts. This problem could be solved if review of ABP data were simply done a little differently, ie independently.

Clinicians, fans, athletes, governing bodies, and team management's self interests over the long run are COMPLETELY aligned. Some of those groups are foolishly resisting positive and inevitable changes.

Wiggins, Vaughters, etc SHOULD be pushing for the same changes as the clinicians. They SHOULD be demanding louder than any of us for greater transparency, totally independent 3rd party testing, independent results management, etc etc. They SHOULD be lobbying for changes that make competing without PEDs a real possibility every time a microphone is stuck in front of their face. If they're truly sick and tired of talking about the D word and answering the tough questions then let's start talking about real world solutions and initiate real change. Real down to earth discussions even including the financial costs of new and better anti-doping and how we plan to pay for it. What better way to answer questions about doping than to discuss ways to ACTUALLY restore more credibility to performances? Throwing a temper tantrum and using the worst expletives there are in the English language isn't doing much to restore confidence. No one can or will chop your head off for discussing real reform. They can't refuse your team a a pro tour license, or an invitation to races anymore or whatever imagined leverage one can think of.

That's not what I hear from them though. The only message I've been receiving is things are better now, trust us, blah blah blah. It's just noise, avoidance, and more of the status quo. It's an endless stream of excuses and not a single good idea.
 
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.
This whole story about Morkeberg's creds is obviously but one big obfuscating ootnote. Yet I cant help asking: isn't this - juniors standing on the shoulders of the predecessors and, at some point, disagreeing with them - exactly the way science develops?

Obviously agree that a junior researcher expert is not a senior researcher expert, and that their field experiences do not match. But that's on the wall, anyway.
 
Apr 8, 2010
329
0
0
Originally Posted by goober
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.
HL2037 said:
Which research paper are you referring to?
And what are the main statistical problems? I do a lot of data analysis myself, so you can 'short-hand' the list.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
lean said:
I'm on the fence here. Publishing ABP data is really just a band aid. I'd rather cure the disease.

I personally would like the info available for my own curiosity and I'm all for transparency but I'm not sure broadcasting values is appropriate in the long run and in some ways it may be a violation of privacy. We are essentially talking about individual medical histories. It only seems like a good idea right now because major flaws exist in the present system. We're clamoring for this because we don't have faith in current anti-doping efforts. This problem could be solved if review of ABP data were simply done a little differently, ie independently.

Clinicians, fans, athletes, governing bodies, and team management's self interests over the long run are COMPLETELY aligned. Some of those groups are foolishly resisting positive and inevitable changes.

Wiggins, Vaughters, etc SHOULD be pushing for the same changes as the clinicians. They SHOULD be demanding louder than any of us for greater transparency, totally independent 3rd party testing, independent results management, etc etc. They SHOULD be lobbying for changes that make competing without PEDs a real possibility every time a microphone is stuck in front of their face. If they're truly sick and tired of talking about the D word and answering the tough questions then let's start talking about real world solutions and initiate real change. Real down to earth discussions even including the financial costs of new and better anti-doping and how we plan to pay for it. What better way to answer questions about doping than to discuss ways to ACTUALLY restore more credibility to performances? Throwing a temper tantrum and using the worst expletives there are in the English language isn't doing much to restore confidence. No one can or will chop your head off for discussing real reform. They can't refuse your team a a pro tour license, or an invitation to races anymore or whatever imagined leverage one can think of.

That's not what I hear from them though. The only message I've been receiving is things are better now, trust us, blah blah blah. It's just noise, avoidance, and more of the status quo. It's an endless stream of excuses and not a single good idea.
Agree fully
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
lean said:
...
Wiggins, Vaughters, etc SHOULD be pushing for the same changes as the clinicians. They SHOULD be demanding louder than any of us for greater transparency, totally independent 3rd party testing, independent results management, etc etc. They SHOULD be lobbying for changes that make competing without PEDs a real possibility every time a microphone is stuck in front of their face. If they're truly sick and tired of talking about the D word and answering the tough questions then let's start talking about real world solutions and initiate real change. Real down to earth discussions even including the financial costs of new and better anti-doping and how we plan to pay for it. What better way to answer questions about doping than to discuss ways to ACTUALLY restore more credibility to performances? Throwing a temper tantrum and using the worst expletives there are in the English language isn't doing much to restore confidence. No one can or will chop your head off for discussing real reform. They can't refuse your team a a pro tour license, or an invitation to races anymore or whatever imagined leverage one can think of.

That's not what I hear from them though. The only message I've been receiving is things are better now, trust us, blah blah blah. It's just noise, avoidance, and more of the status quo. It's an endless stream of excuses and not a single good idea.
+1

it's also telling (and increasingly annoying) how the riders and DSs continue to stress the quantity of tests, rather than the quality. Like Wiggo here:
. "La UCI (Unión Ciclista Internacional) hace un trabajo enorme. Sólo hace falta ver el número de controles".
http://www.oem.com.mx/esto/notas/n2618176.htm

That's so LA.
Who still buys this really?
It's an insult to our intelligence, that's what it is.
 
Jul 14, 2012
56
0
0
lean said:
I'm on the fence here. Publishing ABP data is really just a band aid. I'd rather cure the disease.

I personally would like the info available for my own curiosity and I'm all for transparency but I'm not sure broadcasting values is appropriate in the long run and in some ways it may be a violation of privacy. We are essentially talking about individual medical histories. It only seems like a good idea right now because major flaws exist in the present system. We're clamoring for this because we don't have faith in current anti-doping efforts. This problem could be solved if review of ABP data were simply done a little differently, ie independently.

Clinicians, fans, athletes, governing bodies, and team management's self interests over the long run are COMPLETELY aligned. Some of those groups are foolishly resisting positive and inevitable changes.

Wiggins, Vaughters, etc SHOULD be pushing for the same changes as the clinicians. They SHOULD be demanding louder than any of us for greater transparency, totally independent 3rd party testing, independent results management, etc etc. They SHOULD be lobbying for changes that make competing without PEDs a real possibility every time a microphone is stuck in front of their face. If they're truly sick and tired of talking about the D word and answering the tough questions then let's start talking about real world solutions and initiate real change. Real down to earth discussions even including the financial costs of new and better anti-doping and how we plan to pay for it. What better way to answer questions about doping than to discuss ways to ACTUALLY restore more credibility to performances? Throwing a temper tantrum and using the worst expletives there are in the English language isn't doing much to restore confidence. No one can or will chop your head off for discussing real reform. They can't refuse your team a a pro tour license, or an invitation to races anymore or whatever imagined leverage one can think of.

That's not what I hear from them though. The only message I've been receiving is things are better now, trust us, blah blah blah. It's just noise, avoidance, and more of the status quo. It's an endless stream of excuses and not a single good idea.
Well laid out post ... I agree with what you've said.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY