JV hits a new low

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
From Jakob M who also commented on Lance. Oh but JV tells us he got clarification from UCI about machine calibrations.
And JV tells us there was nothing concerning about Brad's profile. He always asks the UCI whether a random, totally non suspicious value may have been caused by measurement error.
 
Apr 17, 2009
308
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
And JV tells us there was nothing concerning about Brad's profile. He always asks the UCI whether a random, totally non suspicious value may have been caused by measurement error.
Del Moral made an error measuring the blood transfusion and EPO micro dose... :D
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
While I would love (and have previously stated) transparency, I have concerns with release of blood passport data.

The concern is simply that pointing to the facets of either a clean or "dirty" profile may facilitate duplication/avoidance of such features...for nefarious purposes.
 
Sep 9, 2009
532
0
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.
Excellent post.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
tests and the ABP are a figleaf and held up to the rubes so Liggett and Sherwen can use this as marketing the anglophones.

Still yet to hear them say a word on Armstrong.

Silence is deafening.

500 tests. And would it matter if it were really only 150. On the meta, it may reveal a tendency for dishonesty. But this is not about the testing and the blood passport.

Richard Ashcroft got it wrong when he wrote The drugs dont work. He needed to subtitute "tests" for "drugs".

The drugs work in jaune tones, like a jaundiced eye. The tests dont work.
 
May 25, 2009
403
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
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.
Still won a Grand Tour though. If that was clean, that would be encouraging.
 
Dec 27, 2010
6,674
0
0
William H said:
Still won a Grand Tour though. If that was clean, that would be encouraging.
...ahead of Scarponi who is climbing better than he ever did before he got busted. Hmmm
 
meat puppet said:
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.
Indeed juniors disagreeing with the status quo is one way things move forward.

However for each junior who is right in their disagreement, there are many who are wrong, and we don't know which way this one is.
 
Aug 1, 2009
1,038
0
0
Catwhoorg said:
However for each junior who is right in their disagreement, there are many who are wrong, and we don't know which way this one is.
The fact that his work is being published in peer-reviewed journals should give you a hint though.
 
I don't about that.

I have had plenty of work published in peer reviewed journals.

Doesn't make me necessarily right about other stuff I say even in the same field.

(I haven't read his journal articles btw, so can't comment on them specifically)

There is a whole lot of nuance in the bio passport.


Still would love for Brad to release his data, but if he does so I'd urge him to release all of it. Not the few points around the race. That's the only thing I find frustrating about his 2009 releases, the relatively few points make the baseline relatively poor.

Imagine if he did release all his data from the time the bio passport started ? He must have about 15-16 points per year between the pre-race tests, OOC tests and screenings within races.

With that good a baseline it would show his typical variations, and make the 'armchair analysis' (by folks including me) much easier to defeat in the realm of Public opinion.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
This is too funny!

Brady Foster ‏@bwfoster
@jeffvolkmer @uci_overlord Especially considering his [Ryder's] win is vs Basso, Scarponi etc. Just because @Vaughters says hes clean?

Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters
@bwfoster @jeffvolkmer @uci_overlord no, moron, because his blood profile proves it. @SSbike ???
Might that be the blood profile we haven't seen and you're not going to share with us? Oh, it is? So how exactly are we supposed to know that profile "proves" cleanliness? Perhaps because Vaughters told us so? You sure proved him wrong with that retort, didn't you?
 
Catwhoorg said:
Indeed juniors disagreeing with the status quo is one way things move forward.

However for each junior who is right in their disagreement, there are many who are wrong, and we don't know which way this one is.
Well, I left that point open deliberately. The progression of science is not linear or even uni-linear, and there are some who consider mistakes important in and of themselves for future progress.

Other than that, and in this particular case especially, I obviously agree that I dont know for sure. Yet there seem to be reasons to at least see what the chap has had to say, no?
 
Absolutely.

But first and foremost if wiggo does publish his recent data, I'll be eyeing it on my own and putting together my own opinion, before reading too much outside analysis.

(on the thought that the outside analysis can bias my own interpretation)


Oh and Wiggo (or Sky PR folks) if you are reading this, in addition to whatever graphs, plots etc you publish, please include an excel (or open office) sheet with the raw data. Thanks.
 
Aug 27, 2011
44
0
0
Well, by now they've had plenty of time to alter the data (raw or otherwise) to look just believable.



Catwhoorg said:
Absolutely.

But first and foremost if wiggo does publish his recent data, I'll be eyeing it on my own and putting together my own opinion, before reading too much outside analysis.

(on the thought that the outside analysis can bias my own interpretation)


Oh and Wiggo (or Sky PR folks) if you are reading this, in addition to whatever graphs, plots etc you publish, please include an excel (or open office) sheet with the raw data. Thanks.
 
Aug 27, 2011
44
0
0
D-Queued said:
If they are really smart, they could hack the AFLD computers and plant some erroneous stuff.

Dave.
I was referring to the in-house blood-data Sky claims to be updating regularly, I wasn't aware that the teams had access to the AFLD data. I assumed the data they would release on Wiggins would be from Sky's own testing.
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
I don't mind JV but he is wrong on this re Morkberg. It is fine to disagree with Morkberg but he is expert in this area and entitled to be listened to. His credentials are clear they don't make him infallible but he should know his stuff. Your average newly minted post doc usually is about as expert as you get in a particular area.

By all means disagree with the content and arguments but attacking his credibility is weak considering his CV. I would hazard a guess that even scientists who disagree with Morkberg wouldn't take too kindly to this method of attack.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY