mastersracer said:
The fact is, Kimmage's article and the degree of suspicion against Sky is an irrational position. To state, as does Kimmage, that he has no evidence of doping, and yet believe (suspect) Sky is doping, is the definition of irrational - unwarranted belief.
Re 2, I never stated my position in terms of 'absolute proof' for the simple reason that 'absolute proof' only holds for deductive arguments with axiomatic postulates and truth-preserving inferences. In other words, a priori, deductive arguments. Here, we are talking about inductive inference. I stated that there was no evidence that Sky was doping. Evidence is information that is used to raise conditional probabilities (a belief is conditionalized on that evidence), or subjective degrees of belief, as investigated by someone like Isaac Levi (e.g, The Covenant of Reason: Rationality and the Commitments of Thought). Evidence provides rational, epistemic warrant for beliefs. In the case of Sky, there is simply no specific evidence of doping. We can see this because all the claims of doping are unconditional probabilities - base rates, as in Kimmage's statement about the frequency of doping since Simpson.
The bulleted list of points you raised are not specific to Sky but are applied to Sky only, which again is irrational. For example, the fact that EPO microdosing is undetectable (your point) is not evidence for Sky doping. To use it against Sky is an instance of confirmation bias, which is a main feature of Sperber's theory - motivated, irrational discourse.
Further, the highlighting of Sky - as in Kimmage's article - requires irrationally discounting disconfirming evidence, such as metrics of absolute performance, which are entirely consistent with non-doping.
A rational, Bayesian observer looking to see whether there is evidence upon which to conditionalize the belief that Sky is doping would not find such evidence. The irony is that Bayes was British and yet the rational inquiry bearing his name is abandoned for irrational speculation.
As far as I can see, to suspect Sky of doping is an eminently rational position from the point of view of a Bayesian (as is feeling that they are not doping).
Leaving out mathematical details, a Bayesian would start out by defining his a priori level of belief that a pro cycling team is doping. Looking at the recent history of cycling, one may put a pretty high degree of belief in a team doping. This degree of belief may be lessened to some extent by the introduction of measures, such as the biological passport. But it is clear that this system does not work perfectly and low levels of doping which affect the parameters measured (as well as possibly new methods) are almost impossible to detect. Hence, rationally some weight (one might argue a high weight) must be given to the possibility that a team dopes (this will differ according to an "expert's/clinic poster's" opinion).
Once this a priori level has been defined, one can define the posterior belief in a particular team (here, Sky) doping by taking into account the evidence available. I would disagree with you that there is no evidence, but the evidence does not give a clear answer being by nature circumstantial.
Here are some pieces of evidence (according to me in increasing order of importance).
1. Training on Tenerife. On the one hand, it is a great place to train, why shouldn't you? On the other, you might argue that PEDs are more accessible there.
2. The initial claims that Sky would not hire "tainted" doctors and the hiring of GL. One could argue that it is very difficult to find such a doctor and hence not give any more weight to Sky doping. However, one might feel that this shows that the management of Sky is "doping friendly".
3. Performance levels. These are in no way conclusive of doping, since they are within the acceptable range of athletic performance. This could be seen as evidence of "cleanliness". On the other hand, you might say that of the five Sky riders who have shown a marked improvement in their performance over the last year, four of those belong to the "inner sanctum" (the other being Nordhaug). One of these four, Froome had only previously shown brief flashes of form, but has podiumed 2GTs in the last year. He also suffered from a disease affecting the blood. So where is this improvement from and is the disease a cover up for a crazy passport, one might ask. In the mountains at the TdF he seemed a level above everybody else. It is natural that a cyclist of his age and history should improve, but to that degree after a serious illness?
However you want to define your a priori likelihood of doping or weight the evidence, one cannot be certain either way that Sky dope or do not dope.
My feeling? Sky has gone to a new level in stage races. Froome is too good to be true. The other three in the "inner sanctum" might be "less" suspicious, but something fishy is going on.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram