Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[Franklin]

These forums are for open discussion. I don't engage in ad hominem attacks. Your statement about me derailing threads is a rhetorical move - I am responding to the continual irrational statements made about Sky.

Rhetorics Oh my, oh my, oh my. When cornered we pick out the sophist way out as clearly I hit a nerve.

Re 1, that is not my position. I stated that Sky has received nonproportional criticism and speculated that it was due to some other underlying factor. This is consistent with many models of motivated discourse, such as Haidt's social intuitionism, Weston's political discourse model, Sperber's arugmentative theory.

Except (and this is so amazing that it bows away your sophistry) that the clear evidence is that Sky is a minor part of the clinic. The other clear evidence is that before Wiggins started this battle the generalopinion in the Tenerife thread was "wait and see".

You are simply not discussing, you are absolutely disregarding the evidence which makes your points completely ridiculous. This is pointed out more than once by me. You just gloss over it, wiat a few pages and bring it up again. Clearly and indisputably this is using a strawman.

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.

You are a funny guy. Perhaps more sophistry is needed to drive this home? I mean Lance clearly hired Ferrari to adjust his cleats.... How dare we be critical?

How irrational!

The zero hypothesis over the last twenty years has shown that chances on a dirty GT winner are close to 95% and that's if we give Cadel (very much part of the old system) a pass. How dare we assume that the zero hypothesis is not Sky is clean".

How irrational!

I promise transparency, say I'm transparent, but actually am not... how dare people point this out? How dare they?

How irrational!

Hmm... wait... hmmm actually these positions seem very well to be the rational positions. Oh my oh my oh my... better truck out more sophistry to handwave this!

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.

Associating with a doping doctor is very much evidence like it or not. Associating with Ferrari is a bannable crime, I assume you understand that? That's an irrefutable fact

I made clear that Geert is involved in fraud and that this is both undisputed and ruled upon by a court. If we further take the testimonies (yes evidence!) against him it's quite clearly he needs to be removed from this sport.

Your sophistry disregards the cold hard truth that this is evidence. What it's not is definite proof.

Oh my oh my oh my... seems your sophistry turns against you... oh my oh my

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.

Oh my that's debunked in the above part. Time for more sophistry and strawmen!

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.

As this has been sufficiently been proven as untrue let's call this piece of sophistry what it is: A huge strawman. You trotted it out twice this post. I assume you will hang on to it as it's he only defense against the evidence (yes, evidence)

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.

Results are a direct metric. The results are in the realm of Merckx and Hinault. Wiggins nor Froome never competed at this level. Now we know that the peleton is not clean, so Wiggins and Froom as clean riders have more problems with vector doping than Hinault and Merckx. Yet they sudddenly have these results.

Yet you act like this was the expected, consistent result? I'd say you are at least contested (bye bye entirely consistent, may you rest in peace) and are at the very least less than honest about expecting these results.

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.

I have shown your sophistry for what it is. Leinders has gotten court injunctions against him (and yes he is part of Sky) and this is in the nature of it'self indeed evidence.

 

[Sigmund]

No. You don't understand the science behind the biopassport. The longitudinal tracking is a powerful tool assuming the rider's data starts out clean. Perfect? No. That's why back-dated testing is so important and not done.

There's enough bad science that has been taken as Gospel at this point anyway. Ed Coyle is perhaps the worst offender in cycling.

I may not understand the science, but you misunderstood me. I can see that I was not very clear, though so thats on me. By the bloodpassport being a compromise I only meant compromise as regarding publication.

As in, Do the longitudinal teating, ideally all the results should be public, but due to the risk of accusations of clean riders we do not publicize.

Back testing is a good idea, but I do understand the counterarguments as well. On a balance, though, I still think they should back test.

 

[will10]

That is why I tend to stick to the Road forum... but he does have a good point...

With respect, the Clinic is just like any other forum IMO - you have to sift through some rubbish to find the useful or interesting information. In amongst the Lance thread for example is 100s of posts that you hardly glance at, and then someone will have posted a few obscure links to some vital info you'd never have found yourself.

 

[gustienordic]

With respect, the Clinic is just like any other forum IMO - you have to sift through some rubbish to find the useful or interesting information. In amongst the Lance thread for example is 100s of posts that you hardly glance at, and then someone will have posted a few obscure links to some vital info you'd never have found yourself.

I'm working on easing myself into it, I'm slowly starting to get the hang of it!

 

[DirtyWorks]

As in, Do the longitudinal teating, ideally all the results should be public, but due to the risk of accusations of clean riders we do not publicize.

The absence of data is what keeps some of these deniers spewing junky arguments. More data will only help narrow the discussion on both sides of the debate. Look! Legitimate, world-class bio-passport and performance data! http://www.thomas-frei.ch/thomas-frei.ch/T&T/T&T.html

Back testing is a good idea, but I do understand the counterarguments as well. On a balance, though, I still think they should back test.

There's a legitimate counter argument to back-dated testing? Really? I'd like to know what it is. Please share it!

 

[Sigmund]

The absence of data is what keeps some of these deniers spewing junky arguments. More data will only help narrow the discussion on both sides of the debate. Look! Legitimate, world-class bio-passport and performance data! http://www.thomas-frei.ch/thomas-frei.ch/T&T/T&T.html




There's a legitimate counter argument to back-dated testing? Really? I'd like to know what it is. Please share it!

I think it is a legitimate counter argument that Storage of the samples for a protracted period of time heightens the risk of them being tampered with, or something else going wrong. As I said, I do not think this a strong argument, hence I agreed with you and stated it should be implemented.

I do not think publisizing it would stop the spewing of junky arguments, though I suspect we disagree on what is a junky argument.

If one expert states that these blood data are on the edge of normal but most probably not indication of doping people would very likely be lining up and condemning this man as a doper, espescially if he won races.

I mean after all, the blood passport is suppose to catch the cheats without risking implementing innocents. Clearly this is not enough to stop the debate.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I mean after all, the blood passport is suppose to catch the cheats ...

If WADA alone managed the bio-passport program, I'd agree. But they don't. The way the process works it prevents riders from killing themselves and that's it.

 

[Benotti69]

All this is fair enough, I can see where you re coming from. But you could have said all this without the derogatory remarks and accusations of living in lala land.

I have been following this forum for two/three years and have found a lot of interesting and usefull facts and opinions. I think the poisonous debating climate is sad as it wil turn many people off from participating and thus we all lose out on usefull and interesting facts.

Fair enough! this is the position most threads start at. Then come along posters who are abhorred that there are people in here questioning performances of their heroes and the fact that there is no positive A and B sample to prove to them that their hero is a doper is unacceptable and non debatable and they post and they post and they post more demanding the proof and then when the opinion and suggestions of doping so far outweighs their beliefs they start with the abuse.

Why believe anyone is cycling is clean is a decent position to start at i think. Lets have them prove their innocence rather than demand we accept what they are telling us.

Pro cycling is for me at the stage that the people in the sport are like junkies who promise they have kicked the habit, put on clean clothes and washed themselves and say look at me, "i'm clean" and yet when someone says, "well would you mind if we tested your blood and urine" they start getting upset and abusing us why? Because they are still doping.

The sport needs a lot of more than the biopassport run by the governing body to clean it up. It needs a fully independent body who answers to no one inside the sport. Until that happens i wont believe that it is cleaner or clean.

So did Wiggins/Sky win the TdF on weight loss, warm downs, swimming training, marginal gains, bread and water? yes of course they did but also with PEDs.

How could they not? RSNT/Bruyneel dont know how to be clean, neither does BMC/Phonak nor OPQS, nor Lotto, nor Katusha and what about our friends Astana?

Yet Sky beat these historically doping teams and not only beat them, but made look positively weak. Miracle? Nope.

 

[mastersracer]

Rhetorics Oh my, oh my, oh my. When cornered we pick out the sophist way out as clearly I hit a nerve.



Except (and this is so amazing that it bows away your sophistry) that the clear evidence is that Sky is a minor part of the clinic. The other clear evidence is that before Wiggins started this battle the generalopinion in the Tenerife thread was "wait and see".

The subject is Kimmage's article. The topic is Sky. Why is that?

You are a funny guy. Perhaps more sophistry is needed to drive this home? I mean Lance clearly hired Ferrari to adjust his cleats.... How dare we be critical?

Ferrari was banned. Leinders is not banned. Why didn't Kimmage raise the issue of teams who continue to work with Andreazzoli or Ibarguren, for example. For that matter, if these associations are so salient, what about Saxo Bank continuing to have Riss and Anderson? Has any former rider had as many positives as Anderson (7)? Why does the team continue to be associated with Pepi Marti?

The zero hypothesis over the last twenty years has shown that chances on a dirty GT winner are close to 95% and that's if we give Cadel (very much part of the old system) a pass. How dare we assume that the zero hypothesis is not Sky is clean".

Why give Cadel a pass? He has links to Ferrari and he competed well against riders who were subsequently positive in previous Tours? This is exactly the sort of inconsistent treatment I am pointing out.


I promise transparency, say I'm transparent, but actually am not... how dare people point this out? How dare they?

Transparency or the lack of it is not a violation of any WADA code. It is irrelevant[/B


Associating with a doping doctor is very much evidence like it or not. Associating with Ferrari is a bannable crime, I assume you understand that? That's an irrefutable fact

[B]Sky did not associate with Ferrari. That point is a red herring. Again, my point is that the associations are generic to the entire peloton. Why does Kimmage focus on Sky?

I made clear that Geert is involved in fraud and that this is both undisputed and ruled upon by a court. If we further take the testimonies (yes evidence!) against him it's quite clearly he needs to be removed from this sport.

Perhaps Leinders will be removed. Let me ask you this: if you applied this rule consistently to cycling - removing all those with a link to doping - who would be left, and why doesn't Kimmage raise this issue rather than focus on one obviously minor player?

Your sophistry disregards the cold hard truth that this is evidence. What it's not is definite proof.

No, it is innuendo. You do not know, nor does anyone have any evidence, of what he is doing at Sky. Obviously anti-doping agencies cannot bring charges against Sky simply because of this association because it is not evidence of any wrong doing.


Results are a direct metric. The results are in the realm of Merckx and Hinault. Wiggins nor Froome never competed at this level. Now we know that the peleton is not clean, so Wiggins and Froom as clean riders have more problems with vector doping than Hinault and Merckx. Yet they sudddenly have these results.

This is a ridiculous statement. It would mean every winner in the history of the Tour should be disqualified simply by virtue of winning. Further, I challenge you or Kimmage to establish a robust correlation between winning and doping. A strong correlation is assumed because Sky is being singled out solely because Wiggins won. However, if you look at the incidences of doping positives over the last few years you'll see that the link between doping and race results is weak. Many, if not the majority of dopers, do not place highly. Di Gregorio is a good example of this. Schleck's positive corresponds with poor performance. .

 

[Bobby G]

You speak pretty well for me, actually!

I'm a long term Wiggo fan, but this does not disguise the fact that something doesn't quite add up at Sky on face value. Kimmage is right to ask the questions, and there may be a perfectly legitimate answer, but the answers so far about Doc Leinders (sp) have not helped Sky's cause.

I view Kimmage's continual banging of the drum re doping as ongoing therapy for him to help him overcome the trauma of his pro career. I don't think it will do him any good, as trying to eliminate doping in cycling is harder than making water flow uphill. He doesn't seem any happier than he was before now that Lance is going to what he's due, and if Sky/Wiggo go down he'll still be a miserable b*gger, focusing on the next most obvious target. I think he's a great writer when not focusing on doping; his ongoing campaign is plain boring for those of us who accept pro cycling for what it is.

But in this instance, Kimmage's beef isn't with doping per se it's with the apparent full turn made by Sky and Wiggins on the subject of doping. If Sky had kept there mouths shut when they came onto the scene 3 years ago, the questions wouldn't be nearly as frequent or pressing.

5 years ago, Brad couldn't get enough. He was so "angry" he would rant about dopers, and rightly so, every time a mic was put in front of him. Now he performs his well choreographed act when someone even touches on the subject.

Brailsford swore he would never employ Doctors or riders with any hint of a shady past. And what did he do?

And now people are asking questions, most aren't even accusing, just asking for perfectly legitimate answers and they give half assed replies when they feel like it and palm off the questions when they don't.

So Kimmage's problem isn't the red blood cell count of cyclists this time, it's about the lack of transparency we were once promised by the spinning instructor. And we should all have a problem with that.

 

[Franklin]

The subject is Kimmage's article. The topic is Sky. Why is that?

Maybe... because Sky is the hottest subject around? What do you want?

Ferrari was banned. Leinders is not banned.

A disgrace and something Wiggins once would have agreed upon. Let me get this clear though: A doper isn't to be discussed until he is caught?

What do you want?

Why didn't Kimmage raise the issue of teams who continue to work with Andreazzoli or Ibarguren, for example.

1. His target audience is Brittish
2. He has been fighting doping a long time
3. He can't cover it all.
4. There are other spots like the clinic and dopingzaak.nl
5. Ibarguren's connection with both Gilbert last year and Boonen has broughtly been discuseed.

We aren't Cas, we can't remove these people with a wish. we need to expose these people. You rather have we hushhush so we don't rain on your parade. It's a disgrace for cycling that you condone this under the flag "the others do it too". It's like a little kid's argument. Do you say to the judge "hey I rode to fast, but others do it too and don't get caught".

What do you want?

For that matter, if these associations are so salient, what about Saxo Bank continuing to have Riss and Anderson? Has any former rider had as many positives as Anderson (7)? Why does the team continue to be associated with Pepi Marti?

And they need to burn for it. See the clinic! See dopingzaak.nl. But it's not a reason to let Sky walk with it.

What do you want?

Why give Cadel a pass? He has links to Ferrari and he competed well against riders who were subsequently positive in previous Tours? This is exactly the sort of inconsistent treatment I am pointing out.

Glad you asked... because british cycling news machine lauded Cadel as clean

I personally (and have posted this many times before) Cadel is riding for the most dirty team currently active in cycling; Phonak. It's a disgrace they still have a license (and I weep for TJVG). But we are not Cas..

What do you want?

Transparency or the lack of it is not a violation of any WADA code. It is irrelevant[/B

I beg your pardon? You find it irrelevant, we don't. You dare to wish away our opinions now do you?

What do you want?

[B]Sky did not associate with Ferrari. That point is a red herring.

Both heavily associated with doping, both involved in judicial shehanigans. Add to that that the Rabomanagement triumvirate (including Leinders) commited fraud. But you handwave it because he didn't get a ban... my oh my.

What do you want?

Again, my point is that the associations are generic to the entire peloton. Why does Kimmage focus on Sky?

Explained above. Or let me try it so a sophist like you can understand: The firemen of Amsterdam don't fight fires in Paris. They would love too, I'm sure, but it's a bit much wouldn't you say?

So the question is... what do you want?

Perhaps Leinders will be removed. Let me ask you this: if you applied this rule consistently to cycling - removing all those with a link to doping - who would be left[/quote]

A clean slate, a powerful image to the teams that they can hang out their riders to hang in the wind no more.

What do you want?

No, it is innuendo. You do not know, nor does anyone have any evidence, of what he is doing at Sky. Obviously anti-doping agencies cannot bring charges against Sky simply because of this association because it is not evidence of any wrong doing.

Awwww... you want to deny they hires a doctor who is involved with doping and fraud? And yet somehow this fact is not evidence?

Perhaps Sky is clean, but currently there is evidence they are linked to a doping doctor. This is undisputable. Your handwringing does not make it go away.

This is a ridiculous statement. It would mean every winner in the history of the Tour should be disqualified simply by virtue of winning.

It seems you have a reading comprehension issue.

1. Not every winner rules as Hinault/Merckx.
2. Traditionally the great stars showed their GT talent young.

But sure, every winner of the TdF currently has to bear the burden. How else are you going to clean the sport? USPS showed us what handwaving brought us.

But what do you want?

Further, I challenge you or Kimmage to establish a robust correlation between winning and doping.

Bye bye, the way out is to the left. You are so unimaginably crazy now that I hesistetated long to answer this part. But if you want this, well don't blame me:

I assume you are going to handwave the 90'ies, the Riis's, the Lance's, the Herass'es, the Landis'es, the Simoni's, and the Contadors. You might have seen the famous sheet showing how the top ten of the last ten years looks like if we remove all dopers?

What do you want?

A strong correlation is assumed because Sky is being singled out solely because Wiggins won. However, if you look at the incidences of doping positives over the last few years you'll see that the link between doping and race results is weak. Many, if not the majority of dopers, do not place highly. Di Gregorio is a good example of this. Schleck's positive corresponds with poor performance.

You are serious? Are you really serious???? Alberto Contador, clean as a whistle. Cobo, great history there, nothing to see there. Nibles, named with Ferrari. The list is insanely long.

But I assume you know this, as this is clearly a red herring you love to throw up "Never tested positive". check that sentence, it might show up why the irony is so incredibly rich on it.

But I asked you what you wanted and all in all it's clear now.

You know cycling's history and you understand that the zero hypothesis should be suspicion. You simply want us not to apply that to Sky. No amount of posturing can help you, it's he only thing you crave for as you simply can not blow away the facts that indeed suspicion is not only the sane position, it's the best position to clean up cycling.

You don't care about that, you just want to see Sky untarnished. Cycling? Pssh, obviously a secondary motivator at best. Otherwise you wouldn't handwring and beg for a pass for sky. It's as simple as that my lad.

Oh and before you need my motivator,. As you obviously don't read my posts untill I put the heat on you: I want the Menuet's, the Ibarguren's, the Phonak's all to be banned. And that includes Geert "Chamois cream" Leinders. Employing them should become a bannable offense.

 

[Benotti69]

But in this instance, Kimmage's beef isn't with doping per se it's with the apparent full turn made by Sky and Wiggins on the subject of doping. If Sky had kept there mouths shut when they came onto the scene 3 years ago, the questions wouldn't be nearly as frequent or pressing.

5 years ago, Brad couldn't get enough. He was so "angry" he would rant about dopers, and rightly so, every time a mic was put in front of him. Now he performs his well choreographed act when someone even touches on the subject.

Brailsford swore he would never employ Doctors or riders with any hint of a shady past. And what did he do?

And now people are asking questions, most aren't even accusing, just asking for perfectly legitimate answers and they give half assed replies when they feel like it and palm off the questions when they don't.

So Kimmage's problem isn't the red blood cell count of cyclists this time, it's about the lack of transparency we were once promised by the spinning instructor. And we should all have a problem with that.

Kimmage's problem is he cant accuse Sky of doping without proof.

We can

Kimmage knows they are doping, but he cannot or the paper cannot afford to go that route without a huge risk of litigation which they will lose without proof.

So what Kimmage is saying (without actually using the words on the page), they are obviously doping by using Leinders otherwise why employ him and why has Wiggins stopped talking about doping especially when 2 riders tested positive in his winning TdF.

No one in a position where they can be sued by TeamSky is going to accuse them of doping, but will insinuate it with questions and due to the long nature of the silence we are experiencing in relation to waiting for these answers it is obvious they are hiding something.

TeamSky couldn't give a fig, because they have the full backing of ASO and UCI and after that the F****** W****** and C**** can go F*** themselves and the media in UK, which they own more or less, is not going to say anything negative.

 

[Square-pedaller]

1. He is Brittish

I agree with most of what you say.

This is just to point out that Kimmage is Irish, not British (the mistake is a bit like calling a Dutch person German).

 

[Franklin]

I agree with most of what you say.

This is just to point out that Kimmage is Irish, not British (the mistake is a bit like calling a Dutch person German).

Oh dear...

 

[Square-pedaller]

No probs. Just thought you'd want to know

 

[Digger]

Oh dear...

Yeah as an Irishman it's pretty much a sore topic to call us British or part of the UK!!

But all joking aside, Kimmage has gone after, in no particular order...Stephen Roche, the UCI, David Millar, Vino, Cadel and BMC last year, Lance, Michelle Smith (his own countrywoman) - so to say he's not being consistent is nonsense and lies.

 

[mastersracer]

snip.

Thanks for making my point: the complaints Kimmage makes against Sky are generic to the entire peloton. Sky is being singled out because they won. That's fine if you simply want them to be the flavor of the day. However, as I stated, and you apparently did not comprehend, the fact that they won does not make doping on their team any more likely. This is a common mistake, referred to as the availability heuristic by Tversky and Kahneman, where the probability of some event is distorted by the ease or salience of recalling examples. I stated, "if you look at the incidences of doping positives over the last few years you'll see that the link between doping and race results is weak." You thought this was crazy. But it is correct. Some very recent positives/decisions over just the last few months include Yoann Offredo, Blaž Furdi, Denis Galimzyanov, Patrik Sinkewitz, Mickaël Delage, Leonardo Bertagnolli - hardly distinguished palmares among them. If you were to calculate the correlation between doping positives and rider rank, you'd find the rank would be quite low. This leads to the more general fallacy that riders who perform poorly are less likely doping and that results are somehow a metric of doping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks for making my point: the complaints Kimmage makes against Sky are generic to the entire peloton. Sky is being singled out because they won. That's fine if you simply want them to be the flavor of the day. However, as I stated, and you apparently did not comprehend, the fact that they won does not make doping on their team any more likely. This is a common mistake, referred to as the availability heuristic by Tversky and Kahneman, where the probability of some event is distorted by the ease or salience of recalling examples. I stated, "if you look at the incidences of doping positives over the last few years you'll see that the link between doping and race results is weak." You thought this was crazy. But it is correct. Some very recent positives/decisions over just the last few months include Yoann Offredo, Blaž Furdi, Denis Galimzyanov, Patrik Sinkewitz, Mickaël Delage, Leonardo Bertagnolli - hardly distinguished palmares among them. If you were to calculate the correlation between doping positives and rider rank, you'd find the rank would be quite low. This leads to the more general fallacy that riders who perform poorly are less likely doping and that results are somehow a metric of doping.

Sky are not being singled out solely because they won - its because they went against their own stated way of winning.

I posted it on the Leinders thread - but now another one of their Docs also has had a questionable past.
Sky when they first started in 2010 and how they are now are almost completely different teams.

 

[BroDeal]

Thanks for making my point: the complaints Kimmage makes against Sky are generic to the entire peloton. Sky is being singled out because they won. That's fine if you simply want them to be the flavor of the day. However, as I stated, and you apparently did not comprehend, the fact that they won does not make doping on their team any more likely. This is a common mistake, referred to as the availability heuristic by Tversky and Kahneman, where the probability of some event is distorted by the ease or salience of recalling examples. I stated, "if you look at the incidences of doping positives over the last few years you'll see that the link between doping and race results is weak." You thought this was crazy. But it is correct. Some very recent positives/decisions over just the last few months include Yoann Offredo, Blaž Furdi, Denis Galimzyanov, Patrik Sinkewitz, Mickaël Delage, Leonardo Bertagnolli - hardly distinguished palmares among them. If you were to calculate the correlation between doping positives and rider rank, you'd find the rank would be quite low. This leads to the more general fallacy that riders who perform poorly are less likely doping and that results are somehow a metric of doping.

Clueless. Only you could come up with the idea that because low level riders without the resources to pay for expert doping advice frequently test positive, it means that the better performing riders are less likely to dope. This completely ignores the well documented and huge performance increases from doping and the large financial incentives to dope. You are using obviously biased data to draw a conclusion that does not match common sense.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Thanks for making my point: the complaints Kimmage makes against Sky are generic to the entire peloton. Sky is being singled out because they won. That's fine if you simply want them to be the flavor of the day. However, as I stated, and you apparently did not comprehend, the fact that they won does not make doping on their team any more likely. This is a common mistake, referred to as the availability heuristic by Tversky and Kahneman, where the probability of some event is distorted by the ease or salience of recalling examples. I stated, "if you look at the incidences of doping positives over the last few years you'll see that the link between doping and race results is weak." You thought this was crazy. But it is correct. Some very recent positives/decisions over just the last few months include Yoann Offredo, Blaž Furdi, Denis Galimzyanov, Patrik Sinkewitz, Mickaël Delage, Leonardo Bertagnolli - hardly distinguished palmares among them. If you were to calculate the correlation between doping positives and rider rank, you'd find the rank would be quite low. This leads to the more general fallacy that riders who perform poorly are less likely doping and that results are somehow a metric of doping.

Not the fact that they won, but more the fact that they at times had the 4 strongest riders in the race. Guys who had not really showed that kind of ability in the past. They either got the timing exactly right for everybody on the team or while as a whole the competition was doping less effectively they had something more.
To your other point of who gets caught, that only proves that the UCI really doesn't want it's stars going positive.

 

[Darryl Webster]

This leads to the more general fallacy that riders who perform poorly are less likely doping and that results are somehow a metric of doping.

PMSL...so the logic of this is that those performing well are less likely to be doping?

Please, people, show this fool the door. Or put him in padded cell.

 

[silverrocket]

To the best of my knowledge there is no "sporting fraud" law in the uk.
However use of , supply and administration of prescribed medicines without a licence is a crime and a doctor doing so without legitimate medical reason is not something the BMA would be happy about.

If Sky wanted to dope, then, they'd just need to hire a non-British doctor, and it's not like THAT is ever going to happen.

 

[Kender]

Thanks for making my point: the complaints Kimmage makes against Sky are generic to the entire peloton. Sky is being singled out because they won. That's fine if you simply want them to be the flavor of the day. However, as I stated, and you apparently did not comprehend, the fact that they won does not make doping on their team any more likely. This is a common mistake, referred to as the availability heuristic by Tversky and Kahneman, where the probability of some event is distorted by the ease or salience of recalling examples. I stated, "if you look at the incidences of doping positives over the last few years you'll see that the link between doping and race results is weak." You thought this was crazy. But it is correct. Some very recent positives/decisions over just the last few months include Yoann Offredo, Blaž Furdi, Denis Galimzyanov, Patrik Sinkewitz, Mickaël Delage, Leonardo Bertagnolli - hardly distinguished palmares among them. If you were to calculate the correlation between doping positives and rider rank, you'd find the rank would be quite low. This leads to the more general fallacy that riders who perform poorly are less likely doping and that results are somehow a metric of doping.

history is not on your side. Taken from here

past Tour De France winners

2011 Cadel Evans Never tested positive

2007 2009–2010 Alberto Contador Tested positive Banned for two years. Named in Operación Puerto doping case, but later declared clean. Tested positive during 2010 Tour de France for the banned stimulant clenbuterol. Suspended for two years. Andy Schleck named as winner by default

2008 Carlos Sastre Never tested positive

2006 Floyd Landis Tested positive Banned for two years Tested positive for high testosterone to epitestosterone ratio. Óscar Pereiro named as winner by default - Clean but cleared after testing positive for salbutamol. In 2010 admitted to taking EPO, testosterone, human growth hormone and blood transfusions along with female hormones and insulin

1999–2005 Lance Armstrong Tested positive Never sanctioned Tested positive for glucocorticosteroid hormone without prescription given in advance. Associated with Michele Ferrari, who is suspected of prescribing doping agents. Allegations by former assistant for Androstenine use. Alleged EPO use in 1999 Tour de France. According to court testimony by former teammate, Frankie Andreu, Armstrong admitted to doping to his doctor when in hospital for cancer treatment. Floyd Landis accused Armstrong of doping in 2002 and 2003, and claimed that U.S. Postal team director Johan Bruyneel had bribed former UCI president Hein Verbruggen to keep quiet about a positive Armstrong test in 2002. Landis also maintains that he witnessed Armstrong receiving multiple blood transfusions, and dispensing testosterone patches to his teammates on the United States Postal Service Team. Former team-mate Tyler Hamilton accused Armstrong of doping with testimony to a federal grand jury during an investigation of Armstrong. Hamilton implicated Lance Armstrong had used EPO on the TV news show 60 Minutes.

1998 Marco Pantani Tested positive Banned for six months Failed a blood test in 1999 Giro d'Italia; Insulin found in his hotel room in the 2001 Giro d'Italia

1997 Jan Ullrich Never tested positive Banned from the 2006 Tour Tested positive for amphetamines (off season, not taken for athletic performance gain)[103] Involved in the Operacion Puerto case. DNA subsequently linked to blood bag discovered during Puerto investigation[104]

1996 Bjarne Riis Never tested positive Confessed doping use Confessed having used EPO in 1996

1991–1995 Miguel Indurain Tested positive Never sanctioned Tested positive for salbutamol in 1994, however both the IOC and UCI allowed Indurain, and asthma sufferers to use Salbutomol at the time.

1986 1989 1990 Greg LeMond Never tested positive

1988 Pedro Delgado Tested positive Never sanctioned Tested positive for probenecid in the 1988 Tour de France, although it was not illegal for cyclists at that time

1987 Stephen Roche Never tested positive Never sanctioned According to an investigation in Italy into the practices of Francesco Conconi, Roche received EPO in 1993

1978-1979 1981-1982 1985 Bernard Hinault Never tested positive

1983–1984 Laurent Fignon Tested positive In 1989 Fignon tested positive after a team time trial tested positive for amphetamines at the Grand Prix de la Liberation in Eindhoven on 17 September 1989.

1980 Joop Zoetemelk Tested positive Tested positive in the 1977 (pemoline), 1979 (steroids) and 1983 Tour de France (nandrolon, although that was retracted later)

1975 1977 Bernard Thévenet Never tested positive Confessed doping use Admitted using steroids in the 1975 and 1977 Tour

1976 Lucien Van Impe Never tested positive

1969-1972 1974 Eddy Merckx Tested positive Merckx has tested positive four times, but never at the Tour de France. He was expelled from the 1969 Giro d'Italia after testing positive for Reactivan. He tested positive for Mucantil after winning the 1973 Giro di Lombardia. The drug was later take off the banned list. After the 1975 La Flèche Wallonne, Merckx tested positive for Stimul, blaming it on a doctor. In 1977, he was caught for taking the amphetamine pemoline, along with Freddy Maertens and Michel Pollentier.

1973 Luis Ocaña Never tested positive

1968 Jan Janssen Never tested positive

1967 Roger Pingeon Never tested positive

1966 Lucien Aimar Tested positive Banned for one month Missed the 1969 Vuelta a España due to a one-month doping ban.

1965 Felice Gimondi Never tested positive

1957 1961–1964 Jacques Anquetil Confessed doping use Debated with French government minister on television, saying "Leave me in peace; everybody takes dope." After winning Liège–Bastogne–Liège in 1966, was temporarily disqualified after refusing a drug test, saying he had already been to the toilet. He was later reinstated after he engaged a lawyer as the case was never heard.


that list makes me sad 8(

 

[dolophonic]

Dayum.. i think you made your point.

 

[mastersracer]

history is not on your side. Taken from here
snip

that list makes me sad 8(

thanks for posting this. I don't disagree with you. My point was a slightly different one, and perhaps I did not state it clearly. As your list illustrates, there is a strong correlation between winning the Tour and doping. But this does not mean that doping is strongly correlated with high rider rank because looking at Tour winners only gives us a small sample of the entire peloton. What happens when we look at the entire population of riders – does doping correlate with high rider rank? This could be true if, for example, being a rider who is in a position to win induces those riders to dope, while other riders are less incentivized to dope. I admit I have not done a statistical study, but instead simply examined the list of recent doping positives/decisions/arrests over the last year (on dopology) assuming this was more or less a random sample of doping positives. I also assume that the probability of getting caught was independent of rider rank. That said, the conclusion I reached is that doping correlates with low rider rank. Admittedly, one would have to bin riders according to finer bins of rank, etc. to do this properly. My intuition, however, is that doping is likely largely independent of rider rank since there are incentives to dope at all levels of rank. Low ranked riders may be more tempted to dope since the risk/benefit tradeoffs are greater, but that is speculation. Poor performing riders dope to obtain a contract, make teams, get selected to ride major races, etc. High performing riders dope to win major races, get larger contracts, etc. Given the structure of incentives, one would expect a fairly uniform distribution.

Interestingly, in a study (not cyclists) Petróczi found that doping behaviors appear not to correlate with win orientation, competitiveness, or goal orientation (Attitudes and doping: a structural equation analysis of the relationship between athletes' attitudes, sport orientation and doping behavior), which is consistent with the uniform distribution view.