Moderators

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

Sorry Jacques, I forgot the simple thing that you cannot create an OP after the fact because the first posted post will always be first.

Not a problem. I think the OP is fine as it stands, especially since the discussion is well underway. I just edited the post of mine that you moved anyway, so that it would make more sense.

Also I took the liberty to add a little in the topic title, because some might miss the meaning and continue posting in the other thread.

Excellent work! Thanks for all the help.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Froome test data thread locked - no great surprise I guess. Turned out to be exactly the kind of thread I predicted.

I guess even more surprising is that you didn't participate in the thread but predicted its demise

I thought the thread was excellent. There's was some really good discussions about he data, the legitimacy of the faxes and the plausibility of the 2007 data, in particularly the weight and fat %. The peer review discussion was pertinent more so when the final report comes out in March.

Unsure why you didn't want to contribute to the thread.

Firstly I did post to the thread - I was accused of trolling. Second - the thread went pretty much as I predicted it would : data shows big engine, old data shows big engine, "dont believe the numbers they must be dodgy" was the almost unanimous response.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Froome test data thread locked - no great surprise I guess. Turned out to be exactly the kind of thread I predicted.

I guess even more surprising is that you didn't participate in the thread but predicted its demise

I thought the thread was excellent. There's was some really good discussions about he data, the legitimacy of the faxes and the plausibility of the 2007 data, in particularly the weight and fat %. The peer review discussion was pertinent more so when the final report comes out in March.

Unsure why you didn't want to contribute to the thread.

Firstly I did post to the thread - I was accused of trolling. Second - the thread went pretty much as I predicted it would : data shows big engine, old data shows big engine, "dont believe the numbers they must be dodgy" was the almost unanimous response.

"data shows big engine, old data shows big engine"........and the reason Froome went from Zero to Hero in 2 weeks, was??? Weightloss! of course it was. Of course the numbers are dodgy! Puhleeeassse! Anyone believing the numbers was trolling.

 

[ebandit]

............and why would anyone mention numbers...in the mods thread?

Mark L

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Froome test data thread locked - no great surprise I guess. Turned out to be exactly the kind of thread I predicted.

I guess even more surprising is that you didn't participate in the thread but predicted its demise

I thought the thread was excellent. There's was some really good discussions about he data, the legitimacy of the faxes and the plausibility of the 2007 data, in particularly the weight and fat %. The peer review discussion was pertinent more so when the final report comes out in March.

Unsure why you didn't want to contribute to the thread.

Firstly I did post to the thread - I was accused of trolling. Second - the thread went pretty much as I predicted it would : data shows big engine, old data shows big engine, "dont believe the numbers they must be dodgy" was the almost unanimous response.

"data shows big engine, old data shows big engine"........and the reason Froome went from Zero to Hero in 2 weeks, was??? Weightloss! of course it was. Of course the numbers are dodgy! Puhleeeassse! Anyone believing the numbers was trolling.

Which demonstrates my point ...

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

............and why would anyone mention numbers...in the mods thread?

Because there only appears to be two of them?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Froome test data thread locked - no great surprise I guess. Turned out to be exactly the kind of thread I predicted.

I guess even more surprising is that you didn't participate in the thread but predicted its demise

I thought the thread was excellent. There's was some really good discussions about he data, the legitimacy of the faxes and the plausibility of the 2007 data, in particularly the weight and fat %. The peer review discussion was pertinent more so when the final report comes out in March.

Unsure why you didn't want to contribute to the thread.

Firstly I did post to the thread - I was accused of trolling. Second - the thread went pretty much as I predicted it would : data shows big engine, old data shows big engine, "dont believe the numbers they must be dodgy" was the almost unanimous response.

As a hint, it's a discussion forum because people come here to discuss. If it was an acceptance forum then we wouldn't need to come here, we'd all just accept whatever data was presented.

Or are you suggesting, no one should ever ask questions or learn more on physiology and just stay silent?

Surely not?

 

[the delgados]

God?
You there? Please use everything in your power to ban the word "troll" from all lexicon starting in the year 2016 and moving forward.
Thanks in advance, buddy.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Anyone believing the numbers was trolling.

The definitions I'm seeing of trolling have gotten absurd. By definition, if you believe what you're saying, you are not trolling.

Ridiculous.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Anyone believing the numbers was trolling.

The definitions I'm seeing of trolling have gotten absurd. By definition, if you believe what you're saying, you are not trolling.

Ridiculous.

Agreed, however there is another issue with what I'll call "blocking". It's the stopping or hindering of discussion moving foward by placing a "block" with every post.

I saw it with the faxes. Maybe they are completely legitimate representation of the numbers, maybe not. So you ask some questions... why two faxes? Why the differences? A block is placed, "so where's the grassy knoll", "what's the conspiracy theory then? They forged the faxes"? All of sudden the is a defence of a supposed conspiracy rather than getting to the bottom of why there was two separate faxes.

Spud did it to the Radcliffe thread and got banned. He attempted similar on the Froome thread and was banned again.

Besides the thread will open again after the Christmas/new year break. It wasn't any predication that caused its closure.

 

[ebandit]

.........so hoggy? whatya saying...............easy to spot the trolls ....just look to see who is banned the most

Mark L

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

.........so hoggy? whatya saying...............easy to spot the trolls ....just look to see who is banned the most

Mark L

When you....... consider that The Hog......... has been a member for............ 5 years longer than.............The Spud, I think that........... The Spud is doing well to try and catch up............... when it comes to the number of bans

 

[ebandit]

ha ha! that's like saying a large skip full of poop unloading on ones head .....is not as bad as a very

large one.....................

Mark L

 

[Beech Mtn]

Mods, now that the new season is basically upon us, can you guys un-sticky the transfers thread in the PRR section? Thanks.

 

[janraaskalt2]

There are some stickies/unstickies pending for a couple of days now in the road racing section.

 

[BigMac]

Re:

There are some stickies/unstickies pending for a couple of days now in the road racing section.

Thanks for the heads-up. Sorry about that.

 

[janraaskalt2]

Re: Re:

There are some stickies/unstickies pending for a couple of days now in the road racing section.

Thanks for the heads-up. Sorry about that.

Thanks for (un)stickying!

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Anyone believing the numbers was trolling.

The definitions I'm seeing of trolling have gotten absurd. By definition, if you believe what you're saying, you are not trolling.

Ridiculous.

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment ....

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Anyone believing the numbers was trolling.

The definitions I'm seeing of trolling have gotten absurd. By definition, if you believe what you're saying, you are not trolling.

Ridiculous.

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment ....

To dig up something after a month, well I couldn't possibly comment ....

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

(Largely copied from a post in what suddenly changed from the Dubai discussion to the Qatar discussion)

This morning, races A and B are the tours of Dubai and Qatar respectively, but the principle extends to something that seems to be happening more and more frequently.

What is the point of continuing and renaming the thread of race A into race B? Why not just start a new thread for race B? Race B has a different parcour, different competitors, and will have a different result.

Relevant info about Race A, if there is any aftermath, will have nowhere to go; people researching that race in the future will have no relevant title to search for; off-topic discussion that arose during race A will interrupt discussion of Race B.Those wanting to find the route maps/favourites etc of Race B, instead of the easy task of going to the first few posts, will have to look for something buried who knows how far through a thread.

We have no upper limit on the number of threads that are running (or none low enough be relevant): I perceive of absolutely no advantage of continuing and renaming the previous thread, and plenty of disadvantages.

 

[Eshnar]

Re:

(Largely copied from a post in what suddenly changed from the Dubai discussion to the Qatar discussion)

This morning, races A and B are the tours of Dubai and Qatar respectively, but the principle extends to something that seems to be happening more and more frequently.

What is the point of continuing and renaming the thread of race A into race B? Why not just start a new thread for race B? Race B has a different parcour, different competitors, and will have a different result.

Relevant info about Race A, if there is any aftermath, will have nowhere to go; people researching that race in the future will have no relevant title to search for; off-topic discussion that arose during race A will interrupt discussion of Race B.Those wanting to find the route maps/favourites etc of Race B, instead of the easy task of going to the first few posts, will have to look for something buried who knows how far through a thread.

We have no upper limit on the number of threads that are running (or none low enough be relevant): I perceive of absolutely no advantage of continuing and renaming the previous thread, and plenty of disadvantages.

Agreed. The Dubai thread will stay Dubai. I'll make a Qatar thread shortly...

 

[blutto]

....would like to say that I'm quite disappointed that the Contador thread that was started by Maxiton was shut down so abruptly.....thought it had the potential to discuss the current state of the peloton in a way that was quite unique/novel...and it had already produced some really good responses ( albeit surrounded by the usual Clinic noises ) and seemed just building up some positive momentum when it was shut down...quite a shame really....a lost opportunity to look at something from a new perspective that was very interesting though admittedly provocative ...and btw it is something that will at some point have to discussed if we are to get some real perspective on the pro peloton ( because the usual current black/white based discussion is really a dead end that has little basis in fact/reality )...

Cheers

 

[LaFlorecita]

Hi Mods
Could the thread in the Café about TDF camp sites perhaps get moved to the general section of the Road Racing subforum? I think the poster could get more replies there.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The "Mechanical Doping: First Rider Caught" thread now appears to have at least two parallel discussions which can't be considered off-topic (one being the general discussion of the mechanics of installation and disguise of motor systems within bikes, and their feasibility, and one being the discussion of the specific incident at Zolder). Admittedly, as new news in respect of the van den Driessches is limited at present, the conversation is becoming less hydra-headed, but if it's feasible (appreciate the thread may be too big for that now), might it be worth dividing the discussions into two threads so that the respective narratives are easier to follow?

 

[sniper]

Re:

The "Mechanical Doping: First Rider Caught" thread now appears to have at least two parallel discussions which can't be considered off-topic (one being the general discussion of the mechanics of installation and disguise of motor systems within bikes, and their feasibility, and one being the discussion of the specific incident at Zolder). Admittedly, as new news in respect of the van den Driessches is limited at present, the conversation is becoming less hydra-headed, but if it's feasible (appreciate the thread may be too big for that now), might it be worth dividing the discussions into two threads so that the respective narratives are easier to follow?

good idea.
one could make a new, different thread for the strictly theoretical/mechanical/technical side of bike doping, and leave the femke stuff where it is.