Movistar

[The Hitch]

I don't think this panting out of breath should come into deciding if a rider is legit or not.

While we're at it, why don't we declare Roche a clean winner of the 87 Tour so.

Do we have to explain this again

If doing/ being something is suspicious, that does not automatically mean not doing/ being it is not suspicious.

Eg

Contador failed a test so he is probably doping does not = Alejandro Valverde did not fail a test so he is probably clean.

Rasmussen doped because he was climbing so fast does not = Thomas Frei did not dope cos he was a nobody.

Rider A is suspicious because he says Lance is still a champion to him does not = Rider B must be clean because he said he doesn't like Di Luca.

And so on.

So if someone says they think not appearing tired is suspicious, that does not mean they would consider someone who did appear tired to be not suspicious

I'm surprised after all the time youve spent in the clinic you don't yet grasp that.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Sorry but isn't that what gooner said?

 

[gooner]

Do we have to explain this again

If doing/ being something is suspicious, that does not automatically mean not doing/ being it is not suspicious.

Eg

Contador failed a test so he is probably doping does not = Alejandro Valverde did not fail a test so he is probably clean.

Rasmussen doped because he was climbing so fast does not = Thomas Frei did not dope cos he was a nobody.

Rider A is suspicious because he says Lance is still a champion to him does not = Rider B must be clean because he said he doesn't like Di Luca.

And so on.

So if someone says they think not appearing tired is suspicious, that does not mean they would consider someone who did appear tired to be not suspicious

I'm surprised after all the time youve spent in the clinic you don't yet grasp that.

Wrong comparison.

Someone has a positive is definitive proof of doping. Not positive doesn't mean you're definitely clean.

Someone coming across the line tired or not is neither no proof or definitive way of saying someone is clean or dirty as in the manner of someone getting popped. The positive test doesn't compare with a mere suspicion of looking at someone who has just crossed the line.

Hence why the Roche example is brought in. You can't just say a guy crosses the line fresh as a daisy and have suspicion of him doping and then say a guy who falls down to ground and has to get oxygen pumped into him like Roche did means nothing whatsoever. You're only judging things selectively then.

In the end it only proves that this criteria for judging performances looking at riders crossing the line is of little significance or value in getting an accurate assessment.

That's my clear point on this.

 

[del1962]

Wrong comparison.

Someone has a positive is definitive proof of doping. Not positive doesn't mean you're definitely clean.

Someone coming across the line tired or not is neither no proof or definitive way of saying someone is clean or dirty as in the manner of someone getting popped. The positive test doesn't compare with a mere suspicion of looking at someone who has just crossed the line.

Hence why the Roche example is brought in. You can't just say a guy crosses the line fresh as a daisy and have suspicion of him doping and then say a guy who falls down to ground and has to get oxygen pumped into him like Roche did means nothing whatsoever. You're only judging things selectively then.

In the end it only proves that this criteria for judging performances looking at riders crossing the line is of little significance or value in getting an accurate assessment.

That's my clear point on this.

+100

10 chars

 

[Netserk]

Wrong comparison.

Someone has a positive is definitive proof of doping. Not positive doesn't mean you're definitely clean.

Someone coming across the line tired or not is neither no proof or definitive way of saying someone is clean or dirty as in the manner of someone getting popped. The positive test doesn't compare with a mere suspicion of looking at someone who has just crossed the line.

Hence why the Roche example is brought in. You can't just say a guy crosses the line fresh as a daisy and have suspicion of him doping and then say a guy who falls down to ground and has to get oxygen pumped into him like Roche did means nothing whatsoever. You're only judging things selectively then.

In the end it only proves that this criteria for judging performances looking at riders crossing the line is of little significance or value in getting an accurate assessment.

That's my clear point on this.

By the same logic:

Wow he just smashed the Alpe!!! OMG Doper! 38'00'' is clearly evidence of doping!!!!!!!

I don't think this climbing fast should come into deciding if a rider is legit or not.

While we're at it, why don't we declare Coppi a clean winner of the 52 Tour so.

Do we have to explain this again

If doing/ being something is suspicious, that does not automatically mean not doing/ being it is not suspicious.

So if someone says they think climbing fast is suspicious, that does not mean they would consider someone who did not climb fast to be not suspicious

I'm surprised after all the time youve spent in the clinic you don't yet grasp that.

...Hence why the Coppi example is brought in. You can't just say a guy who climbs really fast and have suspicion of him doping and then say a guy who climbs a lot less fast like Coppi did means nothing whatsoever. You're only judging things selectively then.

 

[MarkvW]

I don't think this panting out of breath should come into deciding if a rider is legit or not.

Agreed. Things get really silly here sometimes.

 

[gooner]

By the same logic:

Moving the goalposts away from discussing the validity of judging riders who have just crossed the line.

 

[pmcg76]

yup today was mutant. And I dont understand how Quintana can peak and ride at the human limit in the 3rd week if he is cleans.

Ahem, do you know which rider put in one of the greatest Tour performances ever on the very final day to take the overall title and smashed the opposition completely, take a wild guess. If performing well in the third week of a GT is proof of doping, then we need to re-evaluate a few people.

 

[Netserk]

Moving the goalposts away from discussing the validity of judging riders who have just crossed the line.

Nice deflection. Your lack of logic is exposed and you accuse me of moving the goalposts (read the discussion to see that this is false).

 

[The Hitch]

Wrong comparison.

Someone has a positive is definitive proof of doping. Not positive doesn't mean you're definitely clean.

Why not?

If according to you someone who considers lack of tiredness proof of doping must consider tiredeness proof of being clean (as you outline below), why then for someone who considers a positive test proof of doping shoudn't a lack of a positive constitute proof of being clean????

Hence why the Roche example is brought in. You can't just say a guy crosses the line fresh as a daisy and have suspicion of him doping and then say a guy who falls down to ground and has to get oxygen pumped into him like Roche did means nothing whatsoever.

Errr, yes you can.

You bizzarely seem to think that DW suggests that not being tired is an effect of doping and that whatsmore, all dopers will therefore always be not tired.

He is not. He is arguing that not being tired suggests Quintana didn't go too hard, meaning his performance was even more outstanding than the time suggests as he was doing it while not going full out. Hence he doesn't believe it.

Under no circumstances is he suggesting that dopers aren't capable of being tired, and that therefore exhaustion is a perfect science for identifying dopers.

That's something you came up with yourself, that has no basis in anything DW said.

Its very simple. and it doesn't surprise me that the 2 people who can't grasp it happen to be sky believers.

 

[pmcg76]

Why not?

If according to you someone who considers lack of tiredness proof of doping must consider tiredeness proof of being clean (as you outline below), why then for someone who considers a positive test proof of doping shoudn't a lack of a positive constitute proof of being clean????



Errr, yes you can.

You bizzarely seem to think that DW suggests that not being tired is an effect of doping and that whatsmore, all dopers will therefore always be not tired.

He is not. He is arguing that not being tired suggests Quintana didn't go too hard, meaning his performance was even more outstanding than the time suggests as he was doing it while not going full out. Hence he doesn't believe it.

Under no circumstances is he suggesting that dopers aren't capable of being tired, and that therefore exhaustion is a perfect science for identifying dopers.

That's something you came up with yourself, that has no basis in anything DW said.

Its very simple. and it doesn't surprise me that the 2 people who can't grasp it happen to be sky believers.

Well if not being breathing hard equates to being doped and breathing hard can also equate to being doped. How exactly is a clean athlete supposed to look?

 

[Netserk]

Well if not being breathing hard equates to being doped and breathing hard can also equate to being doped. How exactly is a clean athlete supposed to look?

Well if testing positive equates to being doped and not testing positive can also equate to being doped. How exactly is a clean athlete supposed to test?

Does kinda answer itself, no?

 

[kingjr]

So, did he breath hard or not? Or do we already have a consensus on this.

 

[pmcg76]

Well if testing positive equates to being doped and not testing positive can also equate to being doped. How exactly is a clean athlete supposed to test?

Does kinda answer itself, no?

Not the same at all, testing positive is definitive. Doped. Not looking absolutely knackered is not definitive of anything unless of course a poster want's it be.

 

[Netserk]

Not the same at all, testing positive is definitive. Doped. Not looking absolutely knackered is not definitive of anything unless of course a poster want's it be.

Nice point, but it doesn't matter at all for the question you asked.

 

[the sceptic]

Ahem, do you know which rider put in one of the greatest Tour performances ever on the very final day to take the overall title and smashed the opposition completely, take a wild guess. If performing well in the third week of a GT is proof of doping, then we need to re-evaluate a few people.

I assume you mean Lemond? I dont think he climbed at 6.0w/kg at the end of a GT, so its a bit different. Lemond was before my time, and I dont really care that much if he was doping or not, Im leaning towards cleans, but nothing would surprise me. Im sure Benotti will be around so you guys can have the discussion for the nth time though.

As an aside, who cares about this breathing stuff.. seriously.

 

[kingjr]

As an aside, who cares about this breathing stuff.. seriously.

Dear Wiggo does, apparently.

 

[Afrank]

So, did he breath hard or not? Or do we already have a consensus on this.

Impossible to tell for sure IMO, can't see a ton in the video. He doesn't seem quite as tired as we've seen other riders be in the past. But I don't think that necessarily means he wasn't breathing hard.

I've said it before, Quintana is stony faced, he doesn't show much emotion in his face. But I think he still breathing and working hard even if he doesn't show it like a rider such as Basso for example would show with always grimacing.

 

[pmcg76]

Nice point, but it doesn't matter at all for the question you asked.

Well you never answered the question. What is a clean athlete supposed to look like? I would guess the same as a doped athlete. Some will look more knackered than others which makes the point moot or is there a level you have to reach before it becomes suspicious?

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

I don't care if he was struggling to breathe at the finish, this Giro is being incredibly ridiculous overall.

yes ridiculous. quintana did 5.99 wtt per kg weight, mayo's ventoux effort woldé beatne quintana's time by 6 minutes....

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

That's assuming a weight of 70 kg. Since Quintana is much lighter, the actual W/kg is higher.

lol?! what??!! the w per kg have all been calculated back to all having the same weight, so they are correct. pls don't try to ever sound smart again if you haven't the faintest idea how these things are being calculated

 

[Netserk]

Well you never answered the question. What is a clean athlete supposed to look like? I would guess the same as a doped athlete. Some will look more knackered than others which makes the point moot or is there a level you have to reach before it becomes suspicious?

I think it's obvious that if you are looking fresh as a daisy after winning a 1h MTT then it's suspicious. A clean athlete should look tired.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

so did riis ever NOT look tired after finsihing? and he was doped to the moon. what a ridiculous discussion and quintana came coughing over the finishline and had to be hold steady as he wa sby the railing

 

[Netserk]

lol?! what??!! the w per kg have all been calculated back to all having the same weight, so they are correct. pls don't try to ever sound smart again if you haven't the faintest idea how these things are being calculated

Hi Ryo meet math.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1464190#post1464190

On a climb like Alpe d'Huez a rider weighting 68kg will have to do 5.96 W/kg to climb it in 40', whereas a rider like Domenico weighting 51kg will have to do 6.35 W/kg.

 

[SeriousSam]

I think it's obvious that if you are looking fresh as a daisy after winning a 1h MTT then it's suspicious. A clean athlete should look tired.

appearance of freshness is just an indicator of effort expended. there's nothing inherently suspicious about not putting in a huge amount of effort.. except when you won or were close to winning. In such a case, what's suspicious is how much better you apparently are compared to the rest.

This suggests that we could measure the suspiciousness of how fresh a rider looks at the finish line with the seconds a rider would've had to be quicker whilst looking tired that is equally suspicious!

Thought experiment: How many seconds do we have to take away from quintana's TT such that if he had looked fresh, we would find his performance as suspicious as we found his actual performance?