• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Movistar

Page 23 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Ventoux Boar said:
2nd and 3rd in the Tour merits 4 posts. Numerologically intriguing and good to see we're beyond equating dominant performances with doping. Chapeau.

Edit. Everyone's favourite objective sports scientist seems to believe, now, that we shouldn't rush to judgement based solely on known limits of physiology.

Ross Tucker @Scienceofsport
@Cubed120 depends whether one wants to believe the fictitious argument that numbers alone are cause for suspicion. Even then,much to wonder

Please show me where anyone ever said judgment should be based "solely on known limits of physiology".

We know Froome is doping for a hundred and one reasons put together. On its own its not enough. Together with faking a disease, lying about numbers, getting coached by dopers, showing total lack of talent as a younger rider, and a few other pieces, the puzzle is complete.
 
What the

CKr0b5fUEAAdH-m.jpg
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Ventoux Boar said:
2nd and 3rd in the Tour merits 4 posts. Numerologically intriguing and good to see we're beyond equating dominant performances with doping. Chapeau.

Edit. Everyone's favourite objective sports scientist seems to believe, now, that we shouldn't rush to judgement based solely on known limits of physiology.

Ross Tucker @Scienceofsport
@Cubed120 depends whether one wants to believe the fictitious argument that numbers alone are cause for suspicion. Even then,much to wonder


Oooh somebody not happy that their team won the TdF but lost the internet!!!!

Movistar, meh big time dopers, next?
 
Benotti69 said:
Ventoux Boar said:
2nd and 3rd in the Tour merits 4 posts. Numerologically intriguing and good to see we're beyond equating dominant performances with doping. Chapeau.

Edit. Everyone's favourite objective sports scientist seems to believe, now, that we shouldn't rush to judgement based solely on known limits of physiology.

Ross Tucker @Scienceofsport
@Cubed120 depends whether one wants to believe the fictitious argument that numbers alone are cause for suspicion. Even then,much to wonder


Oooh somebody not happy that their team won the TdF but lost the internet!!!!

Movistar, meh big time dopers, next?

I did not know "the internet" was a race
:D ;)
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Ventoux Boar said:
2nd and 3rd in the Tour merits 4 posts. Numerologically intriguing and good to see we're beyond equating dominant performances with doping. Chapeau.

Edit. Everyone's favourite objective sports scientist seems to believe, now, that we shouldn't rush to judgement based solely on known limits of physiology.

Ross Tucker @Scienceofsport
@Cubed120 depends whether one wants to believe the fictitious argument that numbers alone are cause for suspicion. Even then,much to wonder

Please show me where anyone ever said judgment should be based "solely on known limits of physiology".

We know Froome is doping for a hundred and one reasons put together. On its own its not enough. Together with faking a disease, lying about numbers, getting coached by dopers, showing total lack of talent as a younger rider, and a few other pieces, the puzzle is complete.

You know *** all, as you know.

There's an astonishing double-standard here. No need for transparency and inquisitions at Movistar. They haven't faked a disease etc
 
The Hitch said:
Ventoux Boar said:
2nd and 3rd in the Tour merits 4 posts. Numerologically intriguing and good to see we're beyond equating dominant performances with doping. Chapeau.

Edit. Everyone's favourite objective sports scientist seems to believe, now, that we shouldn't rush to judgement based solely on known limits of physiology.

Ross Tucker @Scienceofsport
@Cubed120 depends whether one wants to believe the fictitious argument that numbers alone are cause for suspicion. Even then,much to wonder

Please show me where anyone ever said judgment should be based "solely on known limits of physiology".

We know Froome is doping for a hundred and one reasons put together. On its own its not enough. Together with faking a disease, lying about numbers, getting coached by dopers, showing total lack of talent as a younger rider, and a few other pieces, the puzzle is complete.

I've forwarded your wonderful synopsis to WADA and their experts will talk to you during the off-season to discuss implementing this multi-point anti-doping solution for 'knowing' who is and isn't doping for the 2016 season.
 
Mar 31, 2015
278
0
0
Visit site
samhocking said:
The Hitch said:
Ventoux Boar said:
2nd and 3rd in the Tour merits 4 posts. Numerologically intriguing and good to see we're beyond equating dominant performances with doping. Chapeau.

Edit. Everyone's favourite objective sports scientist seems to believe, now, that we shouldn't rush to judgement based solely on known limits of physiology.

Ross Tucker @Scienceofsport
@Cubed120 depends whether one wants to believe the fictitious argument that numbers alone are cause for suspicion. Even then,much to wonder

Please show me where anyone ever said judgment should be based "solely on known limits of physiology".

We know Froome is doping for a hundred and one reasons put together. On its own its not enough. Together with faking a disease, lying about numbers, getting coached by dopers, showing total lack of talent as a younger rider, and a few other pieces, the puzzle is complete.

I've forwarded your wonderful synopsis to WADA and their experts will talk to you during the off-season to discuss implementing this multi-point anti-doping solution for 'knowing' who is and isn't doping for the 2016 season.

Bet they are gagging to know the 97 other reasons!
 
In much the same way that far too many people confuse the definitions of "evidence" and "proof", the last few posts seem to confuse the definition of "knowing" and "proving". Many people know Chris Froome and other top GT contenders are doping. Doesn't mean we can prove it.

Some people just don't want to know, and will concoct any reason they can't to avoid knowing. That's OK, it's just a discussion board, not a court of law.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Visit site
Yep..

Time to take a look at the topic title...

If you have the desire, and a little patience you can continue the discussion in the SKY thread as I'am moving some posts there..

Further Sky/Froome postings here will be deleted..

Cheers
 
Re:

red_flanders said:
In much the same way that far too many people confuse the definitions of "evidence" and "proof", the last few posts seem to confuse the definition of "knowing" and "proving". Many people know Chris Froome and other top GT contenders are doping. Doesn't mean we can prove it.

Some people just don't want to know, and will concoct any reason they can't to avoid knowing. That's OK, it's just a discussion board, not a court of law.

Well in fairness, a lot of what is regarded as "proof" or "evidence" here is just garbage.

Case in point, you recently posted in a thread about how Quintana was only 1.17 slower than Armstrongs time on Alpe d'Huez from 2001 and how Quintana would have been second that day and beaten a host of dopers on EPO. For you this is "proof" as you believe it not possible to beat EPO dopers.

Well, Lucho Herrera's best time from 1987 would have seen him finish in the top 5 on the same stage in 2001 beating almost all the EPO dopers as well, less than a minute behind Oscar Sevilla. Greg LeMonds best time for Alpe d'Huez would also have seen him in the top 5 when he didn't even make the Top 10 times in the year it happened, 1991. There is a discrepency of 45 seconds for that year but even allowing for the slower time, it still would have seen an off-form LeMond in the Top 10 in 2001. For the record, both Herrera and LeMonds ascents came much later in their respective Tours.

So there are a number of conclusions possible here

1. Lucho Herrera in 1987 had access to EPO before it was even on the market and LeMond was also on EPO in 1991 even though he was performing poorly.

2. It is possible for riders not on EPO to actually beat riders on a full programme.

3. Each year is a different set of circumstances, course, tactics, importance etc, even allowing for usage of different types of drugs and comparing individual years to each other is pointless rendering such "proof" as garbage.

Take your pick
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Re: Re:

pmcg76 said:
Case in point, you recently posted in a thread about how Quintana was only 1.17 slower than Armstrongs time on Alpe d'Huez from 2001 and how Quintana would have been second that day and beaten a host of dopers on EPO. For you this is "proof" as you believe it not possible to beat EPO dopers.

No, it isn't.

It's evidence. Pretty sure red_flanders will say the same.

It's sad that I have to point this out to you, but you're welcome. Amongst a few other things.
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
pmcg76 said:
Case in point, you recently posted in a thread about how Quintana was only 1.17 slower than Armstrongs time on Alpe d'Huez from 2001 and how Quintana would have been second that day and beaten a host of dopers on EPO. For you this is "proof" as you believe it not possible to beat EPO dopers.

No, it isn't.

It's evidence. Pretty sure red_flanders will say the same.

It's sad that I have to point this out to you, but you're welcome. Amongst a few other things.

Yes almost as sad at that time you were giving your "expert" opinion on Greg LeMonds career but didn't have a clue who JF "Jeff" Bernard was.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Re: Re:

pmcg76 said:
red_flanders said:
In much the same way that far too many people confuse the definitions of "evidence" and "proof", the last few posts seem to confuse the definition of "knowing" and "proving". Many people know Chris Froome and other top GT contenders are doping. Doesn't mean we can prove it.

Some people just don't want to know, and will concoct any reason they can't to avoid knowing. That's OK, it's just a discussion board, not a court of law.

Well in fairness, a lot of what is regarded as "proof" or "evidence" here is just garbage.

Case in point, you recently posted in a thread about how Quintana was only 1.17 slower than Armstrongs time on Alpe d'Huez from 2001 and how Quintana would have been second that day and beaten a host of dopers on EPO. For you this is "proof" as you believe it not possible to beat EPO dopers.

Well, Lucho Herrera's best time from 1987 would have seen him finish in the top 5 on the same stage in 2001 beating almost all the EPO dopers as well, less than a minute behind Oscar Sevilla. Greg LeMonds best time for Alpe d'Huez would also have seen him in the top 5 when he didn't even make the Top 10 times in the year it happened, 1991. There is a discrepency of 45 seconds for that year but even allowing for the slower time, it still would have seen an off-form LeMond in the Top 10 in 2001. For the record, both Herrera and LeMonds ascents came much later in their respective Tours.

So there are a number of conclusions possible here

1. Lucho Herrera in 1987 had access to EPO before it was even on the market and LeMond was also on EPO in 1991 even though he was performing poorly.

2. It is possible for riders not on EPO to actually beat riders on a full programme.

3. Each year is a different set of circumstances, course, tactics, importance etc, even allowing for usage of different types of drugs and comparing individual years to each other is pointless rendering such "proof" as garbage.

Take your pick

Despite all that, and despite Movistar's obvious strength and no doubt doping, Sky beat them. Soundly.

Clean.

Amazeballs.

Simply.

Amazeballs.

:eek:
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
pmcg76 said:
red_flanders said:
In much the same way that far too many people confuse the definitions of "evidence" and "proof", the last few posts seem to confuse the definition of "knowing" and "proving". Many people know Chris Froome and other top GT contenders are doping. Doesn't mean we can prove it.

Some people just don't want to know, and will concoct any reason they can't to avoid knowing. That's OK, it's just a discussion board, not a court of law.

Well in fairness, a lot of what is regarded as "proof" or "evidence" here is just garbage.

Case in point, you recently posted in a thread about how Quintana was only 1.17 slower than Armstrongs time on Alpe d'Huez from 2001 and how Quintana would have been second that day and beaten a host of dopers on EPO. For you this is "proof" as you believe it not possible to beat EPO dopers.

Well, Lucho Herrera's best time from 1987 would have seen him finish in the top 5 on the same stage in 2001 beating almost all the EPO dopers as well, less than a minute behind Oscar Sevilla. Greg LeMonds best time for Alpe d'Huez would also have seen him in the top 5 when he didn't even make the Top 10 times in the year it happened, 1991. There is a discrepency of 45 seconds for that year but even allowing for the slower time, it still would have seen an off-form LeMond in the Top 10 in 2001. For the record, both Herrera and LeMonds ascents came much later in their respective Tours.

So there are a number of conclusions possible here

1. Lucho Herrera in 1987 had access to EPO before it was even on the market and LeMond was also on EPO in 1991 even though he was performing poorly.

2. It is possible for riders not on EPO to actually beat riders on a full programme.

3. Each year is a different set of circumstances, course, tactics, importance etc, even allowing for usage of different types of drugs and comparing individual years to each other is pointless rendering such "proof" as garbage.

Take your pick

Despite all that, and despite Movistar's obvious strength and no doubt doping, Sky beat them. Soundly.

Clean.

Amazeballs.

Simply.

Amazeballs.

:eek:

No idea where the SKY angle is coming from but then I guess some people cannot post without bringing them into every subject.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Re: Re:

pmcg76 said:
No idea where the SKY angle is coming from but then I guess some people cannot post without bringing them into every subject.

This is the Movistar thread. The Tour just finished. Not sure if you saw any of it, but Movistar put in a dodgy as performance - Nairo going off in the third week, Valverde caning the CQ points table like noone in the history of CQ points.

Dirty as a dirty thing.

Beaten by clean cyclists.

Praise the Lord it's a miracle.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Quintana's ride up Croix de Fer fastest in history after 3 weeks racing then the performance on L'Alpe proves how ridiculous Movistar were.

No one clean could be that.