thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re: Re:
The exact quote is even more priceless:
Burnley has this gem to his observations:
Froome's ascent was "incremental"!
Armstrong World Champion at 21 was "mind blowing" even after he'd won stages at the Tour, won the Tour of Luxenbourg and a 4th in the 1998 Vuelta. Froome couldn't even finish a one day race
Funny stuff.
gillan1969 said:thehog said:
The problem here is the use of "just"...it heavily implies there was no other reason for the improvment in Froome. No other reason. That moves it from an opinion to a conclusion. And a conclusion from a 'proper scientist'.
as stated previously Froome (Sky) 1 - Swart (and science) 0
Being outsmarted by Froome takes some doing..imagine how two brains Burnley feels about that
The exact quote is even more priceless:
Burnley has this gem to his observations:
Froome's ascent was "incremental"!
Armstrong World Champion at 21 was "mind blowing" even after he'd won stages at the Tour, won the Tour of Luxenbourg and a 4th in the 1998 Vuelta. Froome couldn't even finish a one day race
Funny stuff.
Re: Re:
Then thought what the heck why not try and milk the story
http://london.skepticsinthepub.org/Event.aspx/2323/The-skeptics-guide-to-drugs-in-sport
And so he came to the rigorously argued claim that Sky is nothing like USPS.
On some online blog, you'll find Burnley on the record saying he was 'angered' when he discovered that Lance had doped in 2012. lol. Didn't see it coming.gillan1969 said:The problem here is the use of "just"...it heavily implies there was no other reason for the improvment in Froome. No other reason. That moves it from an opinion to a conclusion. And a conclusion from a 'proper scientist'.
as stated previously Froome (Sky) 1 - Swart (and science) 0
Being outsmarted by Froome takes some doing..imagine how two brains Burnley feels about that
Then thought what the heck why not try and milk the story
http://london.skepticsinthepub.org/Event.aspx/2323/The-skeptics-guide-to-drugs-in-sport
And so he came to the rigorously argued claim that Sky is nothing like USPS.
incremental?????????????????????????????????????????
jesus...
i think that's about all I can muster
jesus...
i think that's about all I can muster
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
gillan1969 said:
Important to note; when the scientist is a fan they "observe" events in the way they want to see them. They lose their objectivity. My sense is Swart lost his objectivity like Burnly did.
They can't make clear conclusions because they are looking for all results to point to, "big engine, therefore clean".
gillan1969 said:
Actually the quote was 'more incremental'. One word is an important qualifier in this case. You can make a case that the statement is factually correct due to Froome finishing on the podium in the TDF before winning it.
djpbaltimore said:
or more accurately the vuelta from 2011
but really, that is clutching at straws
no...the 'unable to really muster the appropriate response due to sheer incredulity' response is based on pre-Vuelta 11 to Vuelta 11 transformation...that's when 'the transformation' occured...and it was the polar opposite of incremental..this was rider about to lose contract and at bottom of pile on Sir Dave's matrix to most dominant GT rider of his day...
Armstrong had the decency to knock in a solid vuelta (4th) a solid worlds (4th) and a good Paris Nice before his GT transformation
“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”
Bush was wrong.
Bush was wrong.
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Shocking to think Armstrong was using PEDs. Who would have thought?
Let's not retract Ed's paper because putting an athlete on a bike and testing them as really difficult thing to do... even us scientists don't understand what it is we do let alone you pseudo scientists out there.
Let's not retract Ed's paper because putting an athlete on a bike and testing them as really difficult thing to do... even us scientists don't understand what it is we do let alone you pseudo scientists out there.
gillan1969 said:
Not really. Armstrong finished a strong fourth in the Vuelta the year before his TDF breakthrough, beating better riders than Froome did. So that achievement is about on par with Froome's 2011 Vuelta. The difference is that Froome went from superdom to team leader, while Armstrong was pretty much handed the reigns of leadership. It is clutching at straws to twist another's argument to try to score points on someone, which you continue to do because Burnley said some mean things on twitter about hats. Burnley never claimed that the transformation was incremental. It was 'more incremental' than Armstrong's. Damning with faint praise is the term that I would use.
"more" can also be used in the sense of "rather".djpbaltimore said:
Ow, and he called Froome's transformation "incremental" - without the modifier "more" - previously. e.g. here:
https://twitter.com/DearWiggo/status/622908167614140417
But regardless, don't think this is worth going around in circles about.
djpbaltimore said:
where real life meets science
have a wee look down the top ten of that Vuelta (98)....then hazard a guess at how many were manipulatng their blood (+ whatever else)
then ask why the current postion of our esteemed friends is being viewed with some incredulity
Re: Re:
You raise a couple of points I think are worth more discussion. First, I said there are two posters on this forum I know of who believe in Creationism. There are probably considerably more. Polls in the U.S. indicate only about a third of the public believes in the scientific view of evolution, with the remainder split between Creationists and those who believe in evolution guided by a Supreme Being. Even 10% of scientists polled believe in one or the other of the latter. I would like to think that posters in CN are typically above average in being educated and informed, but given those numbers, even if they are, it would be hard to believe that only a couple don’t accept the scientific view of evolution.
Moreover, belief in Creationism isn’t necessarily a result of being ignorant and uneducated. As just mentioned, a few scientists profess it. As far as I can tell, most of the Republican Presidential candidates don’t believe in evolution. Carson doesn’t; Cruz doesn’t; Rubio doesn’t. Jindal, who has dropped out, doesn’t. These are not stupid, uneducated men, even if they frequently appear that way. Carson graduated from Yale, went to medical school, and became an internationally famous doctor. Cruz was described by Alan Dershowitz, one of the best-known attorneys in America, as the most brilliant law student he ever had at Princeton. I think Jindal has a degree in biology.
Why are they Creationists? People like this don’t believe in Creationism because they have examined all the data rigorously and honestly, and have concluded it supports this view. They believe in it because it gives meaning to their lives. The need to have meaning is one of the strongest drives we have. None of us is without it, except maybe those who end up in a mental institution. When there is a strong conflict between the need to have meaning and being intellectually honest, the latter will usually be the loser.
You can liken it to someone who is absolutely starving to death stealing food, or stealing money to buy food. He will be in great denial about having done anything wrong, because it was a matter of life and death, which trumps (sorry to mention that name, particularly in such an absolutist context!) everything else. In the same way, Creationists are in denial about their intellectual honesty, because the entire structure of their lives is at stake.
The second point concerns freedom of speech. People should understand that freedom of speech in forums like CN is not defined in the same way as in the real world outside. In the real world, there is no law against trolling. If a guy wants to get up on a soap box and spout nonsense, day after day after day, no one is going to stop him, though what he is doing is in fact exactly what people do on this forum, or are accused of doing, when they’re said to be trolling.
Freedom of speech is more restricted here, because the discussion is more restricted. If you don’t want to listen to the guy on the soap box, all you have to do is walk away. But you can’t do that as easily in a thread, when other people you may want to listen to are also posting. If you walk away from the thread, you walk away from all those other voices that you want to hear. Hence the rules on trolling.
But these rules are enforced somewhat inconsistently, as we all know. Hog was given a six month suspension, IIRC, for pushing the idea that LA could have made money on the SCA payout, by investing it wisely, even if he had to pay the principal back later. He was banned because that idea was considered nonsense by other posters, and because he continued to post it after they had expressed this view. But when posters express Creationist views, which have far less evidence supporting them than anything hog has ever posted, they’re not considered trolling.
Why? As far as I can tell, it’s partly because of sheer numbers. There are very few people who agreed with hog about LA’s SCA investments, or at least if there are some, we don’t hear about them outside of the forum. Hog couldn’t cite them in support. There are a lot of people who agree with Creationists. It isn’t the soundness or lack of in some opinion that results in a charge of trolling.
OTOH, this doesn’t explain everything. There are tons of Froome supporters outside of this forum, just as there used to be tons of LA supporters. If some of their views are/were posted here, they may get/were banned. In this case, I don’t think it’s so much either the soundness of the argument or the number of its adherents as just the repetition of the same argument over and over again.
But there is still an inconsistency here. The Creationists here whom I know of do not post their views repetitively, the way some Froome supporters may. They’ve made their point, and don’t push it. They don’t preach it, constantly. But the reason they don’t is because the debate over that is not as vigorous as the debate over a suspicious GT winner. This is a cycling forum, there is a lot of expertise on the profession on display here, and thus low tolerance for views that seem to be inconsistent with the best knowledge available. I think Creationism gets a pass from a charge of trolling here because the argument is not considered as important on a cycling forum.
The Hitch said:
You raise a couple of points I think are worth more discussion. First, I said there are two posters on this forum I know of who believe in Creationism. There are probably considerably more. Polls in the U.S. indicate only about a third of the public believes in the scientific view of evolution, with the remainder split between Creationists and those who believe in evolution guided by a Supreme Being. Even 10% of scientists polled believe in one or the other of the latter. I would like to think that posters in CN are typically above average in being educated and informed, but given those numbers, even if they are, it would be hard to believe that only a couple don’t accept the scientific view of evolution.
Moreover, belief in Creationism isn’t necessarily a result of being ignorant and uneducated. As just mentioned, a few scientists profess it. As far as I can tell, most of the Republican Presidential candidates don’t believe in evolution. Carson doesn’t; Cruz doesn’t; Rubio doesn’t. Jindal, who has dropped out, doesn’t. These are not stupid, uneducated men, even if they frequently appear that way. Carson graduated from Yale, went to medical school, and became an internationally famous doctor. Cruz was described by Alan Dershowitz, one of the best-known attorneys in America, as the most brilliant law student he ever had at Princeton. I think Jindal has a degree in biology.
Why are they Creationists? People like this don’t believe in Creationism because they have examined all the data rigorously and honestly, and have concluded it supports this view. They believe in it because it gives meaning to their lives. The need to have meaning is one of the strongest drives we have. None of us is without it, except maybe those who end up in a mental institution. When there is a strong conflict between the need to have meaning and being intellectually honest, the latter will usually be the loser.
You can liken it to someone who is absolutely starving to death stealing food, or stealing money to buy food. He will be in great denial about having done anything wrong, because it was a matter of life and death, which trumps (sorry to mention that name, particularly in such an absolutist context!) everything else. In the same way, Creationists are in denial about their intellectual honesty, because the entire structure of their lives is at stake.
The second point concerns freedom of speech. People should understand that freedom of speech in forums like CN is not defined in the same way as in the real world outside. In the real world, there is no law against trolling. If a guy wants to get up on a soap box and spout nonsense, day after day after day, no one is going to stop him, though what he is doing is in fact exactly what people do on this forum, or are accused of doing, when they’re said to be trolling.
Freedom of speech is more restricted here, because the discussion is more restricted. If you don’t want to listen to the guy on the soap box, all you have to do is walk away. But you can’t do that as easily in a thread, when other people you may want to listen to are also posting. If you walk away from the thread, you walk away from all those other voices that you want to hear. Hence the rules on trolling.
But these rules are enforced somewhat inconsistently, as we all know. Hog was given a six month suspension, IIRC, for pushing the idea that LA could have made money on the SCA payout, by investing it wisely, even if he had to pay the principal back later. He was banned because that idea was considered nonsense by other posters, and because he continued to post it after they had expressed this view. But when posters express Creationist views, which have far less evidence supporting them than anything hog has ever posted, they’re not considered trolling.
Why? As far as I can tell, it’s partly because of sheer numbers. There are very few people who agreed with hog about LA’s SCA investments, or at least if there are some, we don’t hear about them outside of the forum. Hog couldn’t cite them in support. There are a lot of people who agree with Creationists. It isn’t the soundness or lack of in some opinion that results in a charge of trolling.
OTOH, this doesn’t explain everything. There are tons of Froome supporters outside of this forum, just as there used to be tons of LA supporters. If some of their views are/were posted here, they may get/were banned. In this case, I don’t think it’s so much either the soundness of the argument or the number of its adherents as just the repetition of the same argument over and over again.
But there is still an inconsistency here. The Creationists here whom I know of do not post their views repetitively, the way some Froome supporters may. They’ve made their point, and don’t push it. They don’t preach it, constantly. But the reason they don’t is because the debate over that is not as vigorous as the debate over a suspicious GT winner. This is a cycling forum, there is a lot of expertise on the profession on display here, and thus low tolerance for views that seem to be inconsistent with the best knowledge available. I think Creationism gets a pass from a charge of trolling here because the argument is not considered as important on a cycling forum.
- May 23, 2009
- 10,256
- 1,455
- 25,680
Interesting article on BMC coach Neal Henderson over on CyclingTips:
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/01/coach-henderson-diary-a-data-guy-at-heart/
Apparently it's the first of a few.
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/01/coach-henderson-diary-a-data-guy-at-heart/
Apparently it's the first of a few.
Re: Re:
although of course us Brits have tried to ban Trump for 'trolling' re terrorism...with the most ardent backers being, the SNP, who, like a reformed smoker, once courted him but are now ashamed of such association....
Merckx index said:
although of course us Brits have tried to ban Trump for 'trolling' re terrorism...with the most ardent backers being, the SNP, who, like a reformed smoker, once courted him but are now ashamed of such association....
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
Re: Re:
They spend every day of their lives trying to discredit it, don't just come here to troll but try to spread false rumours and twist words about it everywhere, on newspaper comment sections, other forums, Twitter etc.
When swart got into arguments with members of the clinic, they were constantly messaging him things to try and discredit those posters. You can kind of see the effect of that when the new poster comes and says he doesn't expect to find reason on this forum.
Your comment that there are creationists on cn forums, though innocent and factually true, is very easily turned into the claim that everyone in the clinic who doubts froome are also creationists so should not be taken seriously. That is precisely the kind of thing these people do. Next time some minor personality like swart who got his name into a newspaper once or twice engages people in the clinic, they will.message him with precisely that claim and cite your post as evidence of this.
I just wanted to make clear, in case people later read down on the thread, that this is absolutely not true.
I made the point because there are a number if people who will never forgive the clinic for allowing people to post anti Armstrong/froome views.Merckx index said:
They spend every day of their lives trying to discredit it, don't just come here to troll but try to spread false rumours and twist words about it everywhere, on newspaper comment sections, other forums, Twitter etc.
When swart got into arguments with members of the clinic, they were constantly messaging him things to try and discredit those posters. You can kind of see the effect of that when the new poster comes and says he doesn't expect to find reason on this forum.
Your comment that there are creationists on cn forums, though innocent and factually true, is very easily turned into the claim that everyone in the clinic who doubts froome are also creationists so should not be taken seriously. That is precisely the kind of thing these people do. Next time some minor personality like swart who got his name into a newspaper once or twice engages people in the clinic, they will.message him with precisely that claim and cite your post as evidence of this.
I just wanted to make clear, in case people later read down on the thread, that this is absolutely not true.
Re: Re:
I would have read that the other way...there is a mountain of evidence that Froome does dope whereas believing he doesn't is based on nothing more than faith...or trust...jesus loves me this I know, because the bible tells me so...
The Hitch said:
I would have read that the other way...there is a mountain of evidence that Froome does dope whereas believing he doesn't is based on nothing more than faith...or trust...jesus loves me this I know, because the bible tells me so...
- Mar 10, 2009
- 2,973
- 5
- 11,485
Belief in conspiracy is pretty normal here, often a default position to explain stuff when if anything good old fashioned screw up is more likely most of the time. In most cases it's based on weak evidence/assertions. Not necessarily the sort of big brother level of conspiracy as discussed here, but the principles still apply:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-science/
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-science/
- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
Re:
Yes, conspiracies that those in charge of sporting federations are corrupt. Now that is a joke.
That posters still use the word conspiracy when we talk about the corruption of sport really shows willful blindness or another underhanded agenda.
E.G. FIFA president and Vice PResident banned for 8 years are under an FBI investigation. IAAF Former president under investigation, never mind his sons and others. But again people think that these are wild conspiracies......
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Yes, conspiracies that those in charge of sporting federations are corrupt. Now that is a joke.
That posters still use the word conspiracy when we talk about the corruption of sport really shows willful blindness or another underhanded agenda.
E.G. FIFA president and Vice PResident banned for 8 years are under an FBI investigation. IAAF Former president under investigation, never mind his sons and others. But again people think that these are wild conspiracies......
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re: Re:
FiFI? IAAF? Armstrong? Match fixing? Just an old fashion screw up according to Alex...
Statistically speaking there have been more dopers filling the top 5 of a GT than not. Not sure how suggesting a rider might be doping would be a conspiracy. It would in fact be the norm.
Benotti69 said:Alex Simmons/RST said:
Yes, conspiracies that those in charge of sporting federations are corrupt. Now that is a joke.
That posters still use the word conspiracy when we talk about the corruption of sport really shows willful blindness or another underhanded agenda.
E.G. FIFA president and Vice PResident banned for 8 years are under an FBI investigation. IAAF Former president under investigation, never mind his sons and others. But again people think that these are wild conspiracies......
FiFI? IAAF? Armstrong? Match fixing? Just an old fashion screw up according to Alex...
Statistically speaking there have been more dopers filling the top 5 of a GT than not. Not sure how suggesting a rider might be doping would be a conspiracy. It would in fact be the norm.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram