The Chris Squared Thread

[martinvickers]

Climbing times are evidence though.

Yes, they are Netserk. But WHAT exactly are they evidence of? That's the point.

There's a hell of a difference, evidentially, between pointing out a broad trend from a large sample of statistically relevant data on the one hand, and grabbing one W/kg figure for one rider up one mountain and shouting 'doper!'.

One is mathematically and logically sound. which is why it has evidential value. The other isn't. Which is why it doesn't. Guess which is which, Netserk.

It's a difference that appears to elude many on this board, whether accidentally or by design.

 

[red_flanders]

Which is a good point. But, you have to admit that both sides have good points, and we have no definitive answer either way. There is, as yet, no proof. We DO have a number of prominent posters who believe Walsh is lying, and Brailsford. We DO, in this forum, have a lack of counterbalancing opinion in their favor, even though they are "convicted" on circumstantial "evidence".

Ok - so you (plural, multiple you, not personal to Red here) are convinced Froome doped. No problem. It isn't fact yet. You are convinced Walsh lied, Brailsford lied, etc etc etc. Ok, no problem. It isn't fact yet.

So - just a request that we all self-moderate a little, and remember that, at this point, what will be seen as the truth in five years is not yet known.

And that goes equally for both sides. Yes, there are a lot of people who have already gone through the "Walsh is lying - Brailsford is lying - Froome is doping " arguments here, and a great many here have made up their minds. Yes, they make up part of "our" community. Reminding them that those viewpoints have visible weaknesses is, more than likely, unproductive.

Honestly I'm not sure what the self-moderation that we should do really is.

Noting that you're not aiming this solely at me, it's worth pointing out that I (and many other posters) have never said Walsh is lying because I (we) don't think he's lying. My view on Brailsford is more nuanced than you suggest and I'm not sure what to think of him, and I've posted such in some detail. I think I've been fair RE: Brailsford and not drawn any conclusions other than he has been untruthful in some public statements, but that does not mean he is running a doping ring in his team. I've clearly said as much.

I have come to believe Froome is charging, not because of some pre-conceived idea but because of what I've seen him do on the bike, before and after his transformation. Am I not allowed to say so? It's my opinion and I don't state it as fact, I state it as a conclusion I've personally come to. That he hasn't turned a positive and hasn't been proven a doper is also a fact, but doesn't change my opinion of him.

I'm happy to take it offline, just not sure what you're asking us to do. Discuss it less? Can do as well.

 

[martinvickers]

Honestly I'm not sure what the self-moderation that we should do really is.

Noting that you're not aiming this solely at me, it's worth pointing out that I (and many other posters) have never said Walsh is lying because I (we) don't think he's lying. My view on Brailsford is more nuanced than you suggest and I'm not sure what to think of him, and I've posted such in some detail. I think I've been fair RE: Brailsford and not drawn any conclusions other than he has been untruthful in some public statements, but that does not mean he is running a doping ring in his team. I've clearly said as much.

I have come to believe Froome is charging, not because of some pre-conceived idea but because of what I've seen him do on the bike, before and after his transformation. Am I not allowed to say so? It's my opinion and I don't state it as fact, I state it as a conclusion I've personally come to. That he hasn't turned a positive and hasn't been proven a doper is also a fact, but doesn't change my opinion of him.

I'm happy to take it offline, just not sure what you're asking us to do. Discuss it less? Can do as well.

The bolded above seems to me very fair, Red. When put in those terms, your honest opinion, rather than as 'certain knowledge' as others (not your good self necessarily) are apt to do, it's absolutely unimpeachable, and quite possibly very sensible too. ;-)

 

[red_flanders]

erm...

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1359413&postcount=723
That's a distinction without a difference.

Maybe YOU misunderstand what evidence is. Is a positive test the only kind of evidence? Of course not. There's photos of needle marks, eye witness testimony, properly conducted scientific analysis, bugged phone calls, emails and letters with admissions contained within, etc, etc, etc.

But your opinion on what you see isn't evidence. Of any kind. At all. It's just opinion.

And your disbelief of a palmares, isn't evidence. Of any kind. At all. It's just your belief.

It's a clear distinction with every difference in the world. As you said, a positive test isn't the only evidence, and most would regard it as proof. There is no proof.

Climbing times and performance are clear evidence whether you want to recognize it or not. As are wild transformation of pack fodder riders to world beating riders. As are doping docs. No one has EVER produced times like Froome's clean. Not even close.

So it's not enough evidence for you. Okay, but it as clear as day to me.

 

[red_flanders]

The bolded above seems to me very fair, Red. When put in those terms, your honest opinion, rather than as 'certain knowledge' as others (not your good self necessarily) are apt to do, it's absolutely unimpeachable, and quite possibly very sensible too. ;-)

Okay. I think we can be certain in our own opinions and it can come off as stating something as unequivocal fact. I think it's pretty hard to parse the author's intent and probably better to give the benefit of the doubt. Everything here is opinion. Some well informed and some not, but all opinion.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Honestly I'm not sure what the self-moderation that we should do really is.

Noting that you're not aiming this solely at me, it's worth pointing out that I (and many other posters) have never said Walsh is lying because I (we) don't think he's lying. My view on Brailsford is more nuanced than you suggest and I'm not sure what to think of him, and I've posted such in some detail. I think I've been fair RE: Brailsford and not drawn any conclusions other than he has been untruthful in some public statements, but that does not mean he is running a doping ring in his team. I've clearly said as much.

I have come to believe Froome is charging, not because of some pre-conceived idea but because of what I've seen him do on the bike, before and after his transformation. Am I not allowed to say so? It's my opinion and I don't state it as fact, I state it as a conclusion I've personally come to. That he hasn't turned a positive and hasn't been proven a doper is also a fact, but doesn't change my opinion of him.

I'm happy to take it offline, just not sure what you're asking us to do. Discuss it less? Can do as well.

This is what I find odd - I actually agree nearly 100% on your conclusions (Froome, yes; DB maybe; Walsh, no).

You are perfectly entitled to think that, but you then made a remark about how "others' are not going after Froome etc like they did against, Horner, Armstrong. No flaming, I just find that baffling.

 

[Parker]

No one has EVER produced times like Froome's clean. Not even close.

And what times have been done clean? Most of the top GC of the riders over the last couple of decades have been doped - granted. But what about some of the more recent ones - Quintana, Evans for example. I'm guessing you think they doped. In fact I'm guessing that you think everyone who has put in a decent climbing performance is doped. They must be because they did times no-one else had done clean. That's how this works., yeah?

What you really mean is that Froome's times have never been produced by someone you think is clean. And to find someone you think is clean (and good) we probably have to go back at least 20 years.

 

[martinvickers]

It's a clear distinction with every difference in the world. As you said, a positive test isn't the only evidence, and most would regard it as proof. There is no proof.

What do you think Proof, or Prove, actually mean? Can't help thinking there's a terminological issue here somewhere.

Climbing times and performance are clear evidence whether you want to recognize it or not.

Clear evidence of what, exactly? Please see above.

As are wild transformation of pack fodder riders to world beating riders

.

Leaving aside the editorial nature of the statement - what is it 'evidence' of, exactly - show me the logic, the working out - not emotion, not opinion. Evidence.

As are doping docs

.

Again, what of? this is not evidence, it's an inference, and it's basically a bollixolligy fallacy. Presumably we are talking Leinders, of course. The fact he weas employed by Sky is proof...that he was employed by sky. The fact he doped other riders is proof...that he was willing and able to dope riders. But there's still a big logic hole, obviously. Can you spot it?

No one has EVER produced times like Froome's clean. Not even close.

There were no clean riders to speak of since records of these types of climbs began to be taken accurately. We have next to NO idea what can be done clean by the right rider. It's why people cling to Lemond's times as some sort of Rosetta stone; he's the only Tour winning rider widely believed. But his performances are his, no-one elses.

We do know that doped riders in the past have far exceeded Froome performances. That doesn't make him clean, either. see how it works?

Again, see above.

So it's not enough evidence for you. Okay, but it as clear as day to me.

It's not that it's not enough evidence, it's not 'evidence' at all. that's the problem.

Simple analogy, i've used before.

gresham hotel in dublin used to do a magnificent burger. It was absolute, last meal on death row fantastic.

A McDonalds' plain cheeseburger is a terrible burger, swill, barely fit for dogs.

One's a good burger. One's a bad burger.

But an ice cream cone is not a burger at all.

A drug fail is conclusive evidence. A confession is 'almost' as good. A bunch of payments to a dodgy doctor off the record is very good evidence, but not as conclusive as the first two - though it's probably damn close to enough.

Your opinion, your belief, your view isn't evidence AT ALL. Neither good, not bad. It's just not evidence at all, full stop.

that's the difference.

 

[hiero2]

The bolded above seems to me very fair, Red. When put in those terms, your honest opinion, rather than as 'certain knowledge' as others (not your good self necessarily) are apt to do, it's absolutely unimpeachable, and quite possibly very sensible too. ;-)

Ok - MV offered the links that Parker should have back when. Good deal.

THIS is what I mean by self-moderating. We all backed off a little bit, remembered to post the post, not the poster, and laid off wording things in inflammatory personal statements.

I apologize that I am not more clear - but as my sig notes - it takes a lot of time to say something well in a few words. I am glad that MV pitched in, as he said it very well.

And, as for Walsh lying - remember that I used the plural "you". And we do know that many of our denizens do think Walsh sold out. I think we even have a thread about that . . . Parker used Walsh as an example of "conspiracy overdrive" a bit earlier. There is a reason I used a plural "you", since many bits of the broad arguments posed by Parker do not apply in toto to individuals. It is too broad a brush to paint with.

 

[the sceptic]

Who cares about what is evidence or not? This isnt a court of law, everyone is free to have their own opinion on whether someone is doping or not.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Who cares about what is evidence or not? This isnt a court of law, everyone is free to have their own opinion on whether someone is doping or not.

This is the point - people are perfectly entitled to have an opinion.

But they are not entitled to suggest something is evidence of something when it is not evidence.

 

[hiero2]

This is the point - people are perfectly entitled to have an opinion.

But they are not entitled to suggest something is evidence of something when it is not evidence.

Well said, Dr. Mas, well said.

 

[martinvickers]

Who cares about what is evidence or not? This isnt a court of law, everyone is free to have their own opinion on whether someone is doping or not.

I'm going to give a wild guess and say WADA, UCI, most of the cyclists and teams, and a fair proportion of the sponsors and supporters. and if the new rules are anything to go by, the owners of this forum too. How's that for starters?

People are free to have an opinion. But not to dress it up as fact.

 

[Benotti69]

Who cares about what is evidence or not? This isnt a court of law, everyone is free to have their own opinion on whether someone is doping or not.

Those posting demanding evidence are drifting into the realm of Armstrong's fans and their never tested positive.

 

[martinvickers]

Okay. I think we can be certain in our own opinions and it can come off as stating something as unequivocal fact. I think it's pretty hard to parse the author's intent and probably better to give the benefit of the doubt. Everything here is opinion. Some well informed and some not, but all opinion.

Fair dinkum. Peace!!

 

[del1962]

Those posting demanding evidence are drifting into the realm of Armstrong's fans and their never tested positive.

We need a term for this sort of post a bit like godwins law

 

[martinvickers]

Those posting demanding evidence are drifting into the realm of Armstrong's fans and their never tested positive.

Does that extend to the owners of the forum, given the new rules?

 

[The Hitch]

and the dismissal of any testimony which challenges your opinions (such as Walsh).

huh?
People dismiss weak arguments. And what? .

Saying that the fact that people disagree with Walsh is proof of some failure on their part, that's just obvious trolling and needs to stop. These aren't the middle ages where the opinions of a few elevated individuals is gospel. And anyone who thinks this way - that it doesn't matter what people say, but who they are, is ***.

Walsh's arguments are weak. His flip flopping on the issue of whether ascent speeds are suspicious based on whether a sky rider did the climb or a non sky rider, is enough for anyone to not take seriously anything he has to say on sky. As does the way he let off Wiggins with the lie that he never defended Armstrong.

it seems clear to me that y'all cling to this argument from authority so desperately, because you don't have any actual arguments beyond - look how important this person is, they say sky is clean; they are more important than you internet losers ergo you are wrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Those posting demanding evidence are drifting into the realm of Armstrong's fans and their never tested positive.

Very few "demand evidence' now.

But what has happened is that some posters make claims putting those claims forward as either fact or 'evidence' when it is only opinion.

 

[martinvickers]

huh?
People dismiss weak arguments. And what? .

Saying that the fact that people disagree with Walsh is proof of some failure on their part, that's just obvious trolling and needs to stop. These aren't the middle ages where the opinions of a few elevated individuals is gospel. And anyone who thinks this way - that it doesn't matter what people say, but who they are, is ***.

Walsh's arguments are weak. His flip flopping on the issue of whether ascent speeds are suspicious based on whether a sky rider did the climb or a non sky rider, is enough for anyone to not take seriously anything he has to say on sky. As does the way he let off Wiggins with the lie that he never defended Armstrong.

it seems clear to me that y'all cling to this argument from authority so desperately, because you don't have any actual arguments beyond - look how important this person is, they say sky is clean; they are more important than you internet losers ergo you are wrong.

Wow. That was a pretty spectacular missing of the point, Hitch.

 

[hiero2]

We need a term for this sort of post a bit like godwins law

O gawd, I'm sorry, that made me burst out laughing Brightened my day, thank you.

But regardless, let's have a laugh at the past couple of posts - and then remember what the topic is:

The Chris Squared Thread

Shall we return now to our scheduled program? TYVM!

 

[the sceptic]

I'm going to give a wild guess and say WADA, UCI, most of the cyclists and teams, and a fair proportion of the sponsors and supporters. and if the new rules are anything to go by, the owners of this forum too. How's that for starters?

People are free to have an opinion. But not to dress it up as fact.

Please let me know when sky are going to sue the clinic, so I can hide in my bunker first.

But until then, this isnt a criminal trial, so its ok to have an opinion without it being backed up by direct proof.

 

[thehog]

huh?
People dismiss weak arguments. And what? .

Saying that the fact that people disagree with Walsh is proof of some failure on their part, that's just obvious trolling and needs to stop. These aren't the middle ages where the opinions of a few elevated individuals is gospel. And anyone who thinks this way - that it doesn't matter what people say, but who they are, is ***.

Walsh's arguments are weak. His flip flopping on the issue of whether ascent speeds are suspicious based on whether a sky rider did the climb or a non sky rider, is enough for anyone to not take seriously anything he has to say on sky. As does the way he let off Wiggins with the lie that he never defended Armstrong.

it seems clear to me that y'all cling to this argument from authority so desperately, because you don't have any actual arguments beyond - look how important this person is, they say sky is clean; they are more important than you internet losers ergo you are wrong.

Good post.

What I find silly is that JV’s word has become the new anti-doping.

Who needs testing when JV can give you the clean tag or not.

Walsh with Armstrong started from the position that Armstrong was doping. From there he looked for material to prove his theory.

With Sky his position is they are “clean” and thus looks for material which leads to supporting that theory.

 

[martinvickers]

Please let me know when sky are going to sue the clinic, so I can hide in my bunker first.

But until then, this isnt a criminal trial, so its ok to have an opinion without it being backed up by direct proof.

it's not a criminal trial. no. But it is a forum. With rules.

From said rules.

Proof of point, opinions, and common knowledge: you can't just say "we know Bobby the Bod is doping". You have to provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. Or, you can just state "in my opinion". If, on the other hand, it is in the realm of "common knowledge", then it is acceptable to make an unverified statement. Be careful - common knowledge would apply, for instance, at the time of this posting, to Lance Armstrong. But allegations of current doping, and current riders, would not be "common knowledge" at this point. To be common knowledge, the "fact" has to have been published, widely read, and widely agreed with. This point is particularly applicable in The Clinic.

Or do the rules not apply to you?

 

[gooner]

huh?
People dismiss weak arguments. And what? .

Saying that the fact that people disagree with Walsh is proof of some failure on their part, that's just obvious trolling and needs to stop. These aren't the middle ages where the opinions of a few elevated individuals is gospel. And anyone who thinks this way - that it doesn't matter what people say, but who they are, is ***.

Walsh's arguments are weak. His flip flopping on the issue of whether ascent speeds are suspicious based on whether a sky rider did the climb or a non sky rider, is enough for anyone to not take seriously anything he has to say on sky. As does the way he let off Wiggins with the lie that he never defended Armstrong.

it seems clear to me that y'all cling to this argument from authority so desperately, because you don't have any actual arguments beyond - look how important this person is, they say sky is clean; they are more important than you internet losers ergo you are wrong.

I have to correct you on this.

Walsh in his interview with Wiggins wrote clearly that he was a defender of Lance.