The revenge of Rasmussen ...

[Frosty]

Sorry to be posting something that I posted previously, but on an LA thread. Here is a collection of performance data that I put together that shows "interesting" trends related to this discussion:
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html

Hi. Nice work but has anyone told that the wikipedia list is wrong? It just gives 36 times, not the 36 fastest times.* Evans' fastest was probably 40.13 in 2006 for instance, and Lemond did about 41 minutes in 1991.

Edit: Although it does include the fastest ascent each year.

 

["Jeff"]

Hi. Nice work but has anyone told that the wikipedia list is wrong? It just gives 36 times, not the 36 fastest times.* Evans' fastest was probably 40.13 in 2006 for instance, and Lemond did about 41 minutes in 1991.

Edit: Although it does include the fastest ascent each year.

Yes I dont understand that list. The fastest times on the l'Alp d'Huez, I mean.

Jean-Francois Bernard led the main group almost 4/5 of the climb in 1991, just to finish about 30 seconds after Bugno but only as 4th. LeMond never did it quicker, never won but he is listed anyway.

 

[peterst6906]

Sorry to be posting something that I posted previously, but on an LA thread. Here is a collection of performance data that I put together that shows "interesting" trends related to this discussion:
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html

Looks like a more sophisticated form of the more recent Armstrong apologist arguments - "everyone did it, so Armstrong shouldn't be stripped", "armstrong didn't do anything different to anyone else" and "if Armstrong is stripped, so should everyone else be".

The whole article seems drawn up to support the addition of your own thoughts at the bottom. If you are going to go beyond the data and draw opinions, why bother with the data in the first place? Do away with it and just declare your view that you think Armstrong has been harshly dealt with.

If I can add my own view, contra to yours: where there is evidence of cheating for any rider, that should be openly and consistently dealt with.

Armstrong doped. He deserved to lose his wins.
Riis doped. He deserved to lose his win.
Landis doped. He deserved to lose his win.
Contador doped. He deserved to lose his wins.

If any future evidence comes to light, that should also lead to loss of wins.

We shouldn't forgive the more recent generations, just because the older generations got away with it. That's not an argument that stands up to much scrutiny when we have young kids growing up who will become part of the elite end of the sport in the future. They deserve protection and screw anyone who doped in the past if it helps create the right, healthy environment for the next generations coming through.

 

[SavageKiwi]

The conclusions were reached after the data was looked at. In the beginning I thought I was going to see LA stand out as from everyone else, but he does not, my opinions were shaped by what the data showed and not the other way around. It is clear that to come back in 1999 and to win, being clean was not an option - this is clear in the data. I agree that if people doped they should be stripped of their titles - but many more
were doping than have been identified, and the process of stripping titles should be done consistently and reliably - and I do not see this currently being done. The data show other people that should be scrutinized - so why go after LA only. It must the the case that the UCI has looked at the data - I cannot believe that they have not - and they have much more than is available

 

[poupou]

The conclusions were reached after the data was looked at. In the beginning I thought I was going to see LA stand out as from everyone else, but he does not, my opinions were shaped by what the data showed and not the other way around. It is clear that to come back in 1999 and to win, being clean was not an option - this is clear in the data. I agree that if people doped they should be stripped of their titles - but many more
were doping than have been identified, and the process of stripping titles should be done consistently and reliably - and I do not see this currently being done. The data show other people that should be scrutinized - so why go after LA only. It must the the case that the UCI has looked at the data - I cannot believe that they have not - and they have much more than is available

You are forgetting that SOL applies and that Lance has been stripped on FACTS.
Do you have facts against other riders?

 

[Suedehead]

Pantani, Zulle, Ullrich, Rumsas, Vinokourov, Basso, Hamilton, Landis, Valverde, Virenque, Mayo, Rasmussen, Mancebo...
Yes its seems your boy was unfairly treated. No one else got busted or got their career's derailed.

 

["Jeff"]

Correct.

Armstrong's case got a lot of media attention for obvious reasons. He's also an American citizen and the fact he was an arrogant brush was the icing on the cake. Now people tried even harder to expose him.

Human nature.

 

[Frosty]

The conclusions were reached after the data was looked at. In the beginning I thought I was going to see LA stand out as from everyone else, but he does not, my opinions were shaped by what the data showed and not the other way around. It is clear that to come back in 1999 and to win, being clean was not an option - this is clear in the data. I agree that if people doped they should be stripped of their titles - but many more
were doping than have been identified, and the process of stripping titles should be done consistently and reliably - and I do not see this currently being done. The data show other people that should be scrutinized - so why go after LA only. It must the the case that the UCI has looked at the data - I cannot believe that they have not - and they have much more than is available

They went up alpe d'huez in 1999 but this is not included on the wiki page. Do you have any info on the time they did? (Guerini won despite getting knocked off by an amateur photgrapher, Armstrong finished just behind in a group at 25 seconds).

 

[SavageKiwi]

Yes, he was stripped based upon statements made under oath, and, to be clear, I am not supporting what LA did. In my mind understanding and supporting are very different things. However, if similar investigations into other top cyclists after the late 1980's were launched, similar results would be found. It is the fixation on LA that I find unfair as the data clearly points to others to ``look at'', and the UCI has this plus much more information.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, he was stripped based upon statements made under oath, and, to be clear, I am not supporting what LA did. In my mind understanding and supporting are very different things. However, if similar investigations into other top cyclists after the late 1980's were launched, similar results would be found. It is the fixation on LA that I find unfair as the data clearly points to others to ``look at'', and the UCI has this plus much more information.

This is where your 'data' is flawed.
It was USADA who took a case against Armstrong (& lots of others) not the UCI. The UCI probably has the same 'data' that you have, and were quite happy to ignore it.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Nothing wrong with the study, you guys just dont like the conlusion. Keep an open mind, that is academic.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Nothing wrong with the study, you guys just dont like the conlusion. Keep an open mind, that is academic.

Having already had this discussion, it has been confirmed the conclusions are subjective "LA fanboi" statements and have nothing to do with the study or its content.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Having already had this discussion, it has been confirmed the conclusions are subjective "LA fanboi" statements and have nothing to do with the study or its content.

The study remains more than okay, simple as that. We must agree on that.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The study remains more than okay, simple as that. We must agree on that.

Look at the data. No problem. I am responding to your "conclusions are not liked". But when you realise a fanboi put a study together, you also have to acknowledge bias. His conclusions ("investigate other riders, it's NOT FAIR *pout*") are laughable and have nothing to do with the data.

 

[sniper]

the article is obviously non-academic and written with a bias.
For instance:

Contador was suspended for “eating tainted Spanish meat”

And indeed conclusion nr. 3 is rather subjective. (Though of course it would be nice to see the RFEC follow USADA's example.)

This notwithstanding, most will agree this paper contains some very interesting data-based observations.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Look at the data. No problem. I am responding to your "conclusions are not liked". But when you realise a fanboi put a study together, you also have to acknowledge bias. His conclusions ("investigate other riders, it's NOT FAIR *pout*") are laughable and have nothing to do with the data.

I don't care for his conclusions to be fair, statistics are there to be interpreted. He does it in the way 'not only Lance should be punished' [I agree on that point], I read it as how fu@ked up cycling has become. From a sport full of heroics to a riding pharmacy. Saddening, sickening perhaps. Peter Post said it way back in 1992: ''the teamdoctor is more important than the teammanager''.

Follow the doctor.

Edit:
For the Dutch Rabo fans, read the following
http://endurancesupport.com/thomas-dekker-afwijkend-bloedprofiel/
For the rest google translate will do the rest. Quite an interesting site.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Fignon wrote in his book how the rise of EPO in the early 90s put him out of play. Though again, that doesn't necessarily mean there weren't individuals using it already in the late 80s.
The biggest problem, I guess, if EPO predates 1991, we once again have to account for Lemond's performances, who most seem to agree was comparatively (if not completely) clean.

With or without EPO, there can be no doubt that Panasonic/PDM were at the forefront of PED experimenting.

Wrt Breukink: the fact that he was picked up by Saiz in 1993 doesn't exactly suggest he was a clean crusader. I'm going for the hypothesis that EPO didn't work on him as it did on Jalabert and Zülle. I don't think Saiz would have kept Breukink in his TdF squad if he wasn't on the program.

so breukink was using epo, eventhough he and everyone else with once knew it didn't work on him? makes real sense

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Sorry to be posting something that I posted previously, but on an LA thread. Here is a collection of performance data that I put together that shows "interesting" trends related to this discussion:
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html

to me it seems you just took time from wiki and other false data and everything about it is biased crap. like the stuff about contador.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Nothing wrong with the study, you guys just dont like the conlusion. Keep an open mind, that is academic.

yeah you speaking of academic. it would surprise me if your iq went above a 100 and you statement regarding the link he put up tells me you haven't got a clue. better to remain silent then.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

I don't care for his conclusions to be fair, statistics are there to be interpreted. He does it in the way 'not only Lance should be punished' [I agree on that point], I read it as how fu@ked up cycling has become. From a sport full of heroics to a riding pharmacy. Saddening, sickening perhaps. Peter Post said it way back in 1992: ''the teamdoctor is more important than the teammanager''.

Follow the doctor.

Edit:
For the Dutch Rabo fans, read the following
http://endurancesupport.com/thomas-dekker-afwijkend-bloedprofiel/
For the rest google translate will do the rest. Quite an interesting site.

there's nothing new in that link you gave.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

there's nothing new in that link you gave.

Yet you didnt know Taus was at Lotto last year.

You just know everything, that is a huge responsibility man!

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Yet you didnt know Taus was at Lotto last year.

You just know everything, that is a huge responsibility man!

what does that have to do with anything? and ibarguren you mean? he was at lotto in the late 90s, early 2000s.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

what does that have to do with anything? and ibarguren you mean? he was at lotto in the late 90s, early 2000s.

So, to be fair to you, you know Jose Ibarguren Taus was the supplier of Willy Voet in 1998 but just lost track of him when he was at Lotto last year - the Gilbert Rocket - and now at Quick Step - the Boonen Bullit - ?

Never mind his time at Saunier et al of course, Rumsas was also a loner of course at Lampre.

Check them facts ryo.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/apr99/apr3.shtml

 

[Franklin]

Meh, it's all way too late.

The management team should have been kicked out of the sport after the judge in 2008 concluded the management team as involved in whereabouts fraud. Breukink has shown to be a disgrace to Dutch cycling.

That the they kept on with the same managers for four more years is an embarrassment. The stop-gap ****ion to put Knebel above them is ridiculous. Breukink, de Rooij and Leinders should have paid the price then and there.

That Belgian cycling is completely and utterly dope riddled is just another aspect of the same problem. Lefevre should have been tosed out of the sport, Ibarguren should have been tossed out of the sport etc. etc.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

So, to be fair to you, you know Jose Ibarguren Taus was the supplier of Willy Voet in 1998 but just lost track of him when he was at Lotto last year - the Gilbert Rocket - and now at Quick Step - the Boonen Bullit - ?

Never mind his time at Saunier et al of course, Rumsas was also a loner of course at Lampre.

Check them facts ryo.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/apr99/apr3.shtml

boonen didn't ride any better than other years where he was'nt injured and gilbert this year sucked because he didn't bother to train in the winter. still his wc was impressive without ibarguren