- Apr 11, 2009
BroDeal said:You are also using a logical fallacy. It does not matter how many data points you have that prove a theory. All it takes is one data point, or counterexample, to disprove it. We have that data point. In fact we have six of them.
That is the clincher, a very important point. Otherwise it's the naive positivism of willfully obtuse thinkers who are part of a PAID public relations exercise in the Tour's run up. Of course, Armstrong will also have hired ex law enforcement, etc., to dig up the dirt on Lemond and other detractors, given the ongoing legal proceedings. Sound familiar, BYU?
Falsification is the essence of the scientific exercise, BYU. You need to read Karl Popper, and keep in mind the public relations of a willful branding exercise of a business and its entourage.
If the testing and apparatus are fundamentally flawed, or scientists know there clearly are aberrant results (performances that are unexplainable with reasonable assumptions, e.g. to Newton the orbits of certain planets, etc.), they start formulating theories to explain these differences. THEN they go look for better instruments and precise tests to validate/fasify their new theories. The existing instruments/data/results are no longer accepted as robust/valid. Cycling has very much been in the aberrant results category for nearly two decades--and the scientists all know they are far behind. It's not a good situation. Coyle's "theory" of why Lance's results are aberrantly good have been widely panned from a scientific point of view.
Ussain Bolt. Heard of him? Never failed a drug test. You should hear Carl Lewis discuss the % increase in performance of Bolt in the 100 metres in one year. He should know. He was beaten by one soundly: Ben Johnson. Aberrant results get people wondering, despite apparent passes of all existing tests. People know there is something screwey going on, just as scientiests do when the confront aberrant data/performances. This is the VERY start of science--not the start of slander or wishful thinking or moral turpitude.
Other examples: Schumacher pounding Cancellara in a TT at last year's tour; Rasmussen the skeleton turning into a "rouleur; Heras the fly destroying the TT field in his last Vuelta. All proven dopers.....Armstrong the football linebacker climbing Alpe d'Huez 20% faster than Lemond.
The list goes on....
But here's a kicker. The latter in terms of fraud, for example, can keep an immigrant out of the U.S. Check the State Dept's website:
* Making false representation
* Knowledge of such false representation by the perpetrator
* Reliance on the false representation by the person defrauded
* An intent to defraud
* The actual act of committing fraud
As everyone in law enforcement knows--apparently not you--there are loads and loads of people and networks who remain untouchable for years and pass all the "tests"--esp. in the drug field. Those who are caught are the tip of the inceberg. Does that mean for one sec. that law enforcement thinks they're innocent? No way! But in the field of cycling you create special exceptions. Why?
The situation in the peleton is very much the same. Mother Theresa does not rise to the top and stay there for 7 years unaided. Supernatural support, methinks.