The Yates (AKA the TUE Brothers)

[Ripper]

Re: Re:

So go on then. Tell us more. What drugs was he using before? What is he using now?

The fact that no one has the answer to that neither adds or removes credibility to the speculation that he's upped his program. Probably best to to recognize that it's pure speculation and there's no way to know.

I think sometimes you can infer. For example, riders that suddenly become super skinny before a GT: corticosteriods, aicar etc. And non climbers that suddenly start making very select front groups on long climbs: just screams epo. And riders who rebound stunningly during a GT: may as well wear a billboard which says "just had a nice sweet blood bag."

If there's anything about Yates that looks a bit different, it's his arms: definitely lost muscle mass there. And that's the modern GC program, perfected by Sky and then Tinkoff etc.

Yes, I agree completely, one can make informed inferences, but it's still speculation. We don't know what people are taking.

My point was that demanding some kind of answer to this question is deliberately obtuse. We all know that no one knows what exactly riders are on going into any discussion, so acting like this is the bar for whether to consider an opinion is pretty freaking silly.

This is such an excellent point it should be mandatory reading for discussion boards!

There have been cases of confirmed doping where knowing exactly is not possible, even when the knowledge of doping is confirmed as true. Of course people can speculate and use terms like "clearly" - pretty much the whole discussion board is based on opinions. Some people choose not to see or perceive until they are hit in the head with a guilty finding. In other words, some opinions are a bit more like an ostrich!

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

It's a funny pattern that riders who are in their last year of contract magically step-up to unprecedented level. Yates is another brilliant example, natural progression at its best, multi-million bids are already reported. Doping pays off big time.

All riders in their last year of contract?

Or just the ones who fit your theory?

Obviously a subjective matter of opinion on who's doing it. That said, this is a common phenomenon across sports. Players in the NFL, NBA, etc. have a habit of performing better when it's a contract year. Players, coaches, executives, reporters, and informed observers understand this. It's human nature. It would be pretty silly to act like this doesn't happen.

Demanding proof for subjective observations doesn't make a ton of sense. For the most part, we're here to discuss our opinions.

Human nature or doping?

Rollthedice and Netserk are ascribing the improvement firmly to doping. You are saying the improvement is down to 'human nature'.

Bit of a difference there, and pretty crucial.

What strikes me as 'freaking silly' is the pushback when opinions are subjected to scrutiny. Nobody is going to get hurt here, we are just talking. There is nothing at all at stake. However, if people are going to blithely spray around opinions they should be able to support them with either a cogent argument or some known facts. I've explained how upthread. You've stepped in to try and defend Netserk's opinion. Netserk has, as yet, avoided it.

I would be willing to accept what substances Netserk thinks Yates is using (above and beyond what he probably already uses) and how this would account for an improvement and what this improvement looks like. You know, a bit of informed speculation. As it stands there isn't even any of that.

 

[zastomito]

Yates is not an exception but an recurring pattern seen many times before. Once you realize that you will understand Netserk's scepticism. He's seen it too many times as have I.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Human nature or doping?

Rollthedice and Netserk are ascribing the improvement firmly to doping. You are saying the improvement is down to 'human nature'.

Bit of a difference there, and pretty crucial.

What strikes me as 'freaking silly' is the pushback when opinions are subjected to scrutiny. Nobody is going to get hurt here, we are just talking. There is nothing at all at stake. However, if people are going to blithely spray around opinions they should be able to support them with either a cogent argument or some known facts. I've explained how upthread. You've stepped in to try and defend Netserk's opinion. Netserk has, as yet, avoided it.

I would be willing to accept what substances Netserk thinks Yates is using (above and beyond what he probably already uses) and how this would account for an improvement and what this improvement looks like. You know, a bit of informed speculation. As it stands there isn't even any of that.

Doping to get a new contract would be an example of human nature— trying harder when the incentives warrant it. I “m sorry that wasn’t more obvious.

 

[macbindle]

In which case I'm struggling to see what you were trying to add to the point made initially by rollthedice. He invoked the idea of riders panic-doping when at the end of contract. I don't think anybody disputes that this could happen. I challenged him over whether he considered riders who doped but showed no improvement, or riders who didn't dope. Basic falsification of a hypothesis. It was at this point that you entered the discussion.

 

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Re:

In which case I'm struggling to see what you were trying to add to the point made initially by rollthedice. He invoked the idea of riders panic-doping when at the end of contract. I don't think anybody disputes that this could happen. I challenged him over whether he considered riders who doped but showed no improvement, or riders who didn't dope. Basic falsification of a hypothesis. It was at this point that you entered the discussion.

Panic doping can happen yes, but that's only one side of the coin, some already very good riders up their program during a contract year to negotiate a bigger salary for the future, see Gilbert 2011 as the most obvious and borderline hilarious instance, and Yates would fit into that category pretty well.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

In which case I'm struggling to see what you were trying to add to the point made initially by rollthedice. He invoked the idea of riders panic-doping when at the end of contract. I don't think anybody disputes that this could happen. I challenged him over whether he considered riders who doped but showed no improvement, or riders who didn't dope. Basic falsification of a hypothesis. It was at this point that you entered the discussion.

We're back in the land where obviously no one knows the details. You seem to want scientific proof of speculation? I find it odd. The point was of course, that riders will be more incentivized to dope at the end of a contract (see Chris Froome). Identifying exactly who ALL of them are or aren't is obviously impossible. Speculating that this is what a single rider did is a discussion point. If one rider starts performing well above his weight nearing the end of the contract, you're going to get speculation about that. No one claims or cares that no one knows the details and timing of every rider's program (or lack thereof) heading into a contract.

if you're here to tell everyone they can't scientifically prove their speculation, granted. Obviously. Still don't see the point of hammering on the blatantly obvious.

Yates is not an exception but an recurring pattern seen many times before. Once you realize that you will understand Netserk's scepticism. He's seen it too many times as have I.

Quite.

 

[macbindle]

I'm not asking for proof, at all.

I'm asking for a bit more body to the speculation. Your, and others, repeated intervention has just taken us further away from the discussion that was at hand. I keep trying to bring it back, to no avail. Let me remind you that I entered this discussion to challenge the notion that Yates's performance in this Giro was mutant, and well above the progression one might expect from a young rider, regardless of prior and current doping. The discussion is not about whether Yates dopes, as I think he almost certainly does, but about whether he has access to some new Froomejuice. He's riding better than he has before, certainly, but he has ridden better year on year anyway.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

I'm not asking for proof, at all.

I'm asking for a bit more body to the speculation. Your, and others, repeated intervention has just taken us further away from the discussion that was at hand. I keep trying to bring it back, to no avail. Let me remind you that I entered this discussion to challenge the notion that Yates's performance in this Giro was mutant, and well above the progression one might expect from a young rider, regardless of prior and current doping. The discussion is not about whether Yates dopes, as I think he almost certainly does, but about whether he has access to some new Froomejuice. He's riding better than he has before, certainly, but he has ridden better year on year anyway.

I don't think he's terribly mutant relative to the others. I think his form has taken a significant, suspicious jump. I think the times being set are not possible clean. I wouldn't have a clue about Froomejuice, because I have no idea what Froome has been using. He may very well just be responding better to the program, whatever it is, than others.

To the other discussion, when you invoke "falsification of a hypothesis", you seem to be asking for a level of scientific rigor which obviously isn't possible, and asking questions no one can answer as a bar for discussion. It reads to me like someone trying to shut others down for speculation. Which seems weird in this situation, on this kind of forum, given what is possible to know. I am happy to be wrong about shutting others down, and glad if that's not the case. Maybe worth hearing that to this reader, it's coming off that way. If I'm the only one, I'll shut up.

 

[macbindle]

I'm assuming you are familiar with falsification? I mentioned it when somebody claimed that riders always improve when their contract is up.

If we subject that to falsification it just means testing the proposition. To test it, all you have to do is find an end of contract rider who didn't improve. If you can't find one, the proposition is strong.

Do you think there might be one?

Me too. Therefore as a proposition it is false. No specific unknowable knowledge required. Find a new proposition or modify it, and test again.

You don't seem to like scrutiny and seem to be trying to shut it down. I note with interest your edit and attempt to rally the troops.

I'm out of here. I'll leave you to the mutually-affirming groupthink.

 

[Pantani Attacks]

About *** time stay in your lane Simon

 

[macbindle]

Oh look.

Yates has just lost half his time advantage in the space of 1 km.

But at least he was still 'smirking'

Cheerio guys.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Oh look.

Yates has just lost half his time advantage in the space of 1 km.

But at least he was still 'smirking'

Cheerio guys.

Should we see if "no one who dopes ever has an off day" is falsifiable?

 

[Saint Unix]

Re:

Oh look.

Yates has just lost half his time advantage in the space of 1 km.

But at least he was still 'smirking'

Cheerio guys.

If you're going to act all self-righteous in this thread you should steer clear of that particular argument. One off day doesn't magically erase all the suspicious performances earlier in the Giro.

Even the most flagrant dopers have crap days on the bike. Do we all suddenly start pretending they aren't on gear when they do?

 

[macbindle]

You really should try reading (and understanding) the thread before you rock up with insults.

The discussion is not about whether Yates dopes, as I think he almost certainly does.

The post of mine you quoted was in reference to the remarks on this thread about Yates being 'utterly dominant. I said that he wasn't. He'd eked out a working advantage with one tactic, and one tactic only. Today's events were not unexpected by me but must have been unexpected by those who felt he was utterly dominant. Now the goalposts are being moved.

Anyway, you guys are going to have to carry this on without me. Have the last word with my compliments.

 

[hrotha]

It's silly to suggest he wasn't dominant before today.

 

[GraftPunk]

Seriously, I can remember a certain doped-the-gills Landis having a pretty bad day...

 

[thehog]

Time to deploy the suitcase of courage?

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

Re:

I'm assuming you are familiar with falsification? I mentioned it when somebody claimed that riders always improve when their contract is up.

If we subject that to falsification it just means testing the proposition. To test it, all you have to do is find an end of contract rider who didn't improve. If you can't find one, the proposition is strong.

Do you think there might be one?

Me too. Therefore as a proposition it is false. No specific unknowable knowledge required. Find a new proposition or modify it, and test again.

You don't seem to like scrutiny and seem to be trying to shut it down. I note with interest your edit and attempt to rally the troops.

I'm out of here. I'll leave you to the mutually-affirming groupthink.

This is also moving the goalposts. The argument is that riders are more incentivized to take risks (i.e. dope) at the end of their contract. More doped riders are more likely to perform better. Some riders will not dope, or will dope ineffectively, or will have their doping regime undercut by other factors (aging, illness, poor training, etc.). Your method of "falsification" does not work here.

 

[lartiste]

Re:

Seriously, I can remember a certain doped-the-gills Landis having a pretty bad day...

Ullrich, Armstrong, Chiappucci to name few ...

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

Contador, Froome, Nibali, Wiggins all proven or unproven but almost certain dopers who have had their fair share of bad days...

 

[Koronin]

Re:

I'm assuming you are familiar with falsification? I mentioned it when somebody claimed that riders always improve when their contract is up.

If we subject that to falsification it just means testing the proposition. To test it, all you have to do is find an end of contract rider who didn't improve. If you can't find one, the proposition is strong.

Do you think there might be one?

Me too. Therefore as a proposition it is false. No specific unknowable knowledge required. Find a new proposition or modify it, and test again.

You don't seem to like scrutiny and seem to be trying to shut it down. I note with interest your edit and attempt to rally the troops.

I'm out of here. I'll leave you to the mutually-affirming groupthink.

The answer to that would be yes, Valverde's contract years are not really that different from his non contract years. He's fairly consistent year to year. His last contract year was 2014. In 2016 he still had one year left on his contract when signed a new contract, so that isn't a contract year. He'll be in a contract year next year, however, he doesn't exactly have to worry about a new contract if he wants one either with all the comments his team has made over the year.
Now do some riders up their doping regiment during contract years, the answer is almost certainly yes some do, but not all.
Now this could just be a product of Valverde being that good (doping or not) and with a team he he knows full well will give him a contract as long as he wants one so no reason to put up crazy results in a contract year.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

Oh look.

Yates has just lost half his time advantage in the space of 1 km.

But at least he was still 'smirking'

Cheerio guys.

If you're going to act all self-righteous in this thread you should steer clear of that particular argument. One off day doesn't magically erase all the suspicious performances earlier in the Giro.

Even the most flagrant dopers have crap days on the bike. Do we all suddenly start pretending they aren't on gear when they do?

Well yes, sure - but in the same breath, it's a bit lame to argue that his performances in the 3rd week + tt have no bearing in how we might assess (speculatively) the unfolding clinic status of Yates.

I was on the fence on the question of how much of a jump he has really made this giro, and the fact that he's clearly tiring (to the extent where he might well crack in the next day or two) + tt'd exactly how you'd expect an in form climber to tt simply does add weight that the argument that he hasn't really done anything that extraordinary.

In the same way that a big attacking rebound today certainly would look extraordinary.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Robert5091]

In the same way that a big attacking rebound today certainly would look extraordinary.

If we see something akin to Froome's rebound in the Vuelta last year, I'll say the clinic will explode.

 

[bikenrrd]

Re:

In the same way that a big attacking rebound today certainly would look extraordinary.

If we see something akin to Froome's rebound in the Vuelta last year, I'll say the clinic will explode.

He's going backwards. He's popped.