-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Krebs cycle said:
I think you need both and there is no reason you can't have both. The jobs are totally different.
Krebs cycle said:
Krebs thanks for this post. It clarifies things for me regarding burden of proof which has had me ponder for a while.
I think you are spot on regarding the catch them red handed. Without this approach the bio passport only stimulates doping to the 50% mark.
What would you say making all blood data publicly available say 3 months later? And stimulate a broader understanding of the issues facing the authorities trying to make rulings on positives. At the moment the authorities are totally open to criticism and innuendo. If the data was available the onus falls on teh riders and teams to explain discrepancies more, and we would - presumably - get further transparency happening...
Galic Ho said:
you're right there........in my posts i aim to say as much as possible with
few words.............your the polar opposite
remember you know very little about me.........i have never been a member
of velo news........i love cycling............not any cyclist
i encourage debate that introduces proof not stuff made up by members
to give themselves something to talk about
Galic Ho said:McQuack is Irish. You and your bankrupt country have a lot to answer for. Be greatful we don't stick the boot into your stinking joke of a nation.
Paul Kimmage and David Walsh cannot make up for sins your nation has committed in the name of cycling. Don't forget that champ. As it stands, the second greatest evil currently in cycling is Irish.
How about you and andy simpleton get a room? You can discuss how you didn't once bring up the OP. So carry on with your Guiness and McQuack worship, carry on. It is what Irishmen do isn't it? Look outside and remind yourself, you're Irish. You have more reason to off yourself than any Aussie has. Our country isn't broke, isn't a complete joke politically and in roles of authority and the weather is good here all year round. Just remind yourself of that.
What a deeply unpleasant angry little man you are.
Galic Ho said:
Galic Ho said:
Got it, the whole first quote means: Just look at the result and nothing else. It really sounded more complicated.
2010 Cancellara, E3-RVV-PR, and RVV and PR in super impressive style. Reasoned decision reached via cognitive skills linking various elements: Superdoped.
2011: E3, even more impressive than RVV/PR the year before. But ok, doesn't really count, only E3. RVV he tried to go one better than 2010, but this time had a guy on his wheel that stayed there, unlike Boonen in 2010, plus there was an organized chase in the back, not just small groups. Still almost won though. PR? No team, he lost that one in the head, not with the legs. Afraid to do what he usually is happy to do.... carry someone to the finish. And then Copenhagen, where he narrowly lost out on the medals, against Greipel in an uphill sprint. After linking various elements (results, results, results, and ignoring performance)=possibly not on a superprogram that year!
2012: He crashed, he won nothing that really counts, so. Let's forget MSR, let's forget that he drops everybody but Sagan on short uphill climbs. He didn't win, so...... Ultra developed cognitive skills clearly lead to the reasoned decision: He might not be on a superprogram!
Stupid guys like me assumed he was on the same stuff in all 3 years. But now I know better, thanks.
Little help: If you want to write an essay on how intelligent you are compared to others (because that's the main message you get out of that nobel prize material post), then drop the examples that show pretty clearly that your reasoning is incredibly simplistic.
Fanboy 101
Proof:
Proof depends on a number of things:
Who?
Is the rider from the same state as you? If yes burden of proof automatically higher.
Is the accuser from another nation? If yes then the accusation is probably motivated by anti-my state sentiment.
Is the accuser a former team-mate or journalist? If yes then the accusation is probably motivated by personal jealousy.
Do you like the rider? If yes then the burden of proof is automatically higher - and also it was probably a mistake.
The evidence
The acceptance of the evidence depends upon the answers to the first set of questions. If the answer was yes to any of the previous questions then the evidence is naturally much more dubious because the source of the information is tainted and so the evidence itself is likely to be fabricated or over-stated.
Positive test - There are a whole series of reasons why are favourites fail tests - none of them mean our heroes are dopers.
Firstly the tests give up false positives.
Secondly, the labs are not secure and the sample can be tampered with.
Thirdly, if we through enough mud at the testing procedure we can argue that it was flawed and the test result should be thrown out.
Fourthly, failing this the evidence can be question on the basis that 'science' (always a useful fallback when questioning evidence) has shown that such a positive can be caused by too much beef/sex/whisky/invisible twin
Eye-Witness testimony - This is an easy one to challenge. The first step is to invoke the 'no positive test' defence. This trick carefully prioritises one strand of evidence over another. Obviously, you choose to emphasize the importance of a piece that does not indicate doping. The second fallback is to check the passport and motives of the witness.
Documentary Evidence - A potentially tricky one but this one can be easily explained. It requires you to firstly accept the riders versions of events - so if the rider is found to be wiring cash to a doping doctor and the rider claims that it was for 'training plans' then that is the truth. You can buttress this by also referring to the fact that there is no 'positive test' nor is there any 'eye-witness testimony' you can incredulously ask 'surely someone would have seen him going into doctor X's offices'.
The second tool of rebuttal is the translation defence - documents will normally be in another language - translations can be re-translated - we can of course translate words into a more ambiguous meaning, and then we can spin that into the most positive light to show that our boy would never dope.
Circumstantial Evidence- This is the easiest one to challenge.
There is nothing direct so always in your response point out the lack of other evidence, use phrases like 'no smoking gun'.
A cunning ploy is this - circumstantial evidence requires the accuser to connect the dots and to make assumptions about why this means our boy is doping, so reverse this process - we can naturally assume that whatever the accusers see as happening never happened. And remember they are motivated by their blind hatred of our team/state/rider.
All of these arguments can be buttressed by support from friendly journalists who will of course promote 'our' side of the story. This is useful counter 'evidence'.
In short - the level of evidence required depends purely upon who is being accused and how much the person involved likes the accused. The more you like them the higher the level. There are also a whole multitude of tools available to enable the fanboy to dismiss any evidence as 'not proof'.
Proof:
Proof depends on a number of things:
Who?
Is the rider from the same state as you? If yes burden of proof automatically higher.
Is the accuser from another nation? If yes then the accusation is probably motivated by anti-my state sentiment.
Is the accuser a former team-mate or journalist? If yes then the accusation is probably motivated by personal jealousy.
Do you like the rider? If yes then the burden of proof is automatically higher - and also it was probably a mistake.
The evidence
The acceptance of the evidence depends upon the answers to the first set of questions. If the answer was yes to any of the previous questions then the evidence is naturally much more dubious because the source of the information is tainted and so the evidence itself is likely to be fabricated or over-stated.
Positive test - There are a whole series of reasons why are favourites fail tests - none of them mean our heroes are dopers.
Firstly the tests give up false positives.
Secondly, the labs are not secure and the sample can be tampered with.
Thirdly, if we through enough mud at the testing procedure we can argue that it was flawed and the test result should be thrown out.
Fourthly, failing this the evidence can be question on the basis that 'science' (always a useful fallback when questioning evidence) has shown that such a positive can be caused by too much beef/sex/whisky/invisible twin
Eye-Witness testimony - This is an easy one to challenge. The first step is to invoke the 'no positive test' defence. This trick carefully prioritises one strand of evidence over another. Obviously, you choose to emphasize the importance of a piece that does not indicate doping. The second fallback is to check the passport and motives of the witness.
Documentary Evidence - A potentially tricky one but this one can be easily explained. It requires you to firstly accept the riders versions of events - so if the rider is found to be wiring cash to a doping doctor and the rider claims that it was for 'training plans' then that is the truth. You can buttress this by also referring to the fact that there is no 'positive test' nor is there any 'eye-witness testimony' you can incredulously ask 'surely someone would have seen him going into doctor X's offices'.
The second tool of rebuttal is the translation defence - documents will normally be in another language - translations can be re-translated - we can of course translate words into a more ambiguous meaning, and then we can spin that into the most positive light to show that our boy would never dope.
Circumstantial Evidence- This is the easiest one to challenge.
There is nothing direct so always in your response point out the lack of other evidence, use phrases like 'no smoking gun'.
A cunning ploy is this - circumstantial evidence requires the accuser to connect the dots and to make assumptions about why this means our boy is doping, so reverse this process - we can naturally assume that whatever the accusers see as happening never happened. And remember they are motivated by their blind hatred of our team/state/rider.
All of these arguments can be buttressed by support from friendly journalists who will of course promote 'our' side of the story. This is useful counter 'evidence'.
In short - the level of evidence required depends purely upon who is being accused and how much the person involved likes the accused. The more you like them the higher the level. There are also a whole multitude of tools available to enable the fanboy to dismiss any evidence as 'not proof'.
Ferminal said:
Just getting back to you as I didn't (and can't) answer your second question, but it's made me think.
As far as I can see things Tygart appears to have played a magnificent (and successful) bluff. Didn't McQuaid have the staggering temerity to answer the USADA reasoned decision with a suggestion that Armstrong could or should go to CAS? He didn't, and there must be a reason why he didn't. Is it that presented with such a body of evidence CAS would not dare to bring shame upon their own reputation by finding in Armstrong's favour?
Why is the Tygart strategy not replicable by all the other national agencies?
I see the difficulty re: the obtaining of witness testimonies under threat of severe criminal penalties for perjury, but is there no way around this problem? Or was it really a wholly unique set of circumstances that Tygart was just bright enough to be able to exploit?
Sorry if the question is naive or annoying - if it's already been answered you could just link me to the relevant conversations.
Thanks.
Mrs John Murphy said:
The opposite of the fanboy is the paranoid cynic. Paranoid cynics have their own biases.
In the same way a fanboy can create an ingenious argument justifying how his idol is not cheating, a paranoid cynic can create an ingenious argument that turns any conceivable event into a form of 'evidence' for cheating.
Well I believe that the CAS (or some other such tribunal) is the appropriate place to judge and decide doping cases, not the "court of public appeal". There already exists an expert blood doping panel that reviews biopassport data so I'm not exactly sure what discrepancies the teams would need to explain in the event the blood doping panel has previously given them a green light. In the event that the doping panel red flags a blood profile, then we all hope the stinkhole of corruption at the UCI gets cleaned out so that those red flags actually make it to the CAS for adjudication. If that does happen and a positive result is handed down, then it gets made public eventually anyway.Tinman said:
Remember that we are never going to have 100% clean sport. Hence, the goal of anti-doping authorities is to make life as difficult as possible for those who take the risk. It is the threat of getting caught that discourages doping and thus makes sport cleaner, not simply removing the few whom actually do test positive. If the biopassport isn't a strong enough threat, then something else is needed. If you've got an observer breathing down your neck all the time, that threat is heightened even without spending money on the blood and urine analyses. Hopefully it reaches a critical mass at some point and all the teams start thinking, damn we are having a real hard time trying to dope, so maybe everyone else is too. Suddenly they aren't so worried about getting beaten by others who are doping, which has been the source of the problem for the past 20yrs.
crux
so all cyclists are now guilty?
yes cycnics have been found to be right about certain issues but not in
all cases
reasoned debate is important pro / negative
when your arguments are thin on the ground call observers 'fanboys'
Mrs John Murphy said:
so all cyclists are now guilty?
yes cycnics have been found to be right about certain issues but not in
all cases
reasoned debate is important pro / negative
when your arguments are thin on the ground call observers 'fanboys'
Can you give me an example of the cynics being proved wrong about a rider?
Lets be honest - you're not really one for reasoned, intellectual debate are you.
And here's the thing - when the arguments cut too close to home you call them thin on the ground.
Lets be honest - you're not really one for reasoned, intellectual debate are you.
And here's the thing - when the arguments cut too close to home you call them thin on the ground.
Krebs cycle said:
But it isn't working.
Armstrong's blood values went through fine.
Rasmussen's blood values went through fine.
There are only 3 members at a time looking at the profiles and it only takes 1 member to say no (problems) and the profile gets a pass. If they all agree, only then does it go for a second review.
This system is flawed, imo, and should be tightened up.
Mrs John Murphy said:
The answer is no, but in a way this is the whole point. To prove cynics were wrong about a rider, you would have to prove the rider was innocent. That's impossible short of 24 hour surveillance over a lifetime. So unfortunately, you can only prove guilt of doping, not innocence.
Cramps said:
It wasn't intended as a facetious comment. It is perhaps a damning indictment on cycling that the cynics keep on being right.
?
sir this should be discussion not argument ....straight away you devalue the
worth of your statement by talking about me?
find one post where i stick up for any cyclist saying that they are clean
other than where i question clinic posts where members claim imaginary
or unsubstantiated proof
sadly there are too many members who think that suspicion is proof
then the hog completely making things up
Mrs John Murphy said:
sir this should be discussion not argument ....straight away you devalue the
worth of your statement by talking about me?
find one post where i stick up for any cyclist saying that they are clean
other than where i question clinic posts where members claim imaginary
or unsubstantiated proof
sadly there are too many members who think that suspicion is proof
then the hog completely making things up
You were the one who made it personal not me. If that wasn't your intention then you should write more clearly. So if anyone devalued their own argument it was you.
Your view of what is imagined or unsubstantiated is governed not by the evidence but who it is about, who is making the claims. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.
If you have a problem with the hog then I suggest you take it up with him.
PS Are you still pretending to be english?
Your view of what is imagined or unsubstantiated is governed not by the evidence but who it is about, who is making the claims. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.
If you have a problem with the hog then I suggest you take it up with him.
PS Are you still pretending to be english?
personal
my personal comment was that your wrong to call members 'fanboys'
instead of using reasoning .........and i repeat you are wrong to do so
my nationality is hardly of importance........again you make this about
me................why?
as it is yes! i'm english born and bred as my father my grandfather
great grandfather great great grandfather ect
Mrs John Murphy said:
my personal comment was that your wrong to call members 'fanboys'
instead of using reasoning .........and i repeat you are wrong to do so
my nationality is hardly of importance........again you make this about
me................why?
as it is yes! i'm english born and bred as my father my grandfather
great grandfather great great grandfather ect
Krebs cycle said:
Are you a scientist?
This is not a loaded or deragatory question.
In my experience, Scientists get all wrapped up in this kind of academic discussion.
Also in my experience, the 80/20 rule more than fits any complex negotiation.
You spend most of your time arguing over those circumstances that are the least likely to occur.
So, what does the record look like since the Sydney Games? We have achieved the following:
1. At least one entire sport in complete and utter disrepute.
2. No EPO false positives.
The scientists have been taken advantage of by the forces that want to perpetuate the status quo = doping.
Dave.
ebandit said:
Where is your evidence to prove that?
When you start using reasoning and full sentences then I'll take you seriously, until then you just seem a very familiar troll.
Susan Westemeyer
Retired Moderator
Everyone cool it with the personal attacks on those who disagree with you, or whose writing style you do not like.
This is an official warning.
Susan
This is an official warning.
Susan
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Latest posts
-
-
Presidential Cycling Tour of Turkey 2024, 21st to 28th April- Latest: Armchair cyclist
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram