Criticism of the Sky train (may contain spoilers)
Comments
-
jane90 wrote:
In logic, this is known as the fallacy of the excluded middle. To put the argument as a syllogism:Above The Cows wrote:Just because you choose to use a train it does not mean you are doping. The two things are not necessarily connected.
Moreover, the way you deny something proves nothing. There are only so many ways you can say no. The denial does not have to bare any relation to the thing that is actually being denied. Just because Sky deny doping it does not mean that they are doping, that is the most illogical argument I think I've ever heard.
All highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactic win races.
All dopers win races
Therefore all highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactics are dopers
or, if we put it another way,
All cats have four legs
All dogs have four legs.
Therefore all cats are dogs.
Except, from my reading of much of the logic on here, there isn't even the excluded middle. Much of the logic seems to say, 'a team that is known to have doped also very effectivley used the train tactic. Therefore any other team that also effectively uses a train tactic must be doping.' It's utterly distorted, why is there any connection between the two, other than their simultaneous use by USPS?0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:
I'm spending a lot of time looking up words and terminology...the intelligent stuff certainly aint coming from me!
These are good reference sites:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... ments.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/0 -
Have we figured it out they're cheating yet?0
-
Turfle wrote:Have we figured it out they're cheating yet?
Who? Above The Cows and Jane? No, I fink they know this stuff
0 -
Coriander wrote:jane90 wrote:
In logic, this is known as the fallacy of the excluded middle. To put the argument as a syllogism:Above The Cows wrote:Just because you choose to use a train it does not mean you are doping. The two things are not necessarily connected.
Moreover, the way you deny something proves nothing. There are only so many ways you can say no. The denial does not have to bare any relation to the thing that is actually being denied. Just because Sky deny doping it does not mean that they are doping, that is the most illogical argument I think I've ever heard.
All highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactic win races.
All dopers win races
Therefore all highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactics are dopers
or, if we put it another way,
All cats have four legs
All dogs have four legs.
Therefore all cats are dogs.
Except, from my reading of much of the logic on here, there isn't even the excluded middle. Much of the logic seems to say, 'a team that is known to have doped also very effectivley used the train tactic. Therefore any other team that also effectively uses a train tactic must be doping.' It's utterly distorted, why is there any connection between the two, other than their simultaneous use by USPS?
The argument was even stranger. It got down to proving something through denials, not even through the linking of generic racing tactics and doping. Both USPS and Sky deny doping. USPS was found to have doped therefore because Sky also denies doping like USPS did they must be doping. The only thing such arguments prove is that the person who is making them is desperate to prove their version of truth in any way that they can.
Great examples jane90. Correlation is not causation.0 -
0
-
Richmond Racer wrote:Turfle wrote:Have we figured it out they're cheating yet?
Who? Above The Cows and Jane? No, I fink they know this stuff
I get paid to 'know' and teach this stuff based on years of specialised training. I did once cheat in a French test but I don't teach French, plus surely I'd get a reduced sentence for willingly supplying the information and it was a very long time ago so statute of limitations apply...
Correlation is not causation.0 -
-
Back in the day, when I used to see a lot of this cr@p on Twitter (i.e. before the cull), it would p1ss me off when reputable cycling journalists loaned their credibility to the muppets by engaging in benign snark, but ignoring the wild-unfounded accusations. The recent Friebos altercation with FestinaGirl over her effectively broadcasting to her 7k followers that Porte was a fraud, is perhaps a little ray of sunshine, a harbinger of the Cycling Spring.
The exchange is chronicled here: http://www.cyclismas.com/2013/03/portly-richie-sparks-the-scaremongers-into-a-frenzy/. Warning Cyclismas link - the Daily Mail of amateurish digital new media cycling commentary. A bit more of this and we can get back to pointing and laughing at Twitter's asylum silo.
I'm hoping for some startling Classics performances from Geraint, Yogi, & EBH this Spring: because I like the riders, and I will enjoy the meltdowns....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Ah... The Classics.
In a way, aren't we all staring up into the gaping hole of Sky's palmares?
Taking into account all the factors that go into winning a classic - and especially a "monument"- is there a consensus as to what will constitute a Successful or Failed Spring for Sky this year?0 -
ddraver wrote:jane90 wrote:
In logic, this is known as the fallacy of the excluded middle. To put the argument as a syllogism:Above The Cows wrote:Just because you choose to use a train it does not mean you are doping. The two things are not necessarily connected.
Moreover, the way you deny something proves nothing. There are only so many ways you can say no. The denial does not have to bare any relation to the thing that is actually being denied. Just because Sky deny doping it does not mean that they are doping, that is the most illogical argument I think I've ever heard.
All highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactic win races.
All dopers win races
Therefore all highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactics are dopers
or, if we put it another way,
All cats have four legs
All dogs have four legs.
Therefore all cats are dogs.
Where the flip are all you intelligent people coming from?!?!?!
It seems to be since we allowed womens onto the forum innit. Before that it was only Rich and Iain who made me feel uneducated!0 -
Personally if they perform well in 2 grand tours this year I will be happy for them.
Can't see them doing exceptionally well in the spring classics as there are other teams who are looking to target these races and perhaps have more suitable winners?
Though you never know EBH might be a good shout for some of the races.Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.0 -
I would say that a successful classics campaign for sky would be:
1. EBH needs to win a big one dayer this year.
2. Stannard and Thomas to take a podium each in a classic.
3. Team riding to force a major selection in at least one race. i.e. signs of a one day plan coming together similar to how they have planned out stage race success.0 -
-
I'm fascinated to see whether Sky's 'riding by numbers' approach can overcome the legendarily uncontrollable nature of cobbled, or steep/narrow/hilly & cobbled, one day races. I would not be at all surprised at the end of Ardennes week people are complaining that Sky are killing The Classics they way they have garrotted stage racing. Of course, it is possible that there is nothing mythical about the uncontrollable nature of The Classics. In this case we'll be saying that despite training a squad(!) for specific roles in one-dayers, it all comes down to race-craft, true panache etc.OCDuPalais wrote:Ah... The Classics.
In a way, aren't we all staring up into the gaping hole of Sky's palmares?
Taking into account all the factors that go into winning a classic - and especially a "monument"- is there a consensus as to what will constitute a Successful or Failed Spring for Sky this year?
Geraint's 4th place on OHN was an encouraging start for the numbers guys....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
OCDuPalais wrote:Ah... The Classics.
In a way, aren't we all staring up into the gaping hole of Sky's palmares?
Taking into account all the factors that go into winning a classic - and especially a "monument"- is there a consensus as to what will constitute a Successful or Failed Spring for Sky this year?
Perhaps the consensus should be to not talk about Sky. I've just discovered I've got to fly to LA on 7 April and am thus missing P-R, something which I am in fact quite pleased about if only to miss the inevitable mud-slinging that will go on whatever the result.Correlation is not causation.0 -
ALIHISGREAT wrote:smithy21 wrote:I for one am amazed that Sky can do all these training camps, ride as a team, do all their super sneaky undetectable drugs that no-one else has heard of, kick the sh!t out of the peloton and still ride up climbs slower than Armstrong et al.
That's what the power meters are for! So they know they're not riding too quick
Froome must have got destroyed yesterday because he forgot to take his super-secret-marginal-gains-amphetamines :roll:Rundfahrt wrote:ALIHISGREAT wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:ddraver wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:You'd better watch out jerry3571, I made many of the same points and comparisons during the Tour last year and got banned, conveniently, for the exact number of days remaining in the Tour...while those attacking and insulting me received nothing. This is a Sky slobbering forum.
No, you got banned for being a d1ckhead...
Rich's list of riders, results and their teams is your answer Phreak...Remember in 10 years time there will be a new team doing the exact same thing and we ll all be saying they re boring and 10 years ago everything was panache filled and amazing.
Nice response, exactly the same thing you (and the other Sky slobbers) did on here during the Tour...but escaped a ban. I have to give you props for doing an excellent job of giving a perfect example of what I am talking about.
and you continue.. what does 'slobbers' even mean?
The question you should be asking is why it is ok for a member to call someone else a name like that for pointing out a fact that they do not like without any sort of punishment.
I'm betting you guys would be howling with anger if I was the one posting things like that towards the posters that slobber over Sky...especially if I did it over and over like ddraver.
you've been calling members of this forum 'slobbers'... hence why I asked what it meant. and D1ckhead isn't exactly the most extreme insult is it?
You need to get over the fact you got banned.. because the mods obviously had their reasons and perhaps start contributing constructively to the forum?
I'll tell you what, go back and read my posts during the Tour and the responses by d1ckheads like ddraver (I use that term since it has been made clear to me that it is ok to use) and see who deserved a ban and who was contributing constructively. I'll give you a hint, it was the same stuff going on then as is going on now, I get attacked and insulted because I dare question Sky/Wiggins and because I point out how those people sound just like the USPS fans did on forums back in the early 2000's.
What is telling is how you choose to excuse others while trying to make me out to be a problem. Perhaps you are one who is being a D1ckhead?0 -
I remember them well - My particular favourite was your "I don't care if there is no evidence to support me, I'm going to keep believing it anyway!"
And you have the gall to suggest that was a "constructive contribution"?
Please!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:I'll tell you what, go back and read my posts during the Tour and the responses by d1ckheads like ddraver (I use that term since it has been made clear to me that it is ok to use) and see who deserved a ban and who was contributing constructively. I'll give you a hint, it was the same stuff going on then as is going on now, I get attacked and insulted because I dare question Sky/Wiggins and because I point out how those people sound just like the USPS fans did on forums back in the early 2000's.
What is telling is how you choose to excuse others while trying to make me out to be a problem. Perhaps you are one who is being a D1ckhead?
Rundfahrt, are you a man?0 -
ddraver wrote:I remember them well - My particular favourite was your "I don't care if there is no evidence to support me, I'm going to keep believing it anyway!"
And you have the gall to suggest that was a "constructive contribution"?
Please!
Can you please post a link to that exact quote? I don't recall saying as much and would to see some proof that you aren't simply a little man who has to lie in order to feel good about himself.0 -
No I can't, I don't care that much to go trawling through your massive pile of bullsh1t. I remember very well, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you do too....
If I recall it was one of the last things you wrote before the mods took mercy on you if that's a guideWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Correlation is not causation.0
-
Rundfahrt wrote:...I get attacked and insulted because I dare question Sky/Wiggins and because I point out how those people sound just like the USPS fans did on forums back in the early 2000's.
You also continually choose to ignore it when people ask for something statistical to back up why you think there are similarities between Sky and USPS other than a) They win and b) They use a sound tactic of riding a 'train' of very solid 2nd tier stage race riders. So provide some numbers to back you up and people may take you more seriously.0 -
ddraver wrote:No I can't, I don't care that much to go trawling through your massive pile of bullsh1t. I remember very well, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you do too....
If I recall it was one of the last things you wrote before the mods took mercy on you if that's a guide Well, that was easy.
Ladies and gents, ddraver, confirmed liar!0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:ddraver wrote:No I can't, I don't care that much to go trawling through your massive pile of bullsh1t. I remember very well, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you do too....
If I recall it was one of the last things you wrote before the mods took mercy on you if that's a guide Well, that was easy.
Ladies and gents, ddraver, confirmed liar!
CHILDREN CALM DOWN OR YOUR BOTH GOING ON THE NAUGHTY STEPPain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.0 -
FTFYRundfahrt wrote:ddraver wrote:No I can't, I don't care that much to go trawling through your massive pile of bullsh1t. I remember very well, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you do too....
If I recall it was one of the last things you wrote before the mods took mercy on you if that's a guide Well, that was easy.
Ladies and gents, ddraver, confirmed person with life!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:ddraver wrote:No I can't, I don't care that much to go trawling through your massive pile of bullsh1t. I remember very well, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you do too....
If I recall it was one of the last things you wrote before the mods took mercy on you if that's a guide Well, that was easy.
Ladies and gents, ddraver, confirmed liar!
I don't think anyone actually thought ddraver was telling the exact truth.. just providing an amusing commentary on what most of your posts look like.0 -
ddraver wrote:
FTFYRundfahrt wrote:ddraver wrote:No I can't, I don't care that much to go trawling through your massive pile of bullsh1t. I remember very well, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you do too....
If I recall it was one of the last things you wrote before the mods took mercy on you if that's a guide Well, that was easy.
Ladies and gents, ddraver, confirmed person with life!
ddraver's far too busy getting smashed and dancing with Dutch hockey girls to go trawling through BS. And thats the truth of it. 0
