Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

1…6791112…44

Comments

  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    BTW for those interested Richard Moore's interviewing Tim Kerrison re power data for tonight's Humaninvent podcast

    https://audioboo.fm/channel/tourdefrance
  • dg74
    dg74 Posts: 656
    OnYourRight wrote:
    No tA Doctor: not sure I agree that knowing someone’s sustained power would tell you when they’re hurting. The variables on the road would be incalculable, surely?

    I do agree that using power to predict doping might be difficult or impossible for a whole variety of reasons.

    RichN95: as you note, people are already using what meagre and unreliable data they have to prove one thing or another. Improving the accuracy of that data, by publishing power numbers, could only be a good thing.

    There must be something about Froome’s data that Brailsford is worried about. It might even be that he runs a totally clean team but is privately worried that Froome dopes on his own.

    Ferrari has a few thoughts on yesterday’s stage here, for those who give the man time of day.

    Ferrari's view seems ok to me. For what it's worth - we're all looking for a scapegoat here. But what if, just what if, Froome is doing this clean? Are we going to keep digging up - or trying to dig up - dirt that isn't there?

    Just a thought.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    OnYourRight wrote:
    There must be something about Froome’s data that Brailsford is worried about. It might even be that he runs a totally clean team but is privately worried that Froome dopes on his own.
    No there really isn't. He said it's because there's a lot of pseudo science out there and people can't be relied on to interpret the data properly. (It's data which is of limited value anyway). Making it public won't convince anyone of anything, but it will give certain people like Le Monde/Vayer some data for them to abuse and misrepresent.

    Do you really think someone who has been constantly banging away at the 'Sky are doping' drum for a couple of years is going to see data - any data - and say 'wow, I was wrong'?
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • above_the_cows
    above_the_cows Posts: 11,406
    I'll say it again. Some of these people are true believers. You could surgically attach them to Chris Froome's left hip for a year and they would still insist that he dopes. Nothing and I mean nothing will convince these people otherwise. Sky doping has become just another conspiracy theory for these people to go along with alien abductions and the CIA were behind 9/11.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    This was a good podcast discussion over the weekend with one of the two participants being Michael Creed.

    http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/race- ... episode-5/

    Even though its on cyclismas (spew), its worth a listen especially when they get onto the subject of Sky and the insinuations. Hear what a current pro has to say on the matter.
  • slim_boy_fat
    slim_boy_fat Posts: 1,810
    dg74 wrote:
    OnYourRight wrote:
    No tA Doctor: not sure I agree that knowing someone’s sustained power would tell you when they’re hurting. The variables on the road would be incalculable, surely?

    I do agree that using power to predict doping might be difficult or impossible for a whole variety of reasons.

    RichN95: as you note, people are already using what meagre and unreliable data they have to prove one thing or another. Improving the accuracy of that data, by publishing power numbers, could only be a good thing.

    There must be something about Froome’s data that Brailsford is worried about. It might even be that he runs a totally clean team but is privately worried that Froome dopes on his own.

    Ferrari has a few thoughts on yesterday’s stage here, for those who give the man time of day.

    Ferrari's view seems ok to me. For what it's worth - we're all looking for a scapegoat here. But what if, just what if, Froome is doing this clean? Are we going to keep digging up - or trying to dig up - dirt that isn't there?

    Just a thought.
    Some people will keep digging no matter what. For some people that's all they live for, they exist to prove some, particularly Sky, are doping. Now maybe that is the fault of the past and as Iain has already said, does anybody know what clean cycling looks like but I find it incredibly sad that so many people, seemingly, exist to prove people dope.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    OnYourRight wrote:
    Doobz wrote:
    Is Chris Froome Doping

    Podcast of @CapeTalk567 interview on ‎#tdf. Too short for detail, but basics covered. "Performance worth questioning"

    https://soundcloud.com/primediabroadcas ... ome-doping
    Worth listening to – and only 6 minutes long, so go ahead and do it, all.
    RichN95 wrote:
    OnYourRight wrote:
    Do you really think someone who has been constantly banging away at the 'Sky are doping' drum for a couple of years is going to see data - any data - and say 'wow, I was wrong'?
    No, but those people don’t matter, and as the above podcast mentions, they’re currently making plenty of noise even if they have to make up the power data. At least if Sky gave them some real data the debate could move on to the methodology.

    It would be interesting to see the analysis of power data by people who don’t need to make noise to further their career. Without real data none of them are willing to make strong statements one way or the other (again, like the South African doc in the podcast).

    Does anyone have a link to today’s Sky press conference? I haven’t been able to find it.


    Link to the press conference? It wasnt broadcast live...

    There'll be plenty of journos present publishing write-ups. Try Reuters - Julian Pretot's usually quick off the mark.
  • above_the_cows
    above_the_cows Posts: 11,406
    OnYourRight wrote:
    Doobz wrote:
    Is Chris Froome Doping

    Podcast of @CapeTalk567 interview on ‎#tdf. Too short for detail, but basics covered. "Performance worth questioning"

    https://soundcloud.com/primediabroadcas ... ome-doping
    Worth listening to – and only 6 minutes long, so go ahead and do it, all.
    RichN95 wrote:
    OnYourRight wrote:
    Do you really think someone who has been constantly banging away at the 'Sky are doping' drum for a couple of years is going to see data - any data - and say 'wow, I was wrong'?
    No, but those people don’t matter, and as the above podcast mentions, they’re currently making plenty of noise even if they have to make up the power data. At least if Sky gave them some real data the debate could move on to the methodology.

    It would be interesting to see the analysis of power data by people who don’t need to make noise to further their career. Without real data none of them are willing to make strong statements one way or the other (again, like the South African doc in the podcast).

    Does anyone have a link to today’s Sky press conference? I haven’t been able to find it.

    Well the South African doc can start with David Lopez's power data from yesterday. He can also go back and find Bernie Eisel's power data from the Giro last year as well as countless other Sky riders power data that Sky have released that I can't remember now off the top of my head. The raw data is there to analyse. Problem is on its own it doesn't actually tell you very much because there are a whole host of other dependent and independent variables that need to be added in order for any serious regression analysis to hold water.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • dg74
    dg74 Posts: 656
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    dg74 wrote:
    OnYourRight wrote:
    No tA Doctor: not sure I agree that knowing someone’s sustained power would tell you when they’re hurting. The variables on the road would be incalculable, surely?

    I do agree that using power to predict doping might be difficult or impossible for a whole variety of reasons.

    RichN95: as you note, people are already using what meagre and unreliable data they have to prove one thing or another. Improving the accuracy of that data, by publishing power numbers, could only be a good thing.

    There must be something about Froome’s data that Brailsford is worried about. It might even be that he runs a totally clean team but is privately worried that Froome dopes on his own.

    Ferrari has a few thoughts on yesterday’s stage here, for those who give the man time of day.

    Ferrari's view seems ok to me. For what it's worth - we're all looking for a scapegoat here. But what if, just what if, Froome is doing this clean? Are we going to keep digging up - or trying to dig up - dirt that isn't there?

    Just a thought.
    Some people will keep digging no matter what. For some people that's all they live for, they exist to prove some, particularly Sky, are doping. Now maybe that is the fault of the past and as Iain has already said, does anybody know what clean cycling looks like but I find it incredibly sad that so many people, seemingly, exist to prove people dope.

    I wholeheartedly agree.

    It's like a massive 'told you so' exercise.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    RichN95 wrote:
    OnYourRight wrote:
    There must be something about Froome’s data that Brailsford is worried about. It might even be that he runs a totally clean team but is privately worried that Froome dopes on his own.
    No there really isn't. He said it's because there's a lot of pseudo science out there and people can't be relied on to interpret the data properly. (It's data which is of limited value anyway). Making it public won't convince anyone of anything, but it will give certain people like Le Monde/Vayer some data for them to abuse and misrepresent.

    Do you really think someone who has been constantly banging away at the 'Sky are doping' drum for a couple of years is going to see data - any data - and say 'wow, I was wrong'?


    the Inner Ring ‏@inrng 6 Jul
    I'd like to see the data but then I'd like to see Coca Cola's secret recipe too. Froome's power curve is a legitimate trade secret
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Turfle
    Turfle Posts: 3,762
    Has a conclusion been reached?
  • dg74
    dg74 Posts: 656
    Turfle wrote:
    Has a conclusion been reached?

    Yes. We're all Pi$$ing in the wind.
  • Turfle
    Turfle Posts: 3,762
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    This was a good podcast discussion over the weekend with one of the two participants being Michael Creed.

    http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/race- ... episode-5/

    Even though its on cyclismas (spew), its worth a listen especially when they get onto the subject of Sky and the insinuations. Hear what a current pro has to say on the matter.

    I would definitely recommend the Michael Creed podcasts. The humansinvent ones are good too. Tour time is good time for podcasts.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,179
    Interesting little piece on ITV's rest day show. Even Kimmage sounded sane and reasonable. Good points made by all 3 (Brailsford, Kimmage and Millar) from varying perspectives. Was also good to see Imlach raising the Armstrong issue - Phil & Paul have probably taken him of their Christmas card lists.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    agree with the above, except to point out (without wanting to question his integrity) that Walsh is a Murdoch employee.


    Do you think that if Walsh got so much as a whiff that something was going on, that he wouldnt expose it? My god, on top of the Lance business, he'd be made for life!!

    Sod writing for the Sunday Times, he'd resign if he felt he had to, and go ballastic. The huge expose, the book deal, he'd never have to work again.

    The Murdoch thing is an utter red herring.
    I see no reason to suspect Sky, I just think the 'embedding' situation deserves a bit more scepticism. He was primarily there to puff the team in the Sunday Times. Obviously, being seen to be genuinely clean is great for publicity, but this is about publicity first and transparency second.

    What you ve said there Tom is a perfect analogy as to why Sky won't release the data. At the start of 2012, Walsh was a nailed on Saint, the hero of the Armstrong Exposee and a man whose word was gospel and could do no wrong. Now he's said that there is no evidence that Sky are doping, he is a Publicity Whore and a Murdoch Stooge. Would you release sensitive data to people who think like that. Hells to the Nizzy no you would not!

    It's taken me 2 degrees and 6 years further experience to distinguish good science in a nice part of one small part of science. Do I think I could do it in my free time in a totally different part? Again - Hells to the Nizzy I could not!.

    Do I think a houswife/occasional politican or a few journos could do it? Again....

    A good early indicator of the utter d1ckheads taht ran Cyclismas (and one of the reasons I did nt give any money to the Kimmage Fund) was so called "PlasterGate" at the end of last years Tour when Wiggins was interviewed on the Massage table by Boulting and co. Aaron brown - that wise sage - noticed he had a plaster on his forearm and kicked up a massive stink about how this was PROOF that he'd had a blood transfusion. Even when Sky had supplied him with the UCI's own Doping Test sheet for that very day he Still did nt back down. The plaster was covering up a wound from a transfusion, nothing else. Do you trust these people to accuratly review a riders data?

    Again...


    @OTR - The reason it would be useful is that Bertie could take all of Froomes data for the 2014 Tour and know EXACTLY where has has to be for 2014. He could spout all the press conference rubbish about "best number ever, sensations are good, coming into form" But Riis would KNOW that he was capable/incapable of competing.
    The new bike is FFFFFFFFFFFFLiping Awesome btw!
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    If I were a rider I wouldn't even confirm either my height or weight never mind power data.

    Why do people believe they have the right to see this information? D1ckheads.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • frisbee
    frisbee Posts: 691
    ddraver wrote:
    It's taken me 2 degrees and 6 years further experience to distinguish good science in a nice part of one small part of science. Do I think I could do it in my free time in a totally different part? Again - Hells to the Nizzy I could not!.

    This is a really good point, a sane person with any sort of scientific training (or even just GCSE science) wouldn't make doping claims based on the minimal amount of data available. What about if Lance Armstrong wasn't riding flat out!

    Relegating it down to a power/weight/time analysis is inept. Just biopsy a bit of thigh muscle from each of the top riders to see which one is the best, no more dicking around for 3 weeks trundling around France!
  • above_the_cows
    above_the_cows Posts: 11,406
    ddraver wrote:
    The new bike is FFFFFFFFFFFFLiping Awesome btw!

    Yeah but is it Hells to the Nizzy* awesome?


    *I have no idea what this means.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • petemadoc
    petemadoc Posts: 2,331
    Pross wrote:
    Interesting little piece on ITV's rest day show. Even Kimmage sounded sane and reasonable. Good points made by all 3 (Brailsford, Kimmage and Millar) from varying perspectives. Was also good to see Imlach raising the Armstrong issue - Phil & Paul have probably taken him of their Christmas card lists.

    I freekin love Chris Boardman, he makes it so simple, he's got all the answers.

    Imlach basically states that Vinokourov and Riis are dodgy fooktards and it's a shame it will take them so long to die. AWESOME!
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    +1 for the ITV report - it's between the 2nd and 3rd ad breaks if you want to just skip to it

    DB deals with the release of power data and the MPCC too..
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    edited July 2013
    Here is an illustration of why comparing individual times on climbs is nonsense. An example from another sport: athletics. Sure there may be dopers, but it's the stats we're interested in.

    Here are the two 2012 Olympic 1500m semi finals. Same track, same wind, same weather, same stakes, the fields should be evenly matched and everyone should be on top form.

    As you can see from the image below, heat one is won in a time of 3.42 (eventual gold & silver winners are in this heat). In the second heat the person finishing last does 3.40 - two seconds quicker! How is this possible. Are all the second heat on drugs and the first heat clean?

    Well suggest that it's down to doping on an athletics forum you would be laughed at. They will explain how the second one was probably run faster earlier to get the fastest loser spots. To say it's doping is foolish in the extreme.

    Yet in cycling pseudo scientists like Vayer use times as proof of doping. It's ludicrous. Yet who is questioning that logic? They lap it up without question as it tells them what they want to hear.

    j3jj.png
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,550
    Worth reading the latest on Sports scientists, far more nuanced. I don't think he does twitter very well. Has a knock at Vayer in it. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07 ... ables.html
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • adamfo
    adamfo Posts: 763
    Chris Froome has an extreme ectomorph body.(Octopus pushing a shopping trolley as some wag noted) It's not dissimilar to the traditional Massai hunter gathers who are tall and thin and have great endurance. The hotter the temperature the bigger the advantage.
    Armstrong looks pretty normal. If EPO gave him a boost of 6% (the sort of figures Tyler Hamilton talked about in his book) why couldn't Froome get close to or match Armstrong's climbing ability by force of nature alone ?

    One area Froome might look at is keeping his head still. When he is really cranking he wastes energy with awkward head jerking.
  • FransJacques
    FransJacques Posts: 2,148
    RichN95 wrote:
    it's the stats we're interested in.

    http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/54770 ... rning-shot

    Fill your boots.
    When a cyclist has a disagreement with a car; it's not who's right, it's who's left.
  • FransJacques
    FransJacques Posts: 2,148
    Best quote on the ups/downs of Porte:

    "Maybe Porte is going to chug a bottle of Jack Daniels with his unborn twin tonight then ride back into contention tomorrow in a suicide breakaway..."
    When a cyclist has a disagreement with a car; it's not who's right, it's who's left.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    FransJacques wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    it's the stats we're interested in.

    http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/54770 ... rning-shot

    Fill your boots.
    If that guy could write in anything resembling plain English I would read it, but it's incomprehensible babble. It appears though that he is making the same old mistakes - using a small amount of data with absolutely no reference to context.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • yorkshireraw
    yorkshireraw Posts: 1,632
    RichN95 wrote:
    Here is an illustration of why comparing individual times on climbs is nonsense. An example from another sport: athletics. Sure there may be dopers, but it's the stats we're interested in.

    Here are the two 2012 Olympic 1500m semi finals. Same track, same wind, same weather, same stakes, the fields should be evenly matched and everyone should be on top form.

    As you can see from the image below, heat one is won in a time of 3.42 (eventual gold & silver winners are in this heat). In the second heat the person finishing last does 3.40 - two seconds quicker! How is this possible. Are all the second heat on drugs and the first heat clean?

    Well suggest that it's down to doping on an athletics forum you would be laughed at. They will explain how the second one was probably run faster earlier to get the fastest loser spots. To say it's doping is foolish in the extreme.

    Yet in cycling pseudo scientists like Vayer use times as proof of doping. It's ludicrous. Yet who is questioning that logic? They lap it up without question as it tells them what they want to hear.

    j3jj.png

    Spot on. But the winner of the first semi (and eventual gold medalist) prob was doping.... But thats another discussion! (T&F is my 'other' sport..)
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    RichN95 wrote:
    Here is an illustration of why comparing individual times on climbs is nonsense. An example from another sport: athletics. Sure there may be dopers, but it's the stats we're interested in.

    Here are the two 2012 Olympic 1500m semi finals. Same track, same wind, same weather, same stakes, the fields should be evenly matched and everyone should be on top form.

    As you can see from the image below, heat one is won in a time of 3.42 (eventual gold & silver winners are in this heat). In the second heat the person finishing last does 3.40 - two seconds quicker! How is this possible. Are all the second heat on drugs and the first heat clean?

    Well suggest that it's down to doping on an athletics forum you would be laughed at. They will explain how the second one was probably run faster earlier to get the fastest loser spots. To say it's doping is foolish in the extreme.

    Yet in cycling pseudo scientists like Vayer use times as proof of doping. It's ludicrous. Yet who is questioning that logic? They lap it up without question as it tells them what they want to hear.

    j3jj.png

    good post.
  • slim_boy_fat
    slim_boy_fat Posts: 1,810
    Another example Rich. Here the numpties are on twitter comparing Contador in '09 to Froome this year.
    @ammattipyoraily: #TDF '13, Ax-3-D. (last 4.1km, 8.17%): Froome 11:20, 6.30 W/kg [DrF]
    #TDF '09, Verbier (last 4.1km, 7.76%): Contador 10:50, 6.34 W/kg [DrF]

    A completely different stage and they fail to mention one was on the first day in the high mountains on stage 8 whilst the second was the 4th day in the high mountains on stage 15. These guys are lunatics, to release data so these fucktards can bastardise it would be stupidity.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Another example Rich. Here the numpties are on twitter comparing Contador in '09 to Froome this year.
    @ammattipyoraily: #TDF '13, Ax-3-D. (last 4.1km, 8.17%): Froome 11:20, 6.30 W/kg [DrF]
    #TDF '09, Verbier (last 4.1km, 7.76%): Contador 10:50, 6.34 W/kg [DrF]

    A completely different stage and they fail to mention one was on the first day in the high mountains on stage 8 whilst the second was the 4th day in the high mountains on stage 15. These guys are lunatics, to release data so these fucktards can bastardise it would be stupidity.

    Whereas we of course know better, what with adding in the difference between stage 8 and stage 15 and the number of mountain days prev done. pah numpties. :roll:
This discussion has been closed.

Categories