Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*

1…1213151718…28

Comments

  • Crankbrother
    Crankbrother Posts: 1,695
    mike6 wrote:
    NapoleonD wrote:
    Just put someone on your ignore list. Someone's obviously bored over at Conspiracy Corner aka the clinic.

    That's the secret. I have 4 people on my ignore list (have a guess) and it makes the forum a much more enjoyable and informative place. There are a lot of people on here with whom you can have a sensible and adult exchange of views without having to deal with the zealots and conspiracy theorists. :D

    Based on vague memory, is that all those who question anything that doesn't fit you're nationalistic zealot concept? (I'd lay money that you can't read this first hand) ...
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    mike6 wrote:
    NapoleonD wrote:
    Just put someone on your ignore list. Someone's obviously bored over at Conspiracy Corner aka the clinic.

    That's the secret. I have 4 people on my ignore list (have a guess) and it makes the forum a much more enjoyable and informative place. There are a lot of people on here with whom you can have a sensible and adult exchange of views without having to deal with the zealots and conspiracy theorists. :D

    It's lucky that we don't all think your way.

    Just to ignore someone's point because you don't agree with them about Cycling :lol::lol::lol: does not make them a zealot. Do you know what a zealot his?

    If you can't handle someone's view then why on earth would you come on a forum. I love to see opposing views and gaining new insight. Even when Insulted and It has been a few times, I try and respond in good humour. This is only a sport and it does not effect the day to day business of our lives.

    Zealot a :wink:
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    NapoleonD wrote:
    Just put someone on your ignore list. Someone's obviously bored over at Conspiracy Corner aka the clinic.

    On mathematical probability alone the likelihood of a Grand Tour winner and the Top 5 doping is highly likely. In fact a clean GT winner based on the historic context of the last 30 years would just about be a mathematical improbability.

    Coupled with Froome's domination and climbing times then if you were to use statistics alone it would be a very safe bet to conclude that he is doping.

    That's not conspiracy theory that what's known as exact sum.

    A conspiracy in grand tour terms is how does a rider actually win clean? The Vuelta is case in point.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,711
    Definitely not a conspiracy theory, but it isn't an exact sum, either.
    I think you'll find the correct term you are searching for is called a guess.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,549
    I demand a graph. That's what this debate has been missing all this time.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • Arkibal
    Arkibal Posts: 850
    I don't know how anyone, who's followed the sport longer than just a couple of years, thinks that Sky's dominance won't raise questions?
    What Froome did this year was exactly what LA did, dominate the climbs and even flat TT's.

    How can a skinny climber do both, riddle me that.
    Last time it happened, we know how it was achieved. (Contador, he had a similar doping doctor as Leinders, and yet he was a rider that had shown huge talent early on)

    I've only seen excerpts of the Walsh book, but from what I've seen, it fits right into fairy tale.
  • durhamwasp
    durhamwasp Posts: 1,247
    haha Froome the next Armstrong because he can climb and time trial, quality.
    http://www.snookcycling.wordpress.com - Reports on Cingles du Mont Ventoux, Alpe D'Huez, Galibier, Izoard, Tourmalet, Paris-Roubaix Sportive & Tour of Flanders Sportive, Amstel Gold Xperience, Vosges, C2C, WOTR routes....
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    Definitely not a conspiracy theory, but it isn't an exact sum, either.
    I think you'll find the correct term you are searching for is called a guess.

    A guess?

    Not at all. As stated, based on statistics alone there's a very high probability of doping.

    That's not to say he is. But if you were to apply statistical analysis without emotion then yes doping is likely to win a GT.

    You couple that with his climbing times, problems with the passport system per Armstrong, Horner etc., the most devastating and corrupt franchise of Armstrong/UCI being uncovered to conceal doping then yes, that analysis is highly likely.

    Probably the discussion for another thread but if you gave a statistician the data they'd conclude doping.

    Of course emotion plays a big part in people wanting to "believe" - see Armstrong. But on stats alone the likelihood of Sky and Froome doping is inordinately high.

    Guessing would be to say "they are clean" without providing reason to why that is so. I've not seen anything compelling to suggest Froome is some form of "anomaly" to the rule of grand tour winners, have you?
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    Arkibal wrote:
    How can a skinny climber do both, riddle me that.
    Last time it happened, we know how it was achieved. (Contador, he had a similar doping doctor as Leinders, and yet he was a rider that had shown huge talent early on)
    Almost all Tour winners have been amongst the best climbers and best time triallists. Very few exceptions. And they mostly been fairly lightweight. This really shouldn't baffle anyone.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    RichN95 wrote:
    Arkibal wrote:
    How can a skinny climber do both, riddle me that.
    Last time it happened, we know how it was achieved. (Contador, he had a similar doping doctor as Leinders, and yet he was a rider that had shown huge talent early on)
    Almost all Tour winners have been amongst the best climbers and best time triallists. Very few exceptions. And they mostly been fairly lightweight. This really shouldn't baffle anyone.

    True. And of those Tour winners how many have been busted to doping?

    I could answer this question blindfolded.
  • Arkibal
    Arkibal Posts: 850
    RichN95 wrote:
    Arkibal wrote:
    How can a skinny climber do both, riddle me that.
    Last time it happened, we know how it was achieved. (Contador, he had a similar doping doctor as Leinders, and yet he was a rider that had shown huge talent early on)
    Almost all Tour winners have been amongst the best climbers and best time triallists. Very few exceptions. And they mostly been fairly lightweight. This really shouldn't baffle anyone.

    Andy Schleck and Carlos Sastre are amongst the best time triallists?
    C'mon now... :roll:
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    RichN95 wrote:
    mm1 wrote:
    No one has answered the critical question yet, are the folks over in the asylum go to wet themselves when they read it?
    They don't need to read it to wet themselves. They are already outraged about everything they haven't actually read. But hope is at hand - they are holding out for some genuine truth from the Kimmage film (seemingly ignoring that he rarely turned up and the articles he wrote were insipid).

    I've read the book. Some here haven't. Actually most here haven't.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Arkibal wrote:
    How can a skinny climber do both, riddle me that.
    Last time it happened, we know how it was achieved. (Contador, he had a similar doping doctor as Leinders, and yet he was a rider that had shown huge talent early on)
    Almost all Tour winners have been amongst the best climbers and best time triallists. Very few exceptions. And they mostly been fairly lightweight. This really shouldn't baffle anyone.

    True. And of those Tour winners how many have been busted to doping?

    I could answer this question blindfolded.
    Not as many as you think. Six or seven I think, depending on whether you include Landis.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Arkibal wrote:
    How can a skinny climber do both, riddle me that.
    Last time it happened, we know how it was achieved. (Contador, he had a similar doping doctor as Leinders, and yet he was a rider that had shown huge talent early on)
    Almost all Tour winners have been amongst the best climbers and best time triallists. Very few exceptions. And they mostly been fairly lightweight. This really shouldn't baffle anyone.

    True. And of those Tour winners how many have been busted to doping?

    I could answer this question blindfolded.
    Not as many as you think. Six or seven I think, depending on whether you include Landis.

    Over what period in years do you conclude?
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    edited December 2013
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Over what period in years do you conclude?
    Since doping was banned (about 1966) to the present. Anyone prior to that couldn't, by definition, be doping as there was such an offence yet.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Over what period in years do you conclude?
    Since doping was banned (about 1966) to the present.

    1966! That's a long way back!

    Ok list them out.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Over what period in years do you conclude?
    Since doping was banned (about 1966) to the present.

    1966! That's a long way back!

    Ok list them out.
    No, you tell me more than seven. Ones that have actually been sanctioned for a doping offence - not ones you think doped.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Over what period in years do you conclude?
    Since doping was banned (about 1966) to the present.

    1966! That's a long way back!

    Ok list them out.
    No, you tell me more than seven. Ones that have actually been sanctioned for or admitted to a doping offence - not ones you think doped.

    What am I doing?

    Strong ITT'ers and climbers who've won the Tour since 1966 who've also been caught for doping? (Officially or by police).
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    What am I doing?

    Strong ITT'ers and climbers who've won the Tour since 1966 who've also been caught for doping? (Officially or by police).
    Either will do (I think the police are pretty official)
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,557
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Over what period in years do you conclude?
    Since doping was banned (about 1966) to the present.

    1966! That's a long way back!

    Ok list them out.
    No, you tell me more than seven. Ones that have actually been sanctioned for or admitted to a doping offence - not ones you think doped.

    Wikipedia has 11 including Landis, but excluding Aimar. I think that list is quite generous as some of the riders who get a pass had murky connections.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_ ... since_1961
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    TheBigBean wrote:

    Wikipedia has 11 including Landis, but excluding Aimar. I think that list is quite generous as some of the riders who get a pass had murky connections.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_ ... since_1961
    OK, there were a couple I didn't know about. Partly because they happened late in their career.
    Still, they are outnumbered by those never busted.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    edited December 2013
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    What am I doing?

    Strong ITT'ers and climbers who've won the Tour since 1966 who've also been caught for doping? (Officially or by police).
    Either will do (I think the police are pretty official)
    Allora, strong ITTs who've won the Tour (not podium!) who've also been excellent climbers.


    1. Ullrich
    2. Armstrong
    3. Landis
    4. Riis
    5. Fignon
    6. Contador (2009 won ITT)
    7. Merckx
    8. Delgado

    9. Roche (never sanctioned or admitted)

    and

    10. Froome (only kidding) ;)

    What do I win?

    Give me the podium and you'd have a much larger list. Armstrong doesn't help. He sucks up 7 years.

    Sad also I have to leave off Indurian. I mean he was clean, yes? :D

    Oh. And Hinault. He admitted as well. 11.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Allora, strong ITTs who've won the Tour (not podium!) who've also been excellent climbers.
    So where does LeMond fit into this little theory of yours?
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Allora, strong ITTs who've won the Tour (not podium!) who've also been excellent climbers.
    So where does LeMond fit into this little theory of yours?

    What theory is that?
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    RichN95 wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:

    Wikipedia has 11 including Landis, but excluding Aimar. I think that list is quite generous as some of the riders who get a pass had murky connections.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_ ... since_1961
    OK, there were a couple I didn't know about. Partly because they happened late in their career.
    Still, they are outnumbered by those never busted.

    Never busted but not clean? :shock:
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,557
    RichN95 wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:

    Wikipedia has 11 including Landis, but excluding Aimar. I think that list is quite generous as some of the riders who get a pass had murky connections.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_ ... since_1961
    OK, there were a couple I didn't know about. Partly because they happened late in their career.
    Still, they are outnumbered by those never busted.

    I think that is more indicative of testing and the rules than cleanliness, but yes, it is true. I'd struggle to include Delgado and Roche on the not busted list.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Allora, strong ITTs who've won the Tour (not podium!) who've also been excellent climbers.
    So where does LeMond fit into this little theory of yours?

    What theory is that?
    That you can't be a top climber and a top TTer
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Allora, strong ITTs who've won the Tour (not podium!) who've also been excellent climbers.
    So where does LeMond fit into this little theory of yours?

    What theory is that?
    That you can't be a top climber and a top TTer

    That wasn't my theory that was another poster.

    I merely stated that the likelihood of those whom ARE probably have doping offenses.

    My opinions and posts are much more considered and based on fact.

    Suggest you slow down and read who wrote what.

    Now let's get back Walsh's book, yes?
  • nic_77
    nic_77 Posts: 929
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    On mathematical probability alone the likelihood of a Grand Tour winner and the Top 5 doping is highly likely. In fact a clean GT winner based on the historic context of the last 30 years would just about be a mathematical improbability.
    You might want to learn something more about statistics.

    Let's say I toss a coin 10 times and each time it comes up heads. What is the probability of me getting an 11th head on the next toss? ...yes 50%. The odds are unaffected by previous events.

    This is not a situation where you can use statistics as evidence of Froome doping - so don't do it!
    Strava
    Race reports
    Bike Aero Data
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    nic_77 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    On mathematical probability alone the likelihood of a Grand Tour winner and the Top 5 doping is highly likely. In fact a clean GT winner based on the historic context of the last 30 years would just about be a mathematical improbability.
    You might want to learn something more about statistics.

    Let's say I toss a coin 10 times and each time it comes up heads. What is the probability of me getting an 11th head on the next toss? ...yes 50%. The odds are unaffected by previous events.

    This is not a situation where you can use statistics as evidence of Froome doping - so don't do it!

    I think you might need a refresher course on what statistical analysis actually is.

    How do you think investment analysis make predictions on stocks? By looking at previous history and current market conditions.

    What you talk of is a simple coin toss with two possible outcomes.

    What i present is predicability based on probability of already collated outcomes.

    20+ years of endemic doping suggest that GT winners use doping to win. That't not rocket science or chance.

    A coin toss analysis of cycling won't conclude anything. Its just stupid.

    To my previous post. I didn't say he was doping. I just said likely when you look at the history of cycling, Froome's climbing times, a very corrupt UCI known to cover up positives and a weak passport program.

    From that the likelihood (emotion removed) is that Froome is probably doping. As is Horner.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories