Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Garmin vs Sky (non-doping related)

15791011

Posts

  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    RichN95 wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    it seems to me there is no point in debating with you , because all you seem to do is want to insult me.

    If I gave you the answer to anything you would only say "I done a google"

    Instead of trying to attack my intelligence why not read the article and take on board some of the points its making or can't you understand them,,,, I can.
    I have read them and I can see how it is manipulating statistics to almost guarantee at least one performance which can be passed off as 'doped'.
    But I'm not the one presenting it as evidence. You are. If you don't understand it you are just like a parrot squawking what it's been taught.
    rayjay wrote:
    Your point about a journeyman,,, a journeyman who has gone faster than some of the greatest riders doped.

    Using logic , he must have been the fastest clean rider ever or IMO doped up to the eyeballs.

    Look at all the other riders mentioned, all dopers so what does that suggest about your Journeyman.

    If you want to use him to validate your point then fair enough, but IMO I think it's a weak point considering the rest of the evidence.
    So the idea that Ax 3 had never previously been a particularly strategically important stage and followed by summit finish stages at the harder Luz Ardiden or Plat d'Adet (or both) meaning that the top riders didn't give it 100% is off the table then? The idea that Laiseka, for one week only, became the world's greatest ever rider is more rational to you.

    If Cardiff beat Manchester City (as they did earlier this season), I don't think it shows that Cardiff have suddenly become the team in the country. I think that it more likely shows that Manchester City didn't play at their best.

    Once again you resort to insults.
    I don't think you do understand the data

    Froomy went Faster than the climbing speed of doped riders. The DpVAM analysis proves that.

    He was the only rider to reach those levels.

    All the other tour riders were slower than the doping DpVAM baseline.

    That is suspicious at the very least.



    Laiseka ,

    The only riders near his time are known doped riders.

    If his ride was so average how come it's still not been matched by any clean riders?

    where are all the clean riders in the top ten times?


    Can you explain how no other clean riders have such fast times?

    He doped. Simple.
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    sjmclean wrote:
    The Truth wrote:
    The first part of the climb is little more than a false flat. It makes more sense to use the times from where the real climb begins.

    You can't decide that, it is classed as a 21km climb. I could just pick one random section and say rider A rode this small selection faster so it must mean he is cheating.

    I have rode that climb many times and what The Truth is saying is a fair point.
  • You see, I know there's an accuracte measurement from the 21km banner because that's where ASO say the climb starts and use their timing chips to time riders up it.

    Who says it's 15.65km, how do they measure it? Where do they measure it from and how have they compiled their top 10? Does it take into account TTs in the Dauphine? Does it take into account stages pre 1990s that went over the summit and down the other side?

    Edit: It's clearly only TDF times, unless Mayo, Vaughters and Vino utterly rinsed it for the first 6km then sat up. That automatically skews it and puts Froome further up. You can't pick and choose your data.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,437
    edited February 2014
    rayjay wrote:
    Laiseka ,

    The only riders near his time are known doped riders.

    If his ride was so average how come it's still not been matched by any clean riders?

    where are all the clean riders in the top ten times?


    Can you explain how no other clean riders have such fast times?

    He doped. Simple.
    As a climb it's not often used. Since 2005 it has only been used in 2013 and 2010. In 2010 the top riders just looked at each other and rode tempo - you may remember Schleck and Contador doing track stands 3km from the top: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2KOQrYYL_k

    Froome is the only podium rider ever to have put in a full on attack on Ax 3. Unlike other years there were no more summit finishes in the Pyrenees.

    Until you understand that riders don't go at 100% capacity up every mountain finish, you will be doomed to repeating lousy statistics. Compare peak performances regardless of venue or all performances across all venues. Cherry picking times is a cheap trick which only convinces morons.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Froomy went Faster than the climbing speed of doped riders. The DpVAM analysis proves that.

    He was the only rider to reach those levels.

    All the other tour riders were slower than the doping DpVAM baseline.

    That is suspicious at the very least.

    But this is once again, flawed.

    dpVAM is not hard fact. It is one man's attempt to place contemporary performances in a continuam with past performances which may or may not have been influenced by doping. They may or may not also have been influenced by the weather, by the race situation and by the position of a given climb on the route. VAM is, in itself, a blunt tool which only factors in the time taken to reach the summit.

    All you have shown us with that is that Froome was faster or comparable up Aix 3 Domaines on a mountain top finish in the first mountain stage of a tour he won than several riders in an earlier era who rode it on their way to another climb and that he was also faster than the guys on the stage who he beat.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    Froomy went Faster than the climbing speed of doped riders. The DpVAM analysis proves that.

    He was the only rider to reach those levels.

    All the other tour riders were slower than the doping DpVAM baseline.

    That is suspicious at the very least.

    But this is once again, flawed.

    dpVAM is not hard fact. It is one man's attempt to place contemporary performances in a continuam with past performances which may or may not have been influenced by doping. They may or may not also have been influenced by the weather, by the race situation and by the position of a given climb on the route. VAM is, in itself, a blunt tool which only factors in the time taken to reach the summit.

    All you have shown us with that is that Froome was faster or comparable up Aix 3 Domaines on a mountain top finish in the first mountain stage of a tour he won than several riders in an earlier era who rode it on their way to another climb and that he was also faster than the guys on the stage who he beat.


    That's a fair point.

    There are going to variables in any measurement or ref point you use. For instance Velo news, I think, [ you can do a google] took the times of Froome and Armstrong from actual footage of the race i.e. they timed both riders at certain points and Froome was quicker.

    Again with all the variables We obviously are not getting a mano v mano shootout times. Just the times of that performance on that given day in those conditions.

    But the fact that no clean riders are getting near Froomes times surly must at least raise some suspicion even with the variables taken into consideration.

    Suspicion of what ? is also a question I would like to raise.

    For instance if Sky have found a legal supplement that has turned Froome into an awesome rider in a short space of time then they are certainly not going to tell us about it. Why should they?

    So from that standpoint Sky cannot win and can only say that they are clean.

    It could be that cycling has got it's self into a catch 22.
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,693
    rayjay wrote:
    It could be that cycling has got it's self into a catch 22.

    It certainly has. The current suspicion is a direct result of previous behaviour, so no matter what happens now everyone is under suspicion if they perform well or better than others. And I can understand that, it just seems like one team particularly are come under excessive suspicion.

    However, and I make this statement from a position of relative ignorance regarding climbing times, power outputs, etc, cycling does appear to be more credible than at any time in the previous 20-25 years. It just looks it. And I know that's not evidence of anything, but my opinion. And I don't think Sky are doing anything that other teams couldn't, they're just very good at it.

    I'm not stupid enough to say that Sky (or anyone else, for that matter) is completely clean, there will always be cheats. But I prefer to give them (and other winners like Kittel, OPQS who have had a blistering start this year) the benefit of the doubt as the evidence to suggest otherwise is circumstancial and opinion-led.

    One thing I look at is how Sky are viewed within the sport - I don't think the peloton would wear Sky cheating, riders would know and they would be speaking out. See the secret pro blog for example. Unless they of course have something to hide! I suppose I'm saying if Sky are on it, then they all are.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,437
    rayjay wrote:
    But the fact that no clean riders are getting near Froomes times surly must at least raise some suspicion even with the variables taken into consideration.
    But here is the problem. Who are these clean riders? We're only just coming out of the EPO era. 'Froome's times' are on Ax 3 and Ventoux, but these have only been used twice each in the Tour since Puerto - it's not a large data set.
    And how about Froome's times on other climbs that never get mentioned. Lots have been faster up Alpe d'Huez, including Quintana and Rodriguez on the day, both of whom then beat him again at Semnoz. Wout Poels beat him up Angliru in 2011.

    Cherry picking individual stats either makes you look dishonest or stupid.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    We aren't seeing the repeated attacks of Pantani and Ricco etc. For the most part Sky and co just ride tempo to their power levels. They know their limits and attacking and adventurous riding just makes you blow up.

    If Sky were doping then it would reflect back to the Team GB track team. Would Brailsford risk that ? I honestly think they're clean - they just have a massive budget and an intelligent way of doing things.
  • iainf72 wrote:
    Richn95 - = Bill Nye

    The Truth = Ken Ham
    Nail. Head.
    N00b commuter with delusions of competence

    FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    Salsiccia1, that's a good view and I take that on board.

    Rich, I think you have made a great point.

    We all do get wrapped up in our own opinions and we are all guilty of this to some degree.

    It will be interesting to see the times and relevant info over the coming years.
  • dsoutardsoutar Posts: 1,746
    Looking at CQ, I'd like to know why if Talansky is so good, he's so far down the table.

    Maybe it's because most of the people above him are doping. I tell you, I always had my doubts about that Dan Martin you know...

    I reckon the Truth is Talansky's agent.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,437
    dsoutar wrote:
    Looking at CQ, I'd like to know why if Talansky is so good, he's so far down the table.

    Maybe it's because most of the people above him are doping. I tell you, I always had my doubts about that Dan Martin you know...

    I reckon the Truth is Talansky's agent.
    Talansky is certainly a very good rider. He's still quite young (just turned 25) and has two GT top tens to his name already. He'll most likely grace the podium in Grand Tours. Might even win one. However, on the other hand, he may just be someone who reached their full potential quicker than others.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • I love the way the doping conspiracy theorists completely discount the possibility that, as Brailsford alluded to and for a variety of reasons, humans improve.

    If that isn't the case can they explain how an 11 year old (James Roach, 12.04 in 2013) can run as fast as the 100m winner at the 1904 Olympics? How about a 10 year old girl (Claudia Francis 2:16.78 in 2004) beating the gold medal winning time in the 1928 800m. Are we to presume they are doping?
  • Grantmk wrote:
    I love the way the doping conspiracy theorists completely discount the possibility that, as Brailsford alluded to and for a variety of reasons, humans improve.

    If that isn't the case can they explain how an 11 year old (James Roach, 12.04 in 2013) can run as fast as the 100m winner at the 1904 Olympics? How about a 10 year old girl (Claudia Francis 2:16.78 in 2004) beating the gold medal winning time in the 1928 800m. Are we to presume they are doping?

    You might be on to something. Looking at Froome, it does indeed look like he evolves about 100 times faster than the rest of humanity. I expect him to turn into a cyborg that wins the tour by 2 hours next year, and the year after he will become the singularity and the universe as we know it will cease to exist.
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    Cyborgs are the future.

    Sky ,,,,, Skynet sound familiar?

    Are BC a front for the development of humanoid cyborgs?

    Are we seeing the beginning of the end of mankind?

    What's really going on? Does anyone know a Sarah Connor?
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,693
    The Truth wrote:
    Grantmk wrote:
    I love the way the doping conspiracy theorists completely discount the possibility that, as Brailsford alluded to and for a variety of reasons, humans improve.

    If that isn't the case can they explain how an 11 year old (James Roach, 12.04 in 2013) can run as fast as the 100m winner at the 1904 Olympics? How about a 10 year old girl (Claudia Francis 2:16.78 in 2004) beating the gold medal winning time in the 1928 800m. Are we to presume they are doping?

    You might be on to something. Looking at Froome, it does indeed look like he evolves about 100 times faster than the rest of humanity. I expect him to turn into a cyborg that wins the tour by 2 hours next year, and the year after he will become the singularity and the universe as we know it will cease to exist.

    Pitiful stuff. If you're not at least going to try, don't bother.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • mike6mike6 Posts: 1,199
    I love these "None doping threads" there is so much sensible reasoned debate from those who only ever appear when Sky or doping are mentioned, and if they are not mentioned well........start a thread about just that. Simple. :lol::lol:
  • PBoPBo Posts: 2,493
    Some observations, mr "the truth"
    1) calling yourself the truth is hugely egotistical. In addition, it makes people treat your comments like I'd treat a car being sold by "honest john's quality used motors"

    2) something has been bugging me about your responses. They are always sort of related to the conversation, but not often a direct answer, nor do they always make total sense....and then I realised, we are in fact being trolled by boffins at IBM or somewhere, who have invented an AI algorithm to fake human intelligence. It's not a bad effort but you can tell it's not really human.
    3) if you are not an AI agent you are a moron.
  • Well, at least rayjay has found a role model to be his partner in whine.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • PBo wrote:
    Some observations, mr "the truth"
    1) calling yourself the truth is hugely egotistical. In addition, it makes people treat your comments like I'd treat a car being sold by "honest john's quality used motors"

    2) something has been bugging me about your responses. They are always sort of related to the conversation, but not often a direct answer, nor do they always make total sense....and then I realised, we are in fact being trolled by boffins at IBM or somewhere, who have invented an AI algorithm to fake human intelligence. It's not a bad effort but you can tell it's not really human.
    3) if you are not an AI agent you are a moron.

    If you had anything to contribute other than boring insults I'd be happy to debate you or anyone else.
  • Except it's not really a debate is it?
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    Well, at least rayjay has found a role model to be his partner in whine.

    How long did that joke take you to make up? Did it just come to you :lol::lol:

    Have you got a book of sh%t insults that your mum tells you are funny ?

    Is it true you are in the new series of Mock The Week?

    Do you have the same booking agent as Joe Beasley and Cheeky monkey?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT_W6FwN_hY

    Your jokes are really poor,,,,,enjoy :lol:
  • Bo DukeBo Duke Posts: 1,058
    rayjay wrote:
    We all do get wrapped up in our own opinions and we are all guilty of this to some degree.

    But in that same 'can't see the wood for the trees' spirit Ray, you can't see how you need to take a break from the forum. You dominate every thread where the issue can be turned towards doping then attack anyone who has an opinion different to your own. You're killing the fun aspect of the forum. This is the off season, god help us when things start to crank up again in the coming weeks and months.
    'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,678
    rayjay wrote:
    sjmclean wrote:
    The Truth wrote:
    The first part of the climb is little more than a false flat. It makes more sense to use the times from where the real climb begins.

    You can't decide that, it is classed as a 21km climb. I could just pick one random section and say rider A rode this small selection faster so it must mean he is cheating.

    I have rode that climb many times and what The Truth is saying is a fair point.

    Ofcourse it is because it is, because it suits your arguement.

    it is listed as a 21.4km climb.

    I could just add on a few km just to make him even slower, but that's not how it works.

    The first 6 km is about 6% so after 200k is still a fair gradient
  • inseineinseine Posts: 5,782
    Except it's not really a debate is it?

    Over 200 posts and we've discovered that Froome rides up some hills quickly. Because of this he might or might not be doping. Is there really any more to add?
  • PBoPBo Posts: 2,493
    edited February 2014
    The Truth wrote:
    PBo wrote:
    Some observations, mr "the truth"
    1) calling yourself the truth is hugely egotistical. In addition, it makes people treat your comments like I'd treat a car being sold by "honest john's quality used motors"

    2) something has been bugging me about your responses. They are always sort of related to the conversation, but not often a direct answer, nor do they always make total sense....and then I realised, we are in fact being trolled by boffins at IBM or somewhere, who have invented an AI algorithm to fake human intelligence. It's not a bad effort but you can tell it's not really human.
    3) if you are not an AI agent you are a moron.

    If you had anything to contribute other than boring insults I'd be happy to debate you or anyone else.

    If you did debate, rather than m4sturbate, then you wouldn't frustrate people so much that they resorted to insults.

    Edited for typo (thank you w4nkbrother :D )
  • If you're gonna throw insults, at least learn to smell correctly ...

    (edit: before the inevitable happens ... Yes, I'm an expert in these matters ... (sigh))
  • PBoPBo Posts: 2,493
    If you're gonna throw insults, at least learn to smell correctly ...

    (edit: before the inevitable happens ... Yes, I'm an expert in these matters ... (sigh))

    I can smell correctly, I just use my nose :wink:

    But I will edit my typo, I do agree on the importance of correct insultage!! :)
  • "Arguing with a troll is like playing chess with a pigeon, it knocks the pieces over shits all over the board and struts around like it won"


    Best post of the thread
This discussion has been closed.