Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Garmin vs Sky (non-doping related)

15681011

Posts

  • bigmatbigmat Posts: 5,111
    rayjay wrote:
    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:

    I must admit you've gone up in my estimation with that reference! :lol:
  • Coach HCoach H Posts: 1,092
    Bo Duke wrote:
    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.

    Careful Bo or ray will start to PM you instead to get his tripe off the main boards. Like he did with me, which is why he is blocked. Unfortunatelly it didnt block his PM's but as I haven't had one in a few hours either 1) I have broken him by always replying so he couldn't have the last word or 2) he was too tied up fending off reason in this thread. Got to say I think 2) is more likely :roll: (emoticon just for rayjay, he uses them liberally in PM's too!! :wink: )

    Couldn't agree more with the last two sentences. I love a good intelectual debate to set the world to rights (thats what Thursday nights in the Pub are for, no?) but these constant derailments, primarily by The Truth and rayjay who flip flop their own opinions while blatantly ignoring reasoned debate from others, is starting to grate. I know its the off-season but I, for one, have noticed that some of the more informed contributers (iainf72 just as one example, though there are others) are conspicuous by their absence. Its getting to the point thats is like celebrity reality TV, you keep looking in the vain hope that somewhere in the drivel there must be some nugget of worthwile content, but after an hour you come away realising how wrong you were.
    Coach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    Bo Duke wrote:
    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.

    I don't start handing out the insults first ...

    As for killing the fun, its this tripe of a post that does that .

    If I want to make a comment I will .

    I would never ask you to take a break .

    I think you talk a lot of sh%T at times, but that's you choice.
  • Substituting climbing times for positive tests as evidence of doping:
    Here's a nice example of why cherry picking a piece of data that has only limited results
    is utterly meaningless.

    Proof that Rui Costa was doped to the gills at the Tour because he climbed faster than Armstrong, Ullrich, Rasmussen, Contador et al.
    My evidence:
    Col de la Croix Fry
    2013:11,3 [email protected],1%---29:56---average speed 22.65 km/h (Rui Costa)

    2004:11,3 [email protected],1%---30:18---average speed 22.38 km/h(Armstrong-Landis-Ullrich-Basso-Kloden)
    ---30:53---average speed 21.95 km/h(Carlos Sastre)
    ---31:10---average speed 21.75 km/h(Totschnig-Rasmussen-Merckx-Azevedo-Leipheimer)
    ---31:55---average speed 21.24 km/h(Vladimir Karpets)
    ---32:19---average speed 20.98 km/h(Juan Miguel Mercado)
    ---32:29---average speed 20.87 km/h(Mancebo-Guerini-Pereiro)
    ---32:32---average speed 20.84 km/h(Pietro Caucchioli)

    Here's another picked cherry:
    Col de Manse (the same finish)
    2013:9,5 [email protected],2%---19:16---average speed 29.58 km/h(Rui Costa)
    2011:9,5 [email protected],2%---20:04---average speed 28.41 km/h(Contador-Evans-S.Sanchez)
    ---20:25---average speed 27.92 km/h(F.Schleck-A.Schleck-Voeckler group)
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • mike6mike6 Posts: 1,199
    "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

    +100. :D:D:D
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    Coach H wrote:
    Bo Duke wrote:
    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.

    Careful Bo or ray will start to PM you instead to get his tripe off the main boards. Like he did with me, which is why he is blocked. Unfortunatelly it didnt block his PM's but as I haven't had one in a few hours either 1) I have broken him by always replying so he couldn't have the last word or 2) he was too tied up fending off reason in this thread. Got to say I think 2) is more likely :roll: (emoticon just for rayjay, he uses them liberally in PM's too!! :wink: )

    Couldn't agree more with the last two sentences. I love a good intelectual debate to set the world to rights (thats what Thursday nights in the Pub are for, no?) but these constant derailments, primarily by The Truth and rayjay who flip flop their own opinions while blatantly ignoring reasoned debate from others, is starting to grate. I know its the off-season but I, for one, have noticed that some of the more informed contributers (iainf72 just as one example, though there are others) are conspicuous by their absence. Its getting to the point thats is like celebrity reality TV, you keep looking in the vain hope that somewhere in the drivel there must be some nugget of worthwile content, but after an hour you come away realising how wrong you were.


    :lol::lol::lol:
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    sjmclean wrote:
    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


    Truth made a valid point.

    I have rode the Ventoux a few times and it's a fair comment.

    Instead of replying like you have, by being pedantic and diverting point in hand .

    Why not say
    " Yes the first part of the Ventoux does have a bit of bit of a false flat and that does add value to your point but I still don't agree with your view"

    I don't think Truth , thinks he his going to change you mind. but if he does make a good point instead of trying to just dismiss it would be nice if you acknowledged it.
    It is fact after all.
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 22,153
    Becasue 6% after 200km is not a flase flat therefore the truth does not make a valid point

    Therefore what you are asking us to do is to lie to massage your ego's a bit. If you want us to tke your points seriously, start making valid ones...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • Paulie WPaulie W Posts: 1,492
    rayjay wrote:
    sjmclean wrote:
    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


    Truth made a valid point.

    I have rode the Ventoux a few times and it's a fair comment.

    Instead of replying like you have, by being pedantic and diverting point in hand .

    Why not say
    " Yes the first part of the Ventoux does have a bit of bit of a false flat and that does add value to your point but I still don't agree with your view"

    I don't think Truth , thinks he his going to change you mind. but if he does make a good point instead of trying to just dismiss it would be nice if you acknowledged it.
    It is fact after all.

    What exactly is a 'fact'? That the first third of the climb is flatter than the rest of the climb?

    That is a 'fact' - although I've also ridden it and wouldnt call it a 'false flat' - but that is not really the Truth's point is it? He is suggesting that we shouldn't measure times from the beginning of the climb but from a point about 6 km into the climb. That isn't a fact, it is an opinion. It's my opinion that he argues this point because it allows him to show that Froome from that point was much faster than known dopers (even if over the whole climb he is somewhat slower) and that supports his view that Froome is a doper.

    Let's not get our facts and our opinions confused.
  • Dorset_BoyDorset_Boy Posts: 3,846
    If those first few kms average 6%, you'd have to be on the juice to consider them to be a false flat.
  • CorianderCoriander Posts: 1,326
    Paulie W wrote:
    Let's not get our facts and our opinions confused.

    Why ever not, it is, after all, what sustains the internet?? :wink:
  • mike6mike6 Posts: 1,199
    Bloody hell, is this none doping thread still going?

    When I got into cycling I was surprised by some of the other cyclists I met on the road. Coming from a running background I don't remember meeting another runner who would be anything other than supportive and helpful. A few comments I got regarding my old Orbit Italia, or my style on a bike, were a bit snide, to say the least, all the more enjoyable then to dump the so called cyclists on the next big hill.

    It would appear that cycling attracts much more than its fair share of social misfits, keen to take there frustrations out on threads like this. Oh how I miss the enthusiastic, committed and positive people I met during my years as a runner.

    As my old Gran used to say, If you cant say something nice, dont say anything.
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    Paulie W wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    sjmclean wrote:
    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


    Truth made a valid point.

    I have rode the Ventoux a few times and it's a fair comment.

    Instead of replying like you have, by being pedantic and diverting point in hand .

    Why not say
    " Yes the first part of the Ventoux does have a bit of bit of a false flat and that does add value to your point but I still don't agree with your view"

    I don't think Truth , thinks he his going to change you mind. but if he does make a good point instead of trying to just dismiss it would be nice if you acknowledged it.
    It is fact after all.

    What exactly is a 'fact'? That the first third of the climb is flatter than the rest of the climb?

    That is a 'fact' [ glad you agree] - although I've also ridden it and wouldnt call it a 'false flat' - but that is not really the Truth's point is it? He is suggesting that we shouldn't measure times from the beginning of the climb but from a point about 6 km into the climb. That isn't a fact, it is an opinion [ I never said that was a fact :roll: ] It's my opinion that he argues this point because it allows him to show that Froome from that point was much faster than known dopers (even if over the whole climb he is somewhat slower) and that supports his view that Froome is a doper.

    Let's not get our facts and our opinions confused.


    Like I said I have rode the Ventoux a few times.

    The first time I rode it I remember think how easy it was for the first few K's

    The first few km's are quite flat.

    If you struggled on the first part of the climb that's your issue.

    I think Truth has a valid point.

    I think the point where the Truth is measuring his time from is valid, as the gradient starts to kick in and proves how good Froome was on the hardest part of the climb.
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    Dorset Boy wrote:
    If those first few kms average 6%, you'd have to be on the juice to consider them to be a false flat.
    :lol::lol::lol:
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 24,925
    edited February 2014
    What the profile of Mont Ventoux is isn't important. And neither are the times.

    What is relevant is that each side of the arguement is selectively using the individual statistic from the exact same performance which suits their arguement and then passing it off as some kind of 'proof' of something?

    You think this is science. It's not. It's politics.

    It's indicative of the malaise that has enveloped the doping debate. Bad science created by semi-clueless and/or dishonest and repackaged and sold to the bias and totally clueless

    (All you need to know about Ventoux is that the wind is too strong to make raw comparisons of any times meaningful)
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 22,153
    rayjay wrote:

    I think Truth has a valid point.

    My opinion is that 2 + 2 = 5

    Am I right or wrong? Should you repect my opinion?
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 16,282
    rayjay wrote:
    I think the point where the Truth is measuring his time from is valid, as the gradient starts to kick in and proves how good Froome was on the hardest part of the climb.

    The problem is that there is no logical reason for excluding the first 6 k unless you want the data to prove your belief in the bit in bold.

    What angers and offends posters from a scientific background isn't the assertion that Froome is doping, they can live with that, it's the shoddy use of numbers....


    "You sir use statistics like a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination"
    Believe that a farther shore
    Is reachable from here.
    Believe in miracles
    And cures and healing wells
  • RichN95 wrote:
    What the profile of Mont Ventoux is isn't important. And neither are the times.

    What is relevant is that each side of the arguement is selectively using the individual statistic from the exact same performance which suits their arguement and then passing it off as some kind of 'proof' of something?

    You think this is science. It's not. It's politics.


    (All you need to know about Ventoux is that the wind is too strong to make raw comparisons of any times meaningful)>

    Aargh.
    Open cue for the: "It was into a headwind, too" fallacy to be brought up as further "proof".
    "You sir use statistics like a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination"

    I like.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Can I encourage everyone to go and buy and read

    Ben Goldacre : Bad Science
    Nate Silver : The Signal and the Noise
    Dubner / Levitt : Freakanomics
    Nassim Taleb : Black Swan
    David Epstein : The Sports Gene

    Most of the themes in this thread are covered without mentioning cycling specifically.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 54,979 Lives Here
    iainf72 wrote:
    Can I encourage everyone to go and buy and read

    Ben Goldacre : Bad Science
    Nate Silver : The Signal and the Noise
    Dubner / Levitt : Freakanomics
    Nassim Taleb : Black Swan
    David Epstein : The Sports Gene

    Most of the themes in this thread are covered without mentioning cycling specifically.

    Your new nickname is The Librarian.
  • My main irritation in this thread is that my wins per Euro and winning margin analysis got no love whatsoever.
    "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: 24,925
    iainf72 wrote:
    Can I encourage everyone to go and buy and read

    Ben Goldacre : Bad Science
    Nate Silver : The Signal and the Noise
    Dubner / Levitt : Freakanomics
    Nassim Taleb : Black Swan
    David Epstein : The Sports Gene

    Most of the themes in this thread are covered without mentioning cycling specifically.
    It will probably not surprise you that I have read two of those (Goldacre & Levitt), am reading a third (Epstein) and own a fourth (Silver).

    The fifth - Black Swan - well I've seen the Natalie Portman film , but it think that's probably a complete different swan.

    I'd also recommend Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos - the book which kicked of my interest in such matters
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 24,925
    My main irritation in this thread is that my wins per Euro and winning margin analysis got no love whatsoever.
    I know how you feel. Yesterday I made what I thought was a cracking CIRC du Vacansoleil joke only to met with silence.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • andy_wrxandy_wrx Posts: 3,396
    Serves you right for casting pearls before swine...
  • nic_77nic_77 Posts: 929
    iainf72 wrote:
    Can I encourage everyone to go and buy and read

    Ben Goldacre : Bad Science
    Nate Silver : The Signal and the Noise
    Dubner / Levitt : Freakanomics
    Nassim Taleb : Black Swan
    David Epstein : The Sports Gene

    Most of the themes in this thread are covered without mentioning cycling specifically.

    I'm deep into The Sports Gene. Thanks for the recommendation.
  • PBoPBo Posts: 2,493
    RichN95 wrote:
    My main irritation in this thread is that my wins per Euro and winning margin analysis got no love whatsoever.
    I know how you feel. Yesterday I made what I thought was a cracking CIRC du Vacansoleil joke only to met with silence.

    To be fair both deserve props!!!!

    I can feel more Shakespeare coming on, but I all think we know it has the same ending!!!!
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    rayjay wrote:
    Paulie W wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    sjmclean wrote:
    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


    Truth made a valid point.

    I have rode the Ventoux a few times and it's a fair comment.

    Instead of replying like you have, by being pedantic and diverting point in hand .

    Why not say
    " Yes the first part of the Ventoux does have a bit of bit of a false flat and that does add value to your point but I still don't agree with your view"

    I don't think Truth , thinks he his going to change you mind. but if he does make a good point instead of trying to just dismiss it would be nice if you acknowledged it.
    It is fact after all.

    What exactly is a 'fact'? That the first third of the climb is flatter than the rest of the climb?

    That is a 'fact' [ glad you agree] - although I've also ridden it and wouldnt call it a 'false flat' - but that is not really the Truth's point is it? He is suggesting that we shouldn't measure times from the beginning of the climb but from a point about 6 km into the climb. That isn't a fact, it is an opinion [ I never said that was a fact :roll: ] It's my opinion that he argues this point because it allows him to show that Froome from that point was much faster than known dopers (even if over the whole climb he is somewhat slower) and that supports his view that Froome is a doper.

    Let's not get our facts and our opinions confused.


    Like I said I have rode the Ventoux a few times.

    The first time I rode it I remember think how easy it was for the first few K's

    The first few km's are quite flat.

    If you struggled on the first part of the climb that's your issue.

    I think Truth has a valid point.

    I think the point where the Truth is measuring his time from is valid, as the gradient starts to kick in and proves how good Froome was on the hardest part of the climb.


    My opinion is if it aint over 10% it aint a climb. Which makes mt ventoux a 3km climb followed by a false flat. Respect it please.
  • "You sir use statistics like a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination"

    Twice in one thread. Chapeau Sir, Chapeau.
  • Bo DukeBo Duke Posts: 1,058
    edited February 2014
    rayjay wrote:
    Bo Duke wrote:
    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.

    I don't start handing out the insults first ...

    As for killing the fun, its this tripe of a post that does that .

    If I want to make a comment I will .

    I would never ask you to take a break .

    I think you talk a lot of sh%T at times, but that's you choice.

    Ray, I don't claim to be an expert in something I have little inside knowledge of or influence over. I ride, I sail, I run, I swim. I enjoy watching cycling, rugby and footy but.... in none of the above sports do I profess to be the next Messiah and insist on my own opinion being the only authorized version of events. You must be a nightmare to work with.

    You would never ask me to take a break from the forum a) because you prefer to promulgate arguments and not reduce conflict b) I don't think you're a solutions man so I agree it wouldn't occur to you.

    A lot more people would respect you if you stepped back and showed a little more social skills.

    PS Do you squeeze your butt cheeks when you write those single line double spaced 'statements' that typify everything that I've mentioned above? Isn't that very kind of.. Lance Armstrong-ish way of discussing things?
    '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
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    ddraver wrote:
    rayjay wrote:

    I think Truth has a valid point.

    My opinion is that 2 + 2 = 5

    Am I right or wrong? Should you repect my opinion?


    The Truth is showing you times from when the gradient really starts to kick in.

    It's not wrong. Those are the times from that point.

    You could time the last 2 miles of a marathon or a 5000 metres race.

    You obviously feel that it has no validity and that's fine.

    I think it has validity. Its just a difference of opinion about a stat.

    The truth is using that stat to back up his point.
This discussion has been closed.