Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Tour of Oman *Spoiler*

16781012

Posts

  • Contador is the Greatest
  • ^yeah, any of us who were on Twitter last night, saw that a cycling website had given exposure to that charlatan media censored

    But ta
  • Paulie WPaulie W Posts: 1,492
    Reading this, Vayer sounds perfectly reasonable and his position on Froome and others defensible - a better journalist might of course have given the interview a little more context and perhaps have followed up on some of the tricky questions!
  • Some of us have life's to lead and consider twitter as being a waste of that. So I will never check twitter before posting here.

    I hope you twitterers had a lot of fun discussing it with 140 characters. Many of whom are 'charlatan media whores' except they have no credibility or credentials, just an opinion and time to spare.

    The questions in the interview are a touch leading and aiming in part to create controversy so I disagree with that (in addition to Vayer's opinions). It is a reasonable interview though. You can see why they would do it though - it creates traffic to their site, not that I agree with that either.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,497
    Paulie W wrote:
    Reading this, Vayer sounds perfectly reasonable and his position on Froome and others defensible - a better journalist might of course have given the interview a little more context and perhaps have followed up on some of the tricky questions!
    But he isn't reasonable. He keeps demanding data so that he can judge whether a rider is legit, but has no framework in place which says how that judgement is to be made. His 'science' and what is 'normal' is not supported in any way. He judges riders on arbitary numbers selected solely by himself and which he has refused to justify. All he does is tweet '6.4 Not normal'. That's not science, it's attention seeking. He's a fraud. Established science comes from peer review and consensous, not from being the noisiest opinion.

    (Also he declares that Dan Martin is clean despite never having seen any of his data.)
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Paulie WPaulie W Posts: 1,492
    RichN95 wrote:
    Paulie W wrote:
    Reading this, Vayer sounds perfectly reasonable and his position on Froome and others defensible - a better journalist might of course have given the interview a little more context and perhaps have followed up on some of the tricky questions!
    But he isn't reasonable. He keeps demanding data so that he can judge whether a rider is legit, but has no framework in place which says how that judgement is to be made. His 'science' and what is 'normal' is not supported in any way. He judges riders on arbitary numbers selected solely by himself and which he has refused to justify. All he does is tweet '6.4 Not normal'. That's not science, it's attention seeking. He's a fraud. Established science comes from peer review and consensous, not from being the noisiest opinion.

    (Also he declares that Dan Martin is clean despite never having seen any of his data.)

    I get that. Perhaps I should have added a rolling eyes emoticon. I think my point was that at a broad level his take on the state of cycing today is reasonable - how he chooses to 'evidence' that is highly questionable and should have been explored further by the interviewer.
  • inseineinseine Posts: 5,785
    What an idiot. Seems like lots of riders are clean today 'because they've told him so'.
    On one hand he says he 'does science' and on the other he seems to just know....
  • ProssPross Posts: 29,620
    RichN95 wrote:
    Paulie W wrote:
    Reading this, Vayer sounds perfectly reasonable and his position on Froome and others defensible - a better journalist might of course have given the interview a little more context and perhaps have followed up on some of the tricky questions!
    But he isn't reasonable. He keeps demanding data so that he can judge whether a rider is legit, but has no framework in place which says how that judgement is to be made. His 'science' and what is 'normal' is not supported in any way. He judges riders on arbitary numbers selected solely by himself and which he has refused to justify. All he does is tweet '6.4 Not normal'. That's not science, it's attention seeking. He's a fraud. Established science comes from peer review and consensous, not from being the noisiest opinion.

    (Also he declares that Dan Martin is clean despite never having seen any of his data.)

    Yep. He could just do a piece setting-out what he believes a clean profile looks like and the teams could provide their data and say 'there you go, that shows the performance is within accepted clean parameters' which is obviously why he will never do it.
  • Paulie W wrote:
    Reading this, Vayer sounds perfectly reasonable and his position on Froome and others defensible - a better journalist might of course have given the interview a little more context and perhaps have followed up on some of the tricky questions!

    Perfectly reasonable ?

    AV: The best experts on doping are the riders and former riders who are now sport directors. They were part of this culture of lying and cheating. They are the experts. They can look at a rider and they can tell immediately if something is not right, by their pedaling style, how they’re breathing."

    This is his idea of sports science ?
  • Paulie WPaulie W Posts: 1,492
    UncleMonty wrote:
    Paulie W wrote:
    Reading this, Vayer sounds perfectly reasonable and his position on Froome and others defensible - a better journalist might of course have given the interview a little more context and perhaps have followed up on some of the tricky questions!

    Perfectly reasonable ?

    AV: The best experts on doping are the riders and former riders who are now sport directors. They were part of this culture of lying and cheating. They are the experts. They can look at a rider and they can tell immediately if something is not right, by their pedaling style, how they’re breathing."

    This is his idea of sports science ?

    I've already qualified what I found 'reasonable'.
  • Paul 8vPaul 8v Posts: 5,458
    Is this guy just "The Truth"?

    He seems to have about as much scientific knowledge...

    Would love him and Brailsford to meet down a dark alley, I reckon big Dave would throw a mean right hook.
  • Paul 8v wrote:
    Is this guy just "The Truth"?

    He seems to have about as much scientific knowledge...

    Would love him and Brailsford to meet down a dark alley, I reckon big Dave would throw a mean right hook.

    Apart from the fact that he sat down with DB, asked the questions, was given platitudes as answers, asked for a better answer and was told he wasn't getting one ... it's all in the interview ...

    The science may or may not be questionable but he did ask the question to the right man, to his face ... and I agree that if you are refused an answer it is reasonable to keep on questioning the performance(s) ...
  • Paul 8v wrote:
    Is this guy just "The Truth"?

    He seems to have about as much scientific knowledge...

    Would love him and Brailsford to meet down a dark alley, I reckon big Dave would throw a mean right hook.


    A head butt might be equally effective? That's quite some bonce DaveB has
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,497
    Paul 8v wrote:
    Is this guy just "The Truth"?

    He seems to have about as much scientific knowledge...

    Would love him and Brailsford to meet down a dark alley, I reckon big Dave would throw a mean right hook.

    Apart from the fact that he sat down with DB, asked the questions, was given platitudes as answers, asked for a better answer and was told he wasn't getting one ... it's all in the interview ...

    The science may or may not be questionable but he did ask the question to the right man, to his face ... and I agree that if you are refused an answer it is reasonable to keep on questioning the performance(s) ...
    The problem is that he has consistently shown that he will use those answers according to unsupported science of his own construction to pass judgement. Why would you co-operate with that?
    Vayer is behaving in the manner of many self appointed judges from the Spanish inquisition to McCarthy.

    Here's an analogy. Rick Chasey as a mod has been tweeting repeatedly that he thinks you are a troll. He says the one way to know for sure is by knowing which browser you use to look at the forum as he believes that trolls use the same browser. He won't say what that browser is though, or give any evidence to support this view. But he demands to know what your browser so he can pass judgement. Do you tell him? Of course you don't
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • ^ If I had nothing to hide I'd happily tell him ... What difference would it make?

    Brailsford loves his secret squirrel stuff ... half of it likely just made up to mess with the competitors ...

    I just wonder that IF your man is the strongest, what possible harm could there be in complete transparency ... Give the numbers he had before SKY got hold of him and demonstrate exactly what you have done (and showing quantifiable increments of each improvement) to get him to the numbers he is at now ...

    I agree that under normal circumstances he shouldn't have to ... But pro cycling is not normal circumstances compared to other sports ... Transparency should be compulsory if you want to play at the top table ... Otherwise it just becomes about finding a sponsor that doesn't care and just wants exposure at any cost ...
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,497
    ^ If I had nothing to hide I'd happily tell him ... What difference would it make?
    .
    But you have nothing hide in your mind - because you know you haven't. But you're not the one standing in judgement. Someone who has largely prejudged is, and now they what information so that they can definitively judge you according criteria they won't reveal.

    Here's a game for you. I'm thinking of a number. Guess whether it's odd or even. If you're wrong you give me five pounds, but if you're right I give you twenty - odds heavily in your favour. Play as many times as you like. Up for it?

    Of course not. It's a rigged game. I'll just change the number so I'm right. And this is what Vayer is doing. He's running a rigged game. And the only way to win is not to play.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,497
    . Transparency should be compulsory if you want to play at the top table ... Otherwise it just becomes about finding a sponsor that doesn't care and just wants exposure at any cost ...
    Transparency to who though? The proper authorites of course. But to anyone? That's like giving you bank account details to spammers just cos they spin you a line. Why should you be transparent with those who offer no transparency themselves.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • ^ To recycle your analogy ... In terms of a rider's performance there should be only one number ... The actual number ... so DB could play your game, tell you his number and when you say it's wrong tell you why it is the number that he has given and tell YOU to prove otherwise ...

    If the reason for the number is made known to both parties and proven to be correct then there should be no argument ...

    Why do you think when you did your maths exam in school you had to show your workings as well as the answer?
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,497
    edited February 2014
    Double post
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,497
    ^ To recycle your analogy ... In terms of a rider's performance there should be only one number ... The actual number ... so DB could play your game, tell you his number and when you say it's wrong tell you why it is the number that he has given and tell YOU to prove otherwise ...

    If the reason for the number is made known to both parties and proven to be correct then there should be no argument ...

    Why do you think when you did your maths exam in school you had to show your workings as well as the answer?
    But that's the problem with Vayer. He refuses to show his working or support his numbers. He's devised a game where he can only win and no-one questions it.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95 wrote:
    . Transparency should be compulsory if you want to play at the top table ... Otherwise it just becomes about finding a sponsor that doesn't care and just wants exposure at any cost ...
    Transparency to who though? The proper authorites of course. But to anyone? That's like giving you bank account details to spammers just cos they spin you a line. Why should you be transparent with those who offer no transparency themselves.

    Your bank account analogy isn't relevant ... But sticking with finance as an example ... Company accounts are readily available and the business world manages just fine ...
  • ProssPross Posts: 29,620
    RichN95 wrote:
    . Transparency should be compulsory if you want to play at the top table ... Otherwise it just becomes about finding a sponsor that doesn't care and just wants exposure at any cost ...
    Transparency to who though? The proper authorites of course. But to anyone? That's like giving you bank account details to spammers just cos they spin you a line. Why should you be transparent with those who offer no transparency themselves.

    Your bank account analogy isn't relevant ... But sticking with finance as an example ... Company accounts are readily available and the business world manages just fine ...

    How is that relevant though? As Rich is saying Vayer takes data and makes conclusions (assumptions) from it but fails to verify the calculations he has used to make the conclusion. Most of his work is a guess at power output based on time taken to get up a climb but it fails to factor in variables such as wind speed / direction. He also doesn't seemed to differentiate between 'acceptable' power output for 5 minutes or 1 hour. In short he's a charlatan who has somehow managed to dupe sufficient people into believing he is credible to the extent that his opinion is openly asked for.
  • dabberdabber Posts: 1,739
    These debates always remind of of a particular Yes Minister episode where Bernard Woolley has dropped Jim Hacker in it with the press....

    Bernard Woolley: Well, thinking back on what I said, and what they said, and what I said you said, and what they may say I said you said, or what they may have thought I said I thought you thought, well, they may say I said I thought you said you thought...
    Jim Hacker: Go on, Bernard.
    Bernard Woolley: Well, I think I said you said you thought ... you were above the law.
    Jim Hacker: YOU SAID THAT?!
    Bernard Woolley: Well, not intentionally. It is just the way it came out. I am terribly sorry but they were asking me all these questions.
    Jim Hacker: Bernard, just because people ask you questions, what makes you think you have to answer them?
    Bernard Woolley: Well, I don't know.
    Jim Hacker: You never answered my questions just because I ask them.
    “You may think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!”

    Wilier Cento Uno SR/Wilier Mortirolo/Specialized Roubaix Comp/Calibre Bossnut
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 16,674
    Why does he need data? He's already decided.
    Believe that a farther shore
    Is reachable from here.
    Believe in miracles
    And cures and healing wells
  • Without a doubt, Vayer has to be as transparent in his calculations as those he is questioning ... But then you get people answering the questions to suit the expected answer rather than the truth ...
  • FWIW, I don't think Froome is doping ... But I do want to know how he has ended up at the level he has ... Same with Wiggins, possibly more so as it's looking more and more like a spike in his career path ...
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,497
    Without a doubt, Vayer has to be as transparent in his calculations as those he is questioning ... ut then you get people answering the questions to suit the expected answer rather than the truth ...
    I find it quaint that you think that Vayer is interested in the truth. He isn't. He just wants to be involved. He craves it. He still defines himself by the only job he ever had in cycling - 15 years ago. He spent the first years of this millennium working as a PE teacher.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,678
    How can you claim to be within 1% accurate, when the data you are using isn't even the data of the person the calculation is for?
  • RichN95 wrote:
    Without a doubt, Vayer has to be as transparent in his calculations as those he is questioning ... ut then you get people answering the questions to suit the expected answer rather than the truth ...
    I find it quaint that you think that Vayer is interested in the truth. He isn't. He just wants to be involved. He craves it. He still defines himself by the only job he ever had in cycling - 15 years ago. He spent the first years of this millennium working as a PE teacher.

    I'm not interested in who asks the questions, I'm interested in who gives the answer and how that answer is arrived at ...

    Cycling seems to have as many hangers on as an ageing rock band ... No-one wants to admit the party ended for them long ago ... SKY have moved things forward, results prove that ... But new school thinking can't be explained with old school answers ...
  • FWIW, I don't think Froome is doping ... But I do want to know how he has ended up at the level he has ... Same with Wiggins, possibly more so as it's looking more and more like a spike in his career path ...

    I don't think Froome has had a massive spike in his career though - he was 36th in the Giro in '09 - go and look at the top 10 or 15 riders and you'll see some familiar names - mainly because loads of them have been busted, fessed up or quietly retired since. So in a cleaner race he was probably worth top 20.
    From that to winning the Tour 4 years later seems like a reasonable upward curve. Especially as the peleton got cleaner.

    With Wiggins - the tour does stand out a bit - but his whole 2012 was stellar - he may well have challenged in '11 but bust his collarbone, having beaten Evans in the Dauphine just before the Tour.
    He was also winning an Olympic medal back in 2000. He just never really go properly involved in the Road until '09 when he came 4th, or is it now 3rd, in the Tour.
Sign In or Register to comment.