Tour of Oman *Spoiler*
Comments
-
But who asks the question has an effect on how it is answered.Crankbrother wrote:
I'm not interested in who asks the questions, I'm interested in who gives the answer and how that answer is arrived at ...
.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Thing is, if Sky aren't doping (I don't think they are either) Why should Brailsford reveal all the secrets of their training to all the other teams? Or some quack nutjob who will still find a way to twist it to make it look like they are doing something that isn't legit.Crankbrother wrote: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 ...0 -
Paul 8v wrote:
Thing is, if Sky aren't doping (I don't think they are either) Why should Brailsford reveal all the secrets of their training to all the other teams? Or some quack nutjob who will still find a way to twist it to make it look like they are doing something that isn't legit.Crankbrother wrote: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 ...
To make Crank happy
Obvs0 -
Paul 8v wrote:
Thing is, if Sky aren't doping (I don't think they are either) Why should Brailsford reveal all the secrets of their training to all the other teams? Or some quack nutjob who will still find a way to twist it to make it look like they are doing something that isn't legit.Crankbrother wrote: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 ...
Because they owe that to every other team struggling to find/hold on to sponsors due to all the problems (too soon to call them previous) ... People outside of the sport need to be able to believe for it to move forward, otherwise it's just an old boys club (UCI) with teams run by pseudo-ogliarch's (SKY, Astana, Tinkoff being examples) with no real love for the sport ...0 -
You mean like the "Love of the sport" that you display with your constant and endless droning about Sky doping.
Cycling is a pro sport and the backers/owners are, and have always been, involved for one thing only, to promote there business.0 -
UK Cycling Expert @ukcyclingexpert · 19h
Who's this Antone Vader guy who says Sir Froome is not normal??! He's as normal as they come! Antone Vader? Darth Vader more like!
UK Cycling Expert @ukcyclingexpert · 18h
Last year Antone Vader, David Welsh, Paul Gummidge and a man who makes socks tried to Change Cycling Now but it's just as brilliant as ever!“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Hysterics ...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
I understand what you're trying to say but it's the same as saying Red Bull should let all the other F1 teams know their secrets because they've made it boring by winning everything. Sky have spent their time and money on R&D they shouldn't be forced to give it to the other teams in my opinion.Crankbrother wrote:Paul 8v wrote:
Thing is, if Sky aren't doping (I don't think they are either) Why should Brailsford reveal all the secrets of their training to all the other teams? Or some quack nutjob who will still find a way to twist it to make it look like they are doing something that isn't legit.Crankbrother wrote: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 ...
Because they owe that to every other team struggling to find/hold on to sponsors due to all the problems (too soon to call them previous) ... People outside of the sport need to be able to believe for it to move forward, otherwise it's just an old boys club (UCI) with teams run by pseudo-ogliarch's (SKY, Astana, Tinkoff being examples) with no real love for the sport ...0 -
mike6 wrote:You mean like the "Love of the sport" that you display with your constant and endless droning about Sky doping.
Mike, you're just making it up now ... Your pro-SKY stance just won't allow you to accept debate ... Find the posts (and there must be many as it's 'constant') where I say SKY and/or their riders are doping ... I question how it's done, yes ... why should I not?0 -
Crankbrother wrote:Paul 8v wrote:
Thing is, if Sky aren't doping (I don't think they are either) Why should Brailsford reveal all the secrets of their training to all the other teams? Or some quack nutjob who will still find a way to twist it to make it look like they are doing something that isn't legit.Crankbrother wrote: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 ...
Because they owe that to every other team struggling to find/hold on to sponsors due to all the problems (too soon to call them previous) ... People outside of the sport need to be able to believe for it to move forward, otherwise it's just an old boys club (UCI) with teams run by pseudo-ogliarch's (SKY, Astana, Tinkoff being examples) with no real love for the sport ...
Your sentiments are fair enough (if I believe them) but I think you just make up some things up to suit your cause. The teams aren't run by the people you mention and whatever you think of them it's not fair to say they have no love for cycling. Tinkoff and Murdock are not the nicest of people but they're both really into the sport.0 -
Paul 8v wrote:
Loving the new avatar MacaloonMacaloon wrote: Hysterics 
From Spokey's blog - Bradders getting bladdered in Glasgow http://spokeydokeyblog.com/2014/02/25/wiggo-comes-to-glasgow-again/...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Crankbrother wrote:RichN95 wrote:
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.Crankbrother 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 ...
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 ...
Your company accounts basically quantify how much you won or lost. They certainly don't specify how much margin you make on individual products, nor do they detail the commercial terms you have with your suppliers. Rather a lot of effort goes into keeping that confidential. In Sky's case, the equivalent results are those that they achieve in races. Revealing their methods to someone who may choose to take that knowledge to other teams would be - just as it would be in any other business - acting against the interests of their shareholders.
It's a worthwhile question to ask how a team could reassure people that they're clean. Vayer isn't the answer to that particular question though, as he's already shown everyone his attitude towards evidence by basically fabricating his own. If I were part of a team, I wouldn't see what I would gain by revealing anything to him - he'll either assert that your methods couldn't possibly work and that this proves you're doping, or he'll say you're not doping and be shot down as a quack who has been proven to make his numbers up in the past.0 -
Frankie's wife, Susan. Like itMacaloon wrote:Paul 8v wrote:
Loving the new avatar MacaloonMacaloon wrote: Hysterics
From Spokey's blog - Bradders getting bladdered in Glasgow http://spokeydokeyblog.com/2014/02/25/wiggo-comes-to-glasgow-again/ 0 -
underlayunderlay wrote:Your company accounts basically quantify how much you won or lost. They certainly don't specify how much margin you make on individual products, nor do they detail the commercial terms you have with your suppliers. Rather a lot of effort goes into keeping that confidential. In Sky's case, the equivalent results are those that they achieve in races. Revealing their methods to someone who may choose to take that knowledge to other teams would be - just as it would be in any other business - acting against the interests of their shareholders.
It's a worthwhile question to ask how a team could reassure people that they're clean. Vayer isn't the answer to that particular question though, as he's already shown everyone his attitude towards evidence by basically fabricating his own. If I were part of a team, I wouldn't see what I would gain by revealing anything to him - he'll either assert that your methods couldn't possibly work and that this proves you're doping, or he'll say you're not doping and be shot down as a quack who has been proven to make his numbers up in the past.
Excellent. He's the Melanie Philips of the movement. Bizarrely people pay attention to both....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
-
Crankbrother wrote: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 ...
Erm, aren't you busy arguing on another thread that Wiggins' 'spike' isn't all that great because one lucky GT is hardly anything and even the tramp at the end of your road has an Olympic gold (even if he had to glue it together from discarded Rolo wrappers himself, which is more effort than Wiggins made) so that doesn't really count either?0 -
And yet another thread is trolled into doping oblivion. Do you want all the threads locked?????0
-
underlayunderlay wrote:Crankbrother wrote: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 ...
Erm, aren't you busy arguing on another thread that Wiggins' 'spike' isn't all that great because one lucky GT is hardly anything and even the tramp at the end of your road has an Olympic gold (even if he had to glue it together from discarded Rolo wrappers himself, which is more effort than Wiggins made) so that doesn't really count either?
The spike isn't great purely because that's what it ended up as ... don't blame me ... as the saying goes, blame it on the weatherman ...
Also, if you are going to take polemic license with my posts ... at least be entertaining with them ...0 -
Ironically, the person who brought Vayer into it was Frenchie, who is usually the first to complain. No-one's trolling. Crankbrother is generally reasonable. There's a difference between trolling and having different opinions.mike6 wrote:And yet another thread is trolled into doping oblivion. Do you want all the threads locked?????Twitter: @RichN950 -
mike6 wrote:And yet another thread is trolled into doping oblivion. Do you want all the threads locked?????
Isn't the conversation about Vayer's comments on Froome, winner of Oman?
It has descended into the usual folks playing the man not the ball, but we could get back to discussing if/how Vayer could make his point better ... there was a reasonable discussion earlier ...0 -
Yeah Crankbrother is just putting across his point of view, I might not always agree with it (But the world would be boring if we all thought the same) but at least he isn't a massive troll like our recently banned friend "The Truth" or "White boy trash" who I assume also got banned.RichN95 wrote:
Ironically, the person who brought Vayer into it was Frenchie, who is usually the first to complain. No-one's trolling. Crankbrother is generally reasonable. There's a difference between trolling and having different opinions.mike6 wrote:And yet another thread is trolled into doping oblivion. Do you want all the threads locked?????0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Ironically, the person who brought Vayer into it was Frenchie, who is usually the first to complain. No-one's trolling. Crankbrother is generally reasonable. There's a difference between trolling and having different opinions.mike6 wrote:And yet another thread is trolled into doping oblivion. Do you want all the threads locked?????
Seconded - it's not a tinfoil hat thread. Frustration that Sky can't reveal their secrets isn't quite the same as conviction that the methods must be underhand.
The thought has occurred to me that maybe there aren't any actual secrets to reveal, but that would be an enormous anticlimax for everyone, so let's pretend we never considered it.0 -
Vayer. Why would you take any number he produced seriously? If he was interested in being taken seriously he would find a highly receptive audience. But he behaves like a lout. Not normal....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
underlayunderlay wrote:
The thought has occurred to me that maybe there aren't any actual secrets to reveal, but that would be an enormous anticlimax for everyone, so let's pretend we never considered it.
Marginal placebos....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Paul 8v wrote:
Yeah Crankbrother is just putting across his point of view, I might not always agree with it (But the world would be boring if we all thought the same) but at least he isn't a massive troll like our recently banned friend "The Truth" or "White boy trash" who I assume also got banned.RichN95 wrote:
Ironically, the person who brought Vayer into it was Frenchie, who is usually the first to complain. No-one's trolling. Crankbrother is generally reasonable. There's a difference between trolling and having different opinions.mike6 wrote:And yet another thread is trolled into doping oblivion. Do you want all the threads locked?????
Oh yea? The "I don't believe Sky are doping, I just insist they tell me why they win a few races" trick. Classic troll. " I just want an answer to my question". Makes perfect sense to me. :roll:
There are a lot of posters on her you can have a good discussion or difference of opinion with. Trolls are different, they only have one agenda and one theme, and its the same regardless of the title or thrust of the thread.0 -
Is that an LA style gritted teeth "Not normal" After reading Hamilton's book that's how I read it every time.Macaloon wrote:Vayer. Why would you take any number he produced seriously? If he was interested in being taken seriously he would find a highly receptive audience. But he behaves like a lout. Not normal.0 -
Mike, did it ever occur to you that folks talk about SKY because a large portion of folk on here love to talk about them? I'd prefer it to be less but a combination of results and nationalistic fervour doesn't get me that ...
Someone even done stats on it it's that bad ...
For example, the chat on the Andalucia race thread, we were discussing the performance of SKY on stage 2 ... Why? Valverde won as expected, but the SKY riders who will have an impact (or would like to) on the major races this year were also riding and it was interesting to see how they performed given some of those goals (Porte against local favourite (might happen in Giro), EBH/GT when other classics contenders are going strong and Wiggins uphill but also for the claimed classics campaign) ... If there was something more interesting happening it would have been discussed ...
If you don't like what you read ... Stay away from the thread and don't stir up other posters just because you don't care for opinions opposed from your own ...0 -
Getting back to the Vayer question, what data could anyone ever release that would satisfy someone who was convinced that you're doping? Why would anyone expect a doper to release accurate data rather than doctoring it to present themselves as innocent? It's far easier to nudge a few numbers downwards or lose a couple of kilos on paper than it is to water blood back down to 50% haemocrit, and we know that that happened back in the good old days. Vayer's insistence upon teams releasing numbers seems doomed to fail for these reasons alone. Similarly, back of the envelope calculations "that everyone else's numbers agree with" are no kind of answer when you take a figure you assume is bad and divide it by a rider's weight on wikipedia.
If we agree that the numbers can't be relied on, what can?0 -
Vayer doesn't really produce any numbers himself. The watts estimates are by other people and they're hit and miss - not nearly within the tolerances he claims (which are better than SRM). It's what he does with them that's problem. He seems to think that he knows the maximum capacity of a human - based on seemingly sod all.Macaloon wrote:Vayer. Why would you take any number he produced seriously? If he was interested in being taken seriously he would find a highly receptive audience. But he behaves like a lout. Not normal.
For a start there is very little verified data from know clean super-elite cyclists. And secondly he seems to base it on his own personal experiences with a handful of French cyclists (the best being Peraud in his MTB days) and a slavish adherance to VO2 max as prime indicator (which, if true, would make Kurt Arveson a bigger talent than LeMond).
On TV yesterday there was an excellent episode of Horizon which was about how we make decisions and assessments, based on the work of Daniel Kahreman. Intuition v Logic. One being fast, bias and lousy, the other being slow, factual and good. Most of the anti-doping crew are using the lousy intuition but and confirming it with confirmation bias passed off as logic and heuristics passed off as knowledge. (I'm not immune to this, but I'm not claiming anything, just pointing out flaws).Twitter: @RichN950
