What EPO can do
Comments
-
DL1987 wrote:What was the reaction of the fans and media at the time?
Rouleur just posted something on this subject
http://rouleur.cc/journal/history/juiced0 -
BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
Instagramme0 -
SpecialGuestStar wrote:skylla wrote:SpecialGuestStar wrote:something like....
For those that don't know who this is: 1994 Giro winner Eugeni Berzin
yes and third in Fleche that year - what the OP referred to...
I'm guessing he was slimmer back then, even EPO wouldn't get him up the Mur in that condition!0 -
Same barber though.
0 -
davidof wrote:
He'd been long suspected by others on the US scene, apparently
Seems to be a bit of a doping issue in US Masters racing in some regions0 -
ShinyHelmut wrote:Same barber though.
Oh good grief...there's a sobering 'before' and 'now' pair of photos0 -
How old is he now?
It says it helps the fight against anti ageing?Scott Addict 2011
Giant TCR 20120 -
Markwb79 wrote:How old is he now?
It says it helps the fight against anti ageing?
Well, it certainly doesnt help the fight against gravity, looking at the recent pic0 -
0 -
Interesting Ross Tucker tweetage
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Very interesting. Do they have biological passport in athletics?Contador is the Greatest0
-
frenchfighter wrote:Very interesting. Do they have biological passport in athletics?
Yes, it was introduces in 2009, about where it's marked on the graph.
Quite how rigorously it is enforced in some countries I'm not sure.0 -
Don't like graphs which show 'improvement' with a downward line.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Or those which use selective events as markers. Significant as they no doubt were, I'm sure those weren't the only 4 things that happened in the last 25 years.0
-
IAAF's list of currently sanctioned athletes under IAAF rules
http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/document ... d-athletes
click on download for 'List of athletes currently serving a period of ineligibility as a result of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under IAAF Rules '
Like with climbing times in cycling, there's no point in trying to draw definitve conclusions from that chart from Tucker - as he himself was cautioning on Twitter last night0 -
Turfle wrote:Or those which use selective events as markers. Significant as they no doubt were, I'm sure those weren't the only 4 things that happened in the last 25 years.
To be fair, he did later tweet along similar lines (although I'm still not clear if that was related to the same topic ), and added this graph:
0 -
This is good that he did this - it shows honesty (even though the original wasn't his).gpreeves wrote:Turfle wrote:Or those which use selective events as markers. Significant as they no doubt were, I'm sure those weren't the only 4 things that happened in the last 25 years.
To be fair, he did later tweet along similar lines (although I'm still not clear if that was related to the same topic ), and added this graph:
There were two major problems with the original graph - the rarity of the 10k being raced at full pace, and the reliance on just the fastest rather than a broader sample. The broader samples show more of a random downward trend that you would expect.
Basically this shows what I have been constantly banging on about - if you use narrow and selective statistics you can prove just about everything. That's why no-one is going to release data to people who have spent years living by the 'everyone's doping' dogma.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:Basically this shows what I have been constantly banging on about - if you use narrow and selective statistics you can prove just about everything. That's why no-one is going to release data to people who have spent years living by the 'everyone's doping' dogma.
Exactly. Tucker himself warns of "performance pixellation", if you take an individual performance and draw inferences from that you can pretty much prove anything you want.
If data were ever to be released, it needs to be released to the right people. In my experience, any time you think you've found a statistical relationship between X and Y, there are countless reasons that you actually haven't. Applied stats isn't an exact science, it requires years of training/experience (and a decent amount of impartiality) to spot potential sources of bias or methodological errors.0 -
-
"Morality is not a fixed thing. It changes its parameters culturally and historically over time".Rick Chasey wrote:
In a nutshell why sensible people don't judge the likes of Simpson and Anquetil in the same light as Armstrong and Valverde* as the crazy people expect us to.
*(I initially typed Armstrong and Millar as a little gag)Twitter: @RichN950 -
-
I judge all of them the same. Anquetil through Merckx through Pantani through Armstrong to Contador.
They are all on the same thing at a point in time. Some got caught, some didn't. Why hammer Valverde or Berzin or Di Luca or Mick Rogers and not the rest?0 -
Why do you? The drugs are different, the punishments are different, the attitudes are different. It wasn't even banned in Anquetil's day. I remember in the late 80s Theunisse tested positive for testosterone at the Tour and his punishment was a ten minute penalty - he wasn't even DQed.Joelsim wrote:I judge all of them the same. Antequil through Merckx through Pantani through Armstrong to Contador.
In my lifetime attitudes to many things have changed. Many of the TV programs of my youth would never make it on to TV these days, for reasons of sexism, homophobia and racism but I don't judge the makers of them by today's standards - they were not bad people, the world was just different. (For example, Guy Gibson, the leader of Dambusters, is rightly seen as a great man - a hero and a gentleman. But some wish to unfairly judge him by today's standards because of his dog)
You judge them all the same because you've only been around for a couple of years. You have no appreciation of how sport has evolved.Twitter: @RichN950
