And now Max Iglinskiy done for EPO
Comments
-
It's not good sense. It's blanket cynicism. If suspicion is your default position then it devalues the suspicion to the point of meaninglessness. The little boy who cried wolf.sjmclean wrote:It's from here (http://kennettron.wordpress.com/2014/12 ... rs-return/) and I think it's perfectly good sense. Look at Contador, he broke his leg and had an infection and 5 weeks later was at his peak to win the Veulta. Froome broke his wrist (not leg), and couldn't train for weeks meaning he wasn't able to be near his peak to win the Veulta. You have to analyse things, other wise you are blindly accepting something, from many people who have cheated in the past.
If there is some reason to be suspicious then by all means have some reservations. But if you don't a reason ( and he's good is not a reason) or have to misrepresent incidents to justify your suspicions then you are no better than the 'fanboy' he derides. In fact you are worse as as it is fundamentally negative and nihilistic position. And it is bourne out of prejudice.
He writes "you set yourself up for disaster by continuously letting yourself get fooled by people you know aren’t being truthful." That includes being fooled by yourself when you know you aren't being truthful in order to justify the cynicism.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
It's not good sense. It's blanket cynicism. If suspicion is your default position then it devalues the suspicion to the point of meaninglessness. The little boy who cried wolf.sjmclean wrote:It's from here (http://kennettron.wordpress.com/2014/12 ... rs-return/) and I think it's perfectly good sense. Look at Contador, he broke his leg and had an infection and 5 weeks later was at his peak to win the Veulta. Froome broke his wrist (not leg), and couldn't train for weeks meaning he wasn't able to be near his peak to win the Veulta. You have to analyse things, other wise you are blindly accepting something, from many people who have cheated in the past.
If there is some reason to be suspicious then by all means have some reservations. But if you don't a reason ( and he's good is not a reason) or have to misrepresent incidents to justify your suspicions then you are no better than the 'fanboy' he derides. In fact you are worse as as it is fundamentally negative and nihilistic position. And it is bourne out of prejudice.
He writes "you set yourself up for disaster by continuously letting yourself get fooled by people you know aren’t being truthful." That includes being fooled by yourself when you know you aren't being truthful in order to justify the cynicism.
He just had a different perspective to you RichN95. QED. Everyone is allowed an opinion and that opinion is just as valid as the one you hold - one that has consistently been proven wrong over decades, and no doubt will be for many more years for a good number of riders. But that is your opinion and you are perfectly within your rights to have it. There is no need to be rude.0 -
Why is it?Joelsim wrote:He just had a different perspective to you RichN95. QED. Everyone is allowed an opinion and that opinion is just as valid as the one you hold - one that has consistently been proven wrong over decades, and no doubt will be for many more years for a good number of riders. But that is your opinion and you are perfectly within your rights to have it.
Suspecting someone of something for no reason than the desire to suspect is prejudice. He takes suspicion as his starting point, which is the same as the 'fanboy' starting point of belief that he derides.
The only true starting point, from both a scientific or philosophical point of view is 'I don't know'. And that my starting point (and usual finishing point). It is intellectually more honest which is why my perspective and opinion is more valid than his. Too many people are scared to admit they don't know, so take the negative position which shelters them being proved wrong.
As for my opinion being proved consistently wrong over the decades, then this where you get it wrong. You are judging people on the actions and merits of others, as part of a homogenised group, and not as individuals. That's what prejudice is.Twitter: @RichN950 -
I don't agree with you. Bertie and Piti have previous on more than one occasion, Froome is pushing the limits with his 'Asthma', Nibali works for a team with a proven track record for doping and performed unbelievably well in the Tour. He has a valid opinion, one which many share. It's moot anyway until someone gets caught as the system clearly isn't foolproof as we have seen from recent events where riders can clearly take EPO or transfusions and still not trigger the limits of the passport - look at Rabbotini's defence? How did the Iglinskiys get away with it for so long. Where there is doubt people will play the system, and to be honest I wouldn't trust Valverde with his grandmother's purse.0
-
These are two examples of weak circumstantial evidence which you are overstaing to justify your preset opinions. You are too scared to say 'I don't know' - you have a need to be more 'knowing', which ironically makes you less knowing.Joelsim wrote:Froome is pushing the limits with his 'Asthma', Nibali works for a team with a proven track record for doping and performed unbelievably well in the Tour.
We don't know who will win the Tour in 2020 or 2025. But you and others have already decided he is probably doping. And that's at the hub of the issue.Twitter: @RichN950 -
You're cherry picking there to support your argument.
I can't disagree re : Bert and Piti. If people are suspicious of them that's probably quite fair.
But on the Froome thing - I remember reading about the prevalence of EIA in elite cyclists in the 80s, before EPO. So it's not exactly unusual, but now people know about it it suddenly becomes evidence of something?
How do you know the Iglinkskys have got away with it for so long? How long? How do you know this?
Of course people will dope. Don't dispute that. Through the later 90's and up until the mid-00's you'd probably be right to suspect everyone. But like it or not, things have changed.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Like I said everyone is entitled to an opinion. My view is that Cookson is going to crack down hard as soon as he has put the tools in place to do it properly. The benefits of doping are clearly not what they once were, and most who are doing it now will get caught at some point.0
-
Joelsim wrote:Like I said everyone is entitled to an opinion. My view is that Cookson is going to crack down hard as soon as he has put the tools in place to do it properly. The benefits of doping are clearly not what they once were, and most who are doing it now will get caught at some point.
Cookson is just going to finish off what McQuaid started.
Are you much of a reader Joel? If so, can I recommend you read
Bad Science : Ben Goldacre
The first Freakanomics book
Thinking, Fast and Slow : KahnemanFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Joelsim wrote:Like I said everyone is entitled to an opinion. My view is that Cookson is going to crack down hard as soon as he has put the tools in place to do it properly. The benefits of doping are clearly not what they once were, and most who are doing it now will get caught at some point.
Cookson is just going to finish off what McQuaid started.
Are you much of a reader Joel? If so, can I recommend you read
Bad Science : Ben Goldacre
The first Freakanomics book
Thinking, Fast and Slow : Kahneman
Cookson isn't going to offer protection to his stars as he realises that some short term pain will be beneficial in the long term. And he is right.0 -
You can write???
Ha ha ha.
Anyway happy new year fellas, looking forward to the new season after a couple of months of doing nothing but fantasy team preparation.0 -
-
-
Outstanding.
Just on opinions, another thing that's important is that while everyone is entitled to an opinion, some have significantly more value than others.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I was thinking about that Freakonomics book the other day, the study of cheating in Sumo, and wondering whether there was anything that might be statistically relevant to look at in cycling. Any ideas?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
iainf72 wrote:Outstanding.
Just on opinions, another thing that's important is that while everyone is entitled to an opinion, some have significantly more value than others.
Obviously. My opinion is worth twice as much as yours. Or maybe each opinion is valid as neither of us know for sure what the real scenario is. Mathematically that means we both have a 50% probability of being right.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Obviously. My opinion is worth twice as much as yours. Or maybe each opinion is valid as neither of us know for sure what the real scenario is. Mathematically that means we both have a 50% probability of being right.
Its sort of like criminal "profiling" - It basically hardly ever works, but people think it works as the successes are reported widely.
So if we used your "they're all at it" stance vs a "some of them are at it", I bet longer term the latter would win. :PFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I agree, I don't think they are all at it. I think a good few are though.0
