Froome's Data
Comments
-
Alright Cuthbert.
3 posts all about doping, makes me a little concerned.
Feel free to use other parts of the forum and discuss other topics. Adds more value.
Have I broken one of the forum rules?0 -
Alright Cuthbert.
3 posts all about doping, makes me a little concerned.
Feel free to use other parts of the forum and discuss other topics. Adds more value.
Have I broken one of the forum rules?
I'm around to make sure things don't get too out of hand, and having been here a while, people who post exclusively on doping have a tendency to get out of hand, so I just want to make sure. Best nip it in the bud, especially at this time of year
.
You'd know if you had broken the rulez, but for now, be conscious that around here, all opinions are welcome, but not if they're given with deliberate intent to rile and annoy existing members.0 -
We've got ourselves a quiet little beach community here and I aim to keep it that way. So let me make something plain. I don't like you sucking around bothering our citizens, Lebowski. I don't like your jerk-off name, I don't like your jerk-off face, I don't like your jerk-off behavior, and I don't like you, jerk-off. Do I make myself clear?"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'"
@gietvangent0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762939#p19762939]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:We've got ourselves a quiet little beach community here and I aim to keep it that way. So let me make something plain. I don't like you sucking around bothering our citizens, Lebowski. I don't like your jerk-off name, I don't like your jerk-off face, I don't like your jerk-off behavior, and I don't like you, jerk-off. Do I make myself clear?
Hehe
One of me faves0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762942#p19762942]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762939#p19762939]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:We've got ourselves a quiet little beach community here and I aim to keep it that way. So let me make something plain. I don't like you sucking around bothering our citizens, Lebowski. I don't like your jerk-off name, I don't like your jerk-off face, I don't like your jerk-off behavior, and I don't like you, jerk-off. Do I make myself clear?
Hehe
One of me faves
STAY OUT OF MALIBU DEADBEAT!"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'"
@gietvangent0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762945#p19762945]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762942#p19762942]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762939#p19762939]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:We've got ourselves a quiet little beach community here and I aim to keep it that way. So let me make something plain. I don't like you sucking around bothering our citizens, Lebowski. I don't like your jerk-off name, I don't like your jerk-off face, I don't like your jerk-off behavior, and I don't like you, jerk-off. Do I make myself clear?
Hehe
One of me faves
STAY OUT OF MALIBU DEADBEAT!
...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Welcome Trolls.
You'll fit in better where you came from, you can talk about Leinders' being implicated in May 2013 and backdating it to 2009 to suit your agenda all you like there to a chorus of approval.0 -
He was a good rider, until Froome came along he was actually my favourite. There were a lot of parallels, both came from MTB for one.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762863#p19762863]Hercules Rockefeller[/url] wrote:
I don't know why they're so snarky, Rasmussen managed to do it and even upped his TT ability in the process. It's not like Brailsford would let his riders associate with dodgy Dutch doctors either.Not in any way doubting the validity of the results.
And the only other thing that stands out is if he is basically as for now as he was in 2007, why wasn't he better back then? Less weight would certainly make you a better climber, but that's only one part of the puzzle. Again - not doubting the results, just wondering why.
Good point. Veloclinic doesn' think much of Swart's weight loss hypothesis:... it offers a failed hypothesis of a weight loss mechanism to explain the grand tour transformation and provides no significant evidence to decrease the prior probability of doping.
See his Tumblr blog for the full post.
Ferrari also finds it amusing:Lastly, one can't help but smile at the conclusion of the South African physiologist Jeroen Swart: "He just lost the fat"... (a remark I seem to remember I already heard about 16 years ago).
Big fan of Rasmussen? You mention him a lot.
Any particular reason?Supporter of Sky, transparency and clean cycling. Opponent of pseudoscience.
The greatest clean cycling performance ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk0 -
This is so tedious. Zzzzz.0
-
It's not my fault that you can't recognise excellenceThis is so tedious. Zzzzz.Supporter of Sky, transparency and clean cycling. Opponent of pseudoscience.
The greatest clean cycling performance ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk0 -
Veloclinic's article is one of the worst bits of pseudoscientific bumwee I ve seen in a long while...
Proof that if you write something that looks scientific, gullible people will believe it
Is 'pseudoscience' the latest glib insult these days? - it seems to be a very popular method of dismissing something you don't like wrt cycling performance analysis. He's got a slightly idiosyncratic approach but he's not a pseudoscientist by any stretch.0 -
It is pseudoscience - I use the word very deliberately - because it purports to offer a scientific approach to a problem when in reality, the approach is entirely non-scientific, contains massive holes in reasoning and, in fact, does nothing to offer an explanation or solution to the hypothesis or problem.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
It is pseudoscience - I use the word very deliberately - because it purports to offer a scientific approach to a problem when in reality, the approach is entirely non-scientific, contains massive holes in reasoning and, in fact, does nothing to offer an explanation or solution to the hypothesis or problem.
Such as?0 -
It is pseudoscience - I use the word very deliberately - because it purports to offer a scientific approach to a problem when in reality, the approach is entirely non-scientific, contains massive holes in reasoning and, in fact, does nothing to offer an explanation or solution to the hypothesis or problem.
Not offering and explanation or solution does not make something pseudoscience. He is publishing thoughts and calculations that interrogate the hypothesis that Froome's improvement can be explained by weight loss alone, which seems reasonable. You may have used the word very deliberately but you picked the wrong one.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762702#p19762702]Blazing Saddles[/url] wrote:Unfortunately, he's now getting drawn into the usual Clinic troll brawl.
He should have just left (as promised) after landing his technical KO.
Listening to the podcast I thought Swart had a tendency to go on too long. There were several moments where he made an excellent point and should have stopped and turned to Tucker. Instead you could almost hear Tucker squirm and then breathe a sigh of relief as Swart carried onto another point...
Regarding science/pseudoscience. There is a growing industry of sports scientists and listening particularly to Tucker, but also to Swart, it's clear that their solutions primarily involve more sports science analysis... data, analysis, understanding, transparency, blah blah... ultimately it gives them jobs. We ought to keep that in mind when Veloclinic/Tucker/Swart et al speak.0 -
I'm around to make sure things don't get too out of hand, and having been here a while, people who post exclusively on doping have a tendency to get out of hand, so I just want to make sure. Best nip it in the bud, especially at this time of year.
You'd know if you had broken the rulez, but for now, be conscious that around here, all opinions are welcome, but not if they're given with deliberate intent to rile and annoy existing members.
I couldn't care less if people are annoyed by doping discussion. If it's a problem for them, they can stay out of threads related to doping.0 -
I'm around to make sure things don't get too out of hand, and having been here a while, people who post exclusively on doping have a tendency to get out of hand, so I just want to make sure. Best nip it in the bud, especially at this time of year.
You'd know if you had broken the rulez, but for now, be conscious that around here, all opinions are welcome, but not if they're given with deliberate intent to rile and annoy existing members.
I couldn't care less if people are annoyed by doping discussion. If it's a problem for them, they can stay out of threads related to doping.
Forums are platforms for social interaction, and tend to have communities. As someone fairly new, if you don't care about others being annoyed then that's a problem.
I don't care what opinion you have, but you need to express them in a way that doesn't irritate, annoy, or inflame.
When you prove you add value, you'll be given more slack.
Consider this an informal warning.0 -
That clinic makes me so glad we have the BR Pro Race forum.
So many oddballs.0 -
That clinic makes me so glad we have the BR Pro Race forum.
So many oddballs.
It can be described as innocent til proven guilty on here, whereas on there it is guilty using whatever they can twist to fit. It's very sad really.0 -
It is pseudoscience - I use the word very deliberately - because it purports to offer a scientific approach to a problem when in reality, the approach is entirely non-scientific, contains massive holes in reasoning and, in fact, does nothing to offer an explanation or solution to the hypothesis or problem.
Not offering and explanation or solution does not make something pseudoscience. He is publishing thoughts and calculations that interrogate the hypothesis that Froome's improvement can be explained by weight loss alone, which seems reasonable. You may have used the word very deliberately but you picked the wrong one.
That's a straw-man hypothesis though. The idea that there must a single defined variable that accounts for all change is entirely unscientific. Puchowitz goes on to provide a single alternative hypothesis, that the improvement is down to doping. He thus invites the conclusion that if it's not all down to weight loss then it must be down to drugs. This is shoddy in the extreme.
Tucker does similar when he reduces marginal gains to not eating Nutella and having your own pillow. No, those two things don't win you a TdF. Nobody has ever claimed they have.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
It is pseudoscience - I use the word very deliberately - because it purports to offer a scientific approach to a problem when in reality, the approach is entirely non-scientific, contains massive holes in reasoning and, in fact, does nothing to offer an explanation or solution to the hypothesis or problem.
Not offering and explanation or solution does not make something pseudoscience. He is publishing thoughts and calculations that interrogate the hypothesis that Froome's improvement can be explained by weight loss alone, which seems reasonable. You may have used the word very deliberately but you picked the wrong one.
No i havent and you clearly did not read my answer. He is using false interrogations and meaningless or inappropriate (in this case, the most important point) calculations.
It is a (deliberately?) fake, flawed argument written in a scientific style hence pseudoscience.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
It is pseudoscience - I use the word very deliberately - because it purports to offer a scientific approach to a problem when in reality, the approach is entirely non-scientific, contains massive holes in reasoning and, in fact, does nothing to offer an explanation or solution to the hypothesis or problem.
Not offering and explanation or solution does not make something pseudoscience. He is publishing thoughts and calculations that interrogate the hypothesis that Froome's improvement can be explained by weight loss alone, which seems reasonable. You may have used the word very deliberately but you picked the wrong one.
That's a straw-man hypothesis though. The idea that there must a single defined variable that accounts for all change is entirely unscientific. Puchowitz goes on to provide a single alternative hypothesis, that the improvement is down to doping. He thus invites the conclusion that if it's not all down to weight loss then it must be down to drugs. This is shoddy in the extreme.
Tucker does similar when he reduces marginal gains to not eating Nutella and having your own pillow. No, those two things don't win you a TdF. Nobody has ever claimed they have.
With respect straw man, I'm assuming the article was in response to the quote in Esquire:
“The engine was there all along,” says Swart. “He just lost the fat.”
I'm not defending the entire article - I just find the bandying about of 'pseudoscience' as lazy and tiresome as some of the 'he must be doping because xxx' stuff, especially when it's directed at bona fide sports scientist who is trying to apply their models to real problems. It's how progress and improvements in understanding are made. We all know these models cannot take into account all racing parameters and human psychology.0 -
It is pseudoscience - I use the word very deliberately - because it purports to offer a scientific approach to a problem when in reality, the approach is entirely non-scientific, contains massive holes in reasoning and, in fact, does nothing to offer an explanation or solution to the hypothesis or problem.
Not offering and explanation or solution does not make something pseudoscience. He is publishing thoughts and calculations that interrogate the hypothesis that Froome's improvement can be explained by weight loss alone, which seems reasonable. You may have used the word very deliberately but you picked the wrong one.
No i havent and you clearly did not read my answer. He is using false interrogations and meaningless or inappropriate (in this case, the most important point) calculations.
It is a (deliberately?) fake, flawed argument written in a scientific style hence pseudoscience.
Fine - I'll file you thoughts under 'internet guy knows better than genuine science guy'.0 -
I'm understanding why you re struggling a little if you re twisting my post that much. Given that we are now arguing about what the definition of "Pseudoscience" is, perhaps you could given me yours? It appears to differ from the definition provided by google - which is fine - but if we are to continue this conversation I think we need to define where we are starting fromWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I'm with ddraver:
pseudoscience
ˈsjuːdəʊˌsʌɪəns/Submit
noun
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.0 -
I'm with ddraver:
pseudoscience
ˈsjuːdəʊˌsʌɪəns/Submit
noun
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
If you both believe Puchowicz is pushing beliefs under the guise of science, then that's your interpretation. I don't. I think he's trying to grasp the doping nettle using analysis. We can disagree, that's fine.0 -
I think he's trying to grasp the doping nettle using analysis.
What do you mean?0 -
I'm with ddraver:
pseudoscience
ˈsjuːdəʊˌsʌɪəns/Submit
noun
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
If you both believe Puchowicz is pushing beliefs under the guise of science, then that's your interpretation. I don't. I think he's trying to grasp the doping nettle using analysis. We can disagree, that's fine.
Using analysis, and masquerading it as scientific methods?0
