Seriously, if one looks at the Contador's wattage, I think it is suspicious...

We shall see...

How so (and do you have a reference to his wattage)? Andy Coggan once published estimates of maximum possible performance based on combining theoretical maxima in VO2, %VO2 at threshold, etc. Does Contador's wattage excede this value?

Where?

What does it have to do with this thread and the observation being discussed here?

There is nothing to back up the assertion that "People want to believe their guy is clean...". Jeeze, that transcends every aspect of human life. It's a primal instinct probably required for survival ("my guy is the good guy, the other guys are the bad guys"). If people weren't wired to think that way, they probably couldn't organize into effective social groups.

This is so fundamental I can't believe anyone who doesn't live in a cave alone on some mountain would question it. With all due respect, are you autistic? I'm just curious.

Now you need to insult me? You are saying that it is human nature due to survival to be fake. BS. Some people need to act as if they are something they are not, but most do not. I dont waste my day judging all the people I come in contact with.

By the way, who is your clean guy?

What they doping trolls want is a Disco rider, and the only thing that beats a Disco rider will be an American Disco rider. Unfortunately before this whole thing is over they will probably get their wish.

Richard

How so (and do you have a reference to his wattage)? Andy Coggan once published estimates of maximum possible performance based on combining theoretical maxima in VO2, %VO2 at threshold, etc. Does Contador's wattage excede this value?

Are you saying some of the GC riders are not doping? Maybe I misunderstood you, but it seems you were pushing they all dope, and people want to foolishly believe their guy is clean.

Richard

Where?

What does it have to do with this thread and the observation being discussed here?

What does it have to do with this thread and the observation being discussed here?

As long as a performance is below the theoretical limit, it is can be explained as the result of genetic gifts and training and there is no justification for thinking external factors were involved. If a performance is very close to or above the theoretical limit, there would be reason to believe some external intervention was involved.

i recon cadels clean. he never has any outstanding performances and doesnt win anything by huge amounts, hes just a solid consistent rider that gives it absolutely everything he has. you can see how exhausted he is after each stage in the mountains, could barely walk coming getting off the bike the other day and unable to speak for 5mins afterwards.

I think the sport is afraid that if they stop doping, or if all the actual doping is publicized, that they'll lose the sponsors and fans. So they naturally try to sweep it all under the rug.


sounds like a conspiracy theory to me

What about Evans? His team manager today said that Contador was worn out at the end of today's stage, and could not hold onto Evans's wheel.

Richard

Well, I'm not going to respond by saying that I think Evan is clean.... But I'll say this, no one but Rasmussen could keep up with him.
In l'Equipe (pull out your rhetorical swords everyone...) there was a guy who wrote about a study of wattage output by recent Tour studs (Ullllrich, Lance, Basso, Flandis..). And Contador was on the list too.

Hmmm here is what was said, but of course only Contador can be the doper.

Predictor Lotto manager Marc Sergeant talked with Cyclingnews about the time trial that will decide the outcome of the Tour de France.

Yellow jersey Alberto Contador's Discovery Team director Johan Bruyneel, had made a comment pointing to the mostly flat prologue in London where Cadel Evans had lost a second on Contador.

"Then Contador will win the Tour," Sergeant laughed in response. He didn't want to argue with Bruyneel's comment. Instead, the Belgian pointed out that his own rider, Tour contender Evans, was clearly fresher than Contador.

"Evans is fresh and Contador, who couldn't hold his wheel a few moments ago. That's what I saw, he just lost three seconds [in stage 18]," said Sergeant. "Before that, we were very lucky because Evans almost hit a spectator who wanted to take a picture with only three kilometres to go. We're happy with what we have now."
i recon cadels clean. he never has any outstanding performances and doesnt win anything by huge amounts, hes just a solid consistent rider that gives it absolutely everything he has. you can see how exhausted he is after each stage in the mountains, could barely walk coming getting off the bike the other day and unable to speak for 5mins afterwards.

What they doping trolls want is a Disco rider, and the only thing that beats a Disco rider will be an American Disco rider. Unfortunately before this whole thing is over they will probably get their wish.

Richard


"Unfortunately" ?!? Is it about actually being against doping or just fearing those you call "they doping trolls" got it right all along ? :eek:
Boy this is nuts.... :rolleyes:

I didnt see that was the wattage high, low, or mid range? I don't have a problem with the French paper. I am not one that subscribes to a French conspiracy.

Richard

Well, I'm not going to respond by saying that I think Evan is clean.... But I'll say this, no one but Rasmussen could keep up with him.
In l'Equipe (pull out your rhetorical swords everyone...) there was a guy who wrote about a study of wattage output by recent Tour studs (Ullllrich, Lance, Basso, Flandis..). And Contador was on the list too.

Now you need to insult me? You are saying that it is human nature due to survival to be fake. BS. Some people need to act as if they are something they are not, but most do not. I dont waste my day judging all the people I come in contact with.

By the way, who is your clean guy?
No, I'm not saying "it is human nature due to survival to be fake". Where did you get that?

My clean guy used to be Lance, then Tyler, then Floyd.
I used to believe all three were clean.
Then Tyler got busted, and I realized he was dirty. But I still thought Lance and Floyd were clean.
Then I started having my doubts.
Then Floyd was busted.
Then Ullrich and Basso. Then the revelations from Andreu.
And now I don't believe any on the top tier are clean, and most of the peloton is doping.

Unfortunate as in someone on Disco is likely not riding clean.

Richard

"Unfortunately" ?!? Is it about actually being against doping or just fearing those you call "they doping trolls" got it right all along ? :eek:
Boy this is nuts.... :rolleyes:

Are you saying some of the GC riders are not doping? Maybe I misunderstood you, but it seems you were pushing they all dope, and people want to foolishly believe their guy is clean.

Richard
I don't know if all the of the GC riders are doping, but I suspect almost all if not all are. It might very well be impossible to compete effectively without doping with others who are doping.

Anyway, what does this have to do with this discussion?

Go back to post #38. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4948700&postcount=38)

There I wrote: "It's a basic observation of human nature." with "It" referring to Blaireau's contested observation that "People want to believe their guy is clean..."


In #41, you disagreed with that, writing: "That would not be a basic observation. It would be an unusual situation. "

What does your disagreement with my assertion that, "People want to believe their guy is clean...", is a basic observation of human nature have to do with how many of the GC riders are or are not doping?

I didnt see that was the wattage high, low, or mid range? I don't have a problem with the French paper. I am not one that subscribes to a French conspiracy.

Richard


I'll link to the article gimme a sec....


http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2007/20070727_203119Dev.html

Then I am incorrect. I was referring to 100% of the GC guys doping being unusual instead of basic. I misunderstood.

Richard

I don't know if all the of the GC riders are doping, but I suspect almost all if not all are. It might very well be impossible to compete effectively without doping with others who are doping.

Anyway, what does this have to do with this discussion?

Go back to post #38. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4948700&postcount=38)

There I wrote: "It's a basic observation of human nature." with "It" referring to Blaireau's contested observation that "People want to believe their guy is clean..."


In #41, you disagreed with that, writing: "That would not be a basic observation. It would be an unusual situation. "

What does your disagreement with my assertion that, "People want to believe their guy is clean...", is a basic observation of human nature have to do with how many of the GC riders are or are not doping?

Then I am incorrect. I was referring to 100% of the GC guys doping being unusual instead of basic. I misunderstood.

Richard
Not sure why you were referring to that in the middle of something else, but anyway...

I agree it is unusal in general, but there are special cases where it is not.

Is it unusual for people on the freeway to be exceeding the speed limit?

When you look around you and see everyone else around you passing you because they are doing something you're not (be it speeding or doping), then it's very tempting to do what they are doing too, so you can keep up. In such a situation (be it the freeway or the peloton) it is not unusual to have all or nearly all participants "cheating". It's natural.

Not exactly.

Are 100% of people speeding?

Richard

Not sure why you were referring to that in the middle of something else, but anyway...

I agree it is unusal in general, but there are special cases where it is not.

Is it unusual for people on the freeway to be exceeding the speed limit?

When you look around you and see everyone else around you passing you because they are doing something you're not (be it speeding or doping), then it's very tempting to do what they are doing too, so you can keep up. In such a situation (be it the freeway or the peloton) it is not unusual to have all or nearly all participants "cheating". It's natural.

Everyone has their opinion. Each is valid until we can use facts.

I think most of the GC guys came in clean this year, but once they started getting shelled returned to the juice. In Soler's case I think he may have been clean, and started juicing once he had a shot at the KOM. I could be wrong, and if someone disagrees with me I will not start calling them idiots.

Richard

Not sure why you were referring to that in the middle of something else, but anyway...

I agree it is unusal in general, but there are special cases where it is not.

Is it unusual for people on the freeway to be exceeding the speed limit?

When you look around you and see everyone else around you passing you because they are doing something you're not (be it speeding or doping), then it's very tempting to do what they are doing too, so you can keep up. In such a situation (be it the freeway or the peloton) it is not unusual to have all or nearly all participants "cheating". It's natural.

Clean! I think that Evans is one of the few riders that are clean in this tour. I am really starting to doubt Contador though. White, yellow, and maybe polka-dotted jersey seems a little fishy to me. HMMMM! If it Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck!

Based on my pure cynicism of the race....hes doping. As is 100% of the field.

More important question: Is Helmet Head clean? :p :D

:lol:

I suspect that Evans is using all legal means to prepare himself i.e. not taking anything on the banned list.

FWIW, apparently Brad McGee insisted on a 'no-needles' clause in his contract.

If Evans wins the TT and the yellow tomorrow will you still think he is clean?

More power to Evans. He is a good rider. I just don't understand the move from they all dope to Evans is the only clean rider all of a sudden, and the guy that is less than 2 minutes ahead has got to be doping.

Richard

Clean! I think that Evans is one of the few riders that are clean in this tour. I am really starting to doubt Contador though. White, yellow, and maybe polka-dotted jersey seems a little fishy to me. HMMMM! If it Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck!

I suspect that Evans is using all legal means to prepare himself i.e. not taking anything on the banned list.

FWIW, apparently Brad McGee insisted on a 'no-needles' clause in his contract.

You can more than suspect that - Evan's doctor, Daniel De Neve admitted it.

He said: "I will use everything legal to maximise the endurance, resistance and power of the riders I work with."

And he said he injects minerals, and uses creatine, caffeine and antioxidants, and prescribes hypoxic training.

Which is fine.

You can more than suspect that - Evan's doctor, Daniel De Neve admitted it.

He said: "I will use everything legal to maximise the endurance, resistance and power of the riders I work with."

And he said he injects minerals, and uses creatine, caffeine and antioxidants, and prescribes hypoxic training.

Which is fine.
And you buy the hype? They are saying what they know the fans want to hear. They are playing you, and you're going for it hook, line and sinker.

Not exactly.

Are 100% of people speeding?

Richard
Ever drive on a southern California freeway when it's not congested? Everyone driving a car is going at least 75 in a 65. Much of the time it is 100%.

Based on what I've learned here from all the experts he is second in the GC so he has to be doping

Too bad I kinda liked him

BS!! If money was a motivation, and everyone out there cheated there would be a bank robbery every tenth of a second. If you take a group of 200 people you will get cheaters at any cost, non cheaters at any cost, cheaters only if they can get away with it, and all points in between.

Richard

Ever drive on a southern California freeway when it's not congested? Everyone driving a car is going at least 75 in a 65. Much of the time it is 100%.

BS!! If money was a motivation, and everyone out there cheated there would be a bank robbery every tenth of a second. If you take a group of 200 people you will get cheaters at any cost, non cheaters at any cost, cheaters only if they can get away with it, and all points in between.

Richard
Richard, you seem to be thinking that the distribution of cheaters is going to be the same in any group of people in any context, that it's low in terms of who is a bank robber out of the general population, and, so, you conclude it must be low in the peloton too. If so, think again.

Like I said earlier, cheating on freeways, in terms of speeding, is almost universal. And who among us hasn't taken some office supplies home from work for personal use, or used a phone or work computer and/or network (:eek:) for personal use?

The issue here is what is the distribution of cheating in the pro peloton? Is it like the percentage of bank robbers in the general population, or like the percentage of freeway speeders and stop sign rollers in the general population? Or somewhere in between?

Here's another way to look at it. Do you think the number of illegal immigrants caught crossing the border from Mexico is a good measure of the total number of illegal immigrants who get into the U.S.? Or do you think that the number caught is just some percentage of those actually crossing illegally, and to accurately estimate the total number who get across we must multiply the number caught by some factor, like 10 or so?

So, what percentage of peloton dopers do you think are caught? 100%? 50%? 25%? 10%? 5%? 1%? Give us your best estimate.

Before you come up with your estimated percentage, consider the thousands of drug tests that dopers Ras, Vino, Tyler, Flandis, Ullrich, Basso, Rumsas, Beloki, Heras, Pantani, Riis, Moreni, Pettachi, Zabel, etc. etc. passed despite the fact that they were using PEDs.

No that is not what I think. You assume that is what I think. Why would I guess on the precentage of cheaters caught? I am no authority on the percentage of dopers being caught, and neither are you. You can make wild guess, and defend your position, but that is about it. Both of us are guessing at this point.

I have already posted to you previously that I believe in 2006 more riders "Came into the tour clean" than in 2005. My wild guess is in 2005 the GC guys were juiced. In 2006 maybe half were juiced to begin with. That is a wild guess. Landis may have been clean prior to cracking. That would be my guess. After cracking he doped. That is my guess. I don't have verifiable facts and neither do you.

This year Valverde may have been clean, and Moreau to. Vino may have been clean until the time trial. That is my guess. You may guess differently but don't tell me you know for sure. You don't.

Richard

Richard, you seem to be thinking that the distribution of cheaters is going to be the same in any group of people in any context, that it's low in terms of who is a bank robber out of the general population, and, so, you conclude it must be low in the peloton too. If so, think again.

Like I said earlier, cheating on freeways, in terms of speeding, is almost universal. And who among us hasn't taken some office supplies home from work for personal use, or used a phone or work computer and/or network (:eek:) for personal use?

The issue here is what is the distribution of cheating in the pro peloton? Is it like the percentage of bank robbers in the general population, or like the percentage of freeway speeders and stop sign rollers in the general population? Or somewhere in between?

Here's another way to look at it. Do you think the number of illegal immigrants caught crossing the border from Mexico is a good measure of the total number of illegal immigrants who get into the U.S.? Or do you think that the number caught is just some percentage of those actually crossing illegally, and to accurately estimate the total number who get across we must multiply the number caught by some factor, like 10 or so?

So, what percentage of peloton dopers do you think are caught? 100%? 50%? 25%? 10%? 5%? 1%? Give us your best estimate.

Before you come up with your estimated percentage, consider the thousands of drug tests that dopers Ras, Vino, Tyler, Flandis, Ullrich, Basso, Rumsas, Beloki, Heras, Pantani, Riis, Moreni, Pettachi, Zabel, etc. etc. passed despite the fact that they were using PEDs.

No that is not what I think. You assume that is what I think. Why would I guess on the precentage of cheaters caught? I am no authority on the percentage of dopers being caught, and neither are you. You can make wild guess, and defend your position, but that is about it. Both of us are guessing at this point.

I have already posted to you previously that I believe in 2006 more riders "Came into the tour clean" than in 2005. My wild guess is in 2005 the GC guys were juiced. In 2006 maybe half were juiced to begin with. That is a wild guess. Landis may have been clean prior to cracking. That would be my guess. After cracking he doped. That is my guess. I don't have verifiable facts and neither do you.

This year Valverde may have been clean, and Moreau to. Vino may have been clean until the time trial. That is my guess. You may guess differently but don't tell me you know for sure. You don't.

Richard
I never said I know for sure. Let's just say that some theories are supported better by the facts than are others.

Do you know what percentage of illegals get across the border without being caught? Of course not. But yet you probably still have a pretty strong sense about whether it's closer to 100%, 50%, 10% or 1% (and if you don't, you might want to brush up on current events).

Do you or I know what percentage of the peloton is caught? Of course not. But we can still have a pretty good sense based on the information available, no?

That is fine and dandy, but when you start applying these vauge percentages to specific riders then the numbers don't really apply anymore.

You can say only 1% of illegals get caught, but that does not mean John Doe is an illegal.

Richard

I never said I know for sure. Let's just say that some theories are supported better by the facts than are others.

Do you know what percentage of illegals get across the border without being caught? Of course not. But yet you probably still have a pretty strong sense about whether it's closer to 100%, 50%, 10% or 1% (and if you don't, you might want to brush up on current events).

Do you or I know what percentage of the peloton is caught? Of course not. But we can still have a pretty good sense based on the information available, no?

Keep in mind folks the doping trolls are foaming at the mouth waiting for a Discovery rider to test positive. A lot of them claim everyone dopes, but if they were honest a lot of them would tell you Discovery are the best dopers. Now some of them will come out and say Cadel is clean, but he is the only one. Who knows. It is a guessing game. I will tell you this if Levi or Contador come up positive it will make a lot of peoples year on this forum. The will pee all over themselves from the excitement. It will be a lot of see I told you so.

RichardI suspect that some of the doping trolls pee on themselves, anyway. :eek:

That is fine and dandy, but when you start applying these vauge percentages to specific riders then the numbers don't really apply anymore.

You can say only 1% of illegals get caught, but that does not mean John Doe is an illegal.

Richard
Dude, how many years has it been since you've taken geometry? Logical proofs have steps, and they build on each other. One step at a time.

With respect to a small population like the Tour peloton, if you say only 3% of dopers are caught, and you know 3 have been caught, then you know about 100 of the 189 are probably doping. Once you assume that about 100 of the 189 are doping, then you can start looking at the odds of anyone in the top 20 not doping, and it's looking pretty grim.

At that point you can safely say, given the odds, that John Doe, who is xth on GC, is, say, almost certainly doping.
It's not enough to throw him out, but it is enough to give the problem some serious thought.

Logic, one step at a time.

If, assume, safely say, yada yada yada.

Richard

Dude, how many years has it been since you've taken geometry? Logical proofs have steps, and they build on each other. One step at a time.

With respect to a small population like the Tour peloton, if you say only 3% of dopers are caught, and you know 3 have been caught, then you know about 100 of the 189 are probably doping. Once you assume that about 100 of the 189 are doping, then you can start looking at the odds of anyone in the top 20 not doping, and it's looking pretty grim.

At that point you can safely say, given the odds, that John Doe, who is xth on GC, is, say, almost certainly doping.
It's not enough to throw him out, but it is enough to give the problem some serious thought.

Logic, one step at a time.

At that point you can safely say, given the odds, that John Doe, who is xth on GC, is, say, almost certainly doping.

Actually, by your example, the probability is 97 out of 186. You have a very low standard for certainty.

Last year after Floyd's fiasco, I so wanted to try out testosterone and EPO. No one obliged. I'm no troll, I just want to try it also. That way I can formulate an informed opinion.

Bicycling had an article by a rider who doped so he could write about it. Wasn't racing or anything but he took HGH, EPO, and some steroids. Said he felt fresh, could ride all day, didn't feel sore the next day. Search their site for the article. In the end, he didn't like the way some of the drugs made him feel.

If you post your e-mail in a few public places on the internet, the drug sellers will come to you. As will mountains of spam.

It seems pretty easy. We can assume the guys who flunked the drug tests are dirty. And, that those guys who pass test after test, and who refuse to ride with "dirty" team mates, or use "dirty" coaches, or use "dirty" doctors are clean.

If we don't want to look at evidence, and just want to make stuff up, we could just assume everyone is "dirty", which would be terribly unfair to the many riders who have never resorted to criminal behavior to win.

I remember reading that. The writer was impressed by HGH. He gained 12 pounds of muscle mass much to his surprise without lifting a weight. He said he would not mind using the HGH, but the other drugs he didn't care for.

I was disappointed that he didn't do any baseline comparions such as watts at LT before and after dope.

Richard

Bicycling had an article by a rider who doped so he could write about it. Wasn't racing or anything but he took HGH, EPO, and some steroids. Said he felt fresh, could ride all day, didn't feel sore the next day. Search their site for the article. In the end, he didn't like the way some of the drugs made him feel.

If you post your e-mail in a few public places on the internet, the drug sellers will come to you. As will mountains of spam.

At that point you can safely say, given the odds, that John Doe, who is xth on GC, is, say, almost certainly doping.

Actually, by your example, the probability is 97 out of 186. You have a very low standard for certainty.
I'm saying there is a value of X, be it 1, 3, 5, 10, 20 or 50, such that the statement is true.
It's based on the assumption that those who are doping are on average doing better than those who are not, and, thus, the likelihood of someone doping is higher near the top of the GC, and "almost certain" once you get above a certain Xth place on GC.

Yep you got it down to the brass tacks there.

Richard

I'm saying there is a value of X, be it 1, 3, 5, 10, 20 or 50, such that the statement is true.
It's based on the assumption that those who are doping are on average doing better than those who are not, and, thus, the likelihood of someone doping is higher near the top of the GC, and "almost certain" once you get above a certain Xth place on GC.

And you buy the hype? They are saying what they know the fans want to hear. They are playing you, and you're going for it hook, line and sinker.

I love the mixed metaphors - can anyone top this?

I'll give it a go, Helmet Head, I don't think De Neve is trying to sweep the black sheep under the carpet. During this interview he was defending the use of creatine etc. The interview wasn't about doping. The journo was invited to watch everything De Neve does with a fine-tuned comb. I like that kind of openness.

Damn, only two mixed metaphors, need one more.