deek12345 wrote:
am I the only one who thinks we need a CLINIC thread so we can post all doping related things?. seems every race theres more post about doping than anything else .
An "I choose to bury my head in the sand and believe in fairytales" thread would be more efficient
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
I did think that too from seeing the Rendell interviews with Horner on the weekend. When asked about it, he was more interested in answering his own questions - and kept going on about how he thought the Vuelta had been a great race to watch, and how everyone at home should be happy to have witnessed such a 'great achievement' (He certainly isn't modest). He avoided actually saying that he was clean, which doesnt really mean anything, but is quite interesting when compared to how other riders answer those questions.
Would be interesting to watch as the body language often gives you an even better insight. Should probably take a look at ITV player I guess.
Just watched the one after the last stage where he was wittering on and on at various tangents to the question posed. Of course it doesn't prove anything, maybe he isn't the best in interviews just like Sayar's awful interview in Turkey...oh no hang on a minute Edited by ianrussell on 16-09-2013 22:13
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
You mean König who came 10 minutes behind?
Yes, that König. People easily make the mistake of measuring the chances of doping abuse by a rider's absolute performance, while suspicion should be more about relative performance. Horner made a remarkable career jump, Nibali and Valverde did not. König is somewhere in between. Not saying that he doped, but if rider A is 10 minutes slower than rider B, it doesn't prove to me that rider A is not doping and rider B is. So this is why I consider your suspicions arbitrary.
i was not implying this, it is your construction. I was talking about relative performance and expectations. König 9th at 10 minutes behind is exactly where he could be expected (in pre-Vuelta bets i made him 9th or 10th, dont remember exactly). While Horner pawning everyone or Valverde being so fine after Tour is surprise to me.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
You mean König who came 10 minutes behind?
Yes, that König. People easily make the mistake of measuring the chances of doping abuse by a rider's absolute performance, while suspicion should be more about relative performance. Horner made a remarkable career jump, Nibali and Valverde did not. König is somewhere in between. Not saying that he doped, but if rider A is 10 minutes slower than rider B, it doesn't prove to me that rider A is not doping and rider B is. So this is why I consider your suspicions arbitrary.
I'd just like to point out, that it may be surprising for you, but I, along with a lot of other Konig fans had predicted this sort of result from him Pre-Vuelta, and from his past results in the last two years, its noting too extraordinary at all.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
You mean König who came 10 minutes behind?
Yes, that König. People easily make the mistake of measuring the chances of doping abuse by a rider's absolute performance, while suspicion should be more about relative performance. Horner made a remarkable career jump, Nibali and Valverde did not. König is somewhere in between. Not saying that he doped, but if rider A is 10 minutes slower than rider B, it doesn't prove to me that rider A is not doping and rider B is. So this is why I consider your suspicions arbitrary.
I'd just like to point out, that it may be surprising for you, but I, along with a lot of other Konig fans had predicted this sort of result from him Pre-Vuelta, and from his past results in the last two years, its noting too extraordinary at all.
Just like the performances of Nibali and Valverde weren't too extraordinary. So pointing them out as suspicious, while praising other riders who perform on their level (or a bit above) without any doubt is still arbitrary. The only rider doing truly exceptional stuff is Chris Horner.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
You mean König who came 10 minutes behind?
Yes, that König. People easily make the mistake of measuring the chances of doping abuse by a rider's absolute performance, while suspicion should be more about relative performance. Horner made a remarkable career jump, Nibali and Valverde did not. König is somewhere in between. Not saying that he doped, but if rider A is 10 minutes slower than rider B, it doesn't prove to me that rider A is not doping and rider B is. So this is why I consider your suspicions arbitrary.
I'd just like to point out, that it may be surprising for you, but I, along with a lot of other Konig fans had predicted this sort of result from him Pre-Vuelta, and from his past results in the last two years, its noting too extraordinary at all.
Just like the performances of Nibali and Valverde weren't too extraordinary. So pointing them out as suspicious, while praising other riders who perform on their level (or a bit above) without any doubt is still arbitrary. The only rider doing truly exceptional stuff is Chris Horner.
So by your logic people like Armstrong etc are not suspicious because they perform consistently at a certain level ...?
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
You mean König who came 10 minutes behind?
Yes, that König. People easily make the mistake of measuring the chances of doping abuse by a rider's absolute performance, while suspicion should be more about relative performance. Horner made a remarkable career jump, Nibali and Valverde did not. König is somewhere in between. Not saying that he doped, but if rider A is 10 minutes slower than rider B, it doesn't prove to me that rider A is not doping and rider B is. So this is why I consider your suspicions arbitrary.
I'd just like to point out, that it may be surprising for you, but I, along with a lot of other Konig fans had predicted this sort of result from him Pre-Vuelta, and from his past results in the last two years, its noting too extraordinary at all.
Just like the performances of Nibali and Valverde weren't too extraordinary. So pointing them out as suspicious, while praising other riders who perform on their level (or a bit above) without any doubt is still arbitrary. The only rider doing truly exceptional stuff is Chris Horner.
So by your logic people like Armstrong etc are not suspicious because they perform consistently at a certain level ...?
Armstrong did not perform consistently. That was one of the reasons he was so obvious. The ridiculous wattages, complete domination, positive drug tests and a host of other reasons I can't be fagged to list just compounded it.
If there's one thing to like about Chris Horner, it's that he's somewhat honest. When asked about doping, he will rarely (if ever?) say that he's never doped - he'll just avoid the question and start talking about that he hopes people are enjoying the show.
Not that "I never doped" responses actually work, but it's rather interesting.
