labete wrote:
For such a long thread there is very little empirical data, and especially approach, on both sides. There should almost be a different thread where you need to supply references for your statement. Or only coherently structured arguments addressing more than one variable (i.e. dope).
We've been trying for 121 pages to coax either of those out of a Sky defender. Still nothing. You're welcome to try being the first.
All we've heard for 121 pages are the same hilariously silly arguments repeated over and over and over and over and over every 5 pages, always unsourced, all of them taken from the Armstrong phrasebook
Not a Sky-fan exactly, but where's your proof & source? And don't give me journalistic gossip or loose connection, hard evidence?
If there was, Sky would've been caught already.
Otherwise this thread wouldn't last for 100+ pages...
And that's the problem. Unless they're caught standing over the body with a smoking gun you refuse to be critical.
I get where you're coming from, but here's what you don't see: you're repeating the same mantra that most people have repeated for the past 20 years.
Do you like where it's gotten us? Do you like how entrenched the doping culture has become? Because it's the result of that look the other way attitude, that lack of critical spirit.
As Paul Kimmage said a couple weeks ago, what nearly killed cycling wasn't the doping. It was that people refused to be critical because they desperately wanted to believe in the fairytale that there are only a few bad apples and everyone else is clean as a whistle.
It's turned this sport worse and worse for 20 years, and you want to continue doing that? You're out of your mind.
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
labete wrote:
For such a long thread there is very little empirical data, and especially approach, on both sides. There should almost be a different thread where you need to supply references for your statement. Or only coherently structured arguments addressing more than one variable (i.e. dope).
We've been trying for 121 pages to coax either of those out of a Sky defender. Still nothing. You're welcome to try being the first.
All we've heard for 121 pages are the same hilariously silly arguments repeated over and over and over and over and over every 5 pages, always unsourced, all of them taken from the Armstrong phrasebook
Not really a Sky defender. And its true people defending Sky, or making a counter argument, are not providing evidence (I assume they don't have it, safe assumption to make). But, its not much different on the otherside of the argument. The shooting down of "defenders" (or apparently those asking questions that can be interpreted as defending Sky) is what does most of the clogging up (along with repeated single line posts saying "Froome=doper", etc.) Really people should be welcoming questions as they can help create an argument.
Rogers can either say that or say that no, there is no scientific advantage to explain why he was doing better numbers on Sky than he was when he was on the T-Mobile doping program.
Kerrison will either say yes his methods are fantastic, or no they're like everyone else's. Ever heard a coach say the latter?
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
labete wrote:
For such a long thread there is very little empirical data, and especially approach, on both sides. There should almost be a different thread where you need to supply references for your statement. Or only coherently structured arguments addressing more than one variable (i.e. dope).
We've been trying for 121 pages to coax either of those out of a Sky defender. Still nothing. You're welcome to try being the first.
All we've heard for 121 pages are the same hilariously silly arguments repeated over and over and over and over and over every 5 pages, always unsourced, all of them taken from the Armstrong phrasebook
Not a Sky-fan exactly, but where's your proof & source? And don't give me journalistic gossip or loose connection, hard evidence?
If there was, Sky would've been caught already.
Otherwise this thread wouldn't last for 100+ pages...
And that's the problem. Unless they're caught standing over the body with a smoking gun you refuse to be critical.
I get where you're coming from, but here's what you don't see: you're repeating the same mantra that most people have repeated for the past 20 years.
Do you like where it's gotten us? Do you like how entrenched the doping culture has become? Because it's the result of that look the other way attitude, that lack of critical spirit.
As Paul Kimmage said a couple weeks ago, what nearly killed cycling wasn't the doping. It was that people refused to be critical because they desperately wanted to believe in the fairytale that there are only a few bad apples and everyone else is clean as a whistle.
It's turned this sport worse and worse for 20 years, and you want to continue doing that? You're out of your mind.
Thanks for that. And here I was hoping this wouldn't turn personal.
Anyway, firstly, I don't know about the past 20 years, because I only started really following cycling 2 years ago.
Secondly, I'm critical. I see you laughing now, and it makes sense to you, sure. But there's a difference between critical and overly critical. But maybe I must explain something to you first: I tend to support minority mostly, when someone's under attack too much. So on this site, there's just so much hatred against Froome I feel bad for the man and I try to stick up for him. When I'm arguing with a Froome-fan irl, I raise questions myself, try to balance things out.
When 99% is saying he's doping and he's an asshole, I try to raise some questions because you're sending him to die without a trial.
When my friend says he's 100% clean, I ask him some tough questions about his performances because he's blind for criticism.
So my views here are not complete, since I tend to stand up for them more here, because they're under attack a lot more here.
Hope you understood that, since I've a hard time explaining it.
Ian Butler wrote:
Thanks for that. And here I was hoping this wouldn't turn personal.
Anyway, firstly, I don't know about the past 20 years, because I only started really following cycling 2 years ago.
As I said, I can see that. That's why I'm trying to explain to you why that attitude has brought us to the current state of affairs.
This discussion you see now has happened hundreds of times in the past years, over different riders and teams. The result was always the same. Always.
Over the years of seeing the exact same behaviors from the unrepentant dopers over and over you learn that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Eventually you can see who's clean, they're out there, they're winning big races.
And they're not Sky.
Ian Butler wrote:
Secondly, I'm critical. I see you laughing now, and it makes sense to you, sure. But there's a difference between critical and overly critical. But maybe I must explain something to you first: I tend to support minority mostly, when someone's under attack too much. So on this site, there's just so much hatred against Froome I feel bad for the man and I try to stick up for him. When I'm arguing with a Froome-fan irl, I raise questions myself, try to balance things out.
There's a reason for it.
Ian Butler wrote:
When 99% is saying he's doping and he's an asshole, I try to raise some questions because you're sending him to die without a trial.
Without a trial? Without a trial would be 1-2 pages of everyone agreeing. This is 121 pages, exactly the opposite.
Ian Butler wrote:
Hope you understood that, since I've a hard time explaining it.
I understand. Devil's advocate
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
Ian Butler wrote:
[quote]issoisso wrote:
It's turned this sport worse and worse for 20 years, and you want to continue doing that? You're out of your mind.
This is basically what I'm talking about. Not conducive to discussion. And wasn't it you who linked Leinders to the development of GAS6 without any source, and when someone tried to find it came up with a study he did not author and reference to a powerpoint discussing sporting ethics?
And that's the problem. Unless they're caught standing over the body with a smoking gun you refuse to be critical.
I get where you're coming from, but here's what you don't see: you're repeating the same mantra that most people have repeated for the past 20 years.
Do you like where it's gotten us? Do you like how entrenched the doping culture has become? Because it's the result of that look the other way attitude, that lack of critical spirit.
As Paul Kimmage said a couple weeks ago, what nearly killed cycling wasn't the doping. It was that people refused to be critical because they desperately wanted to believe in the fairytale that there are only a few bad apples and everyone else is clean as a whistle.
It's turned this sport worse and worse for 20 years, and you want to continue doing that? You're out of your mind.
Its that or we condemn the innocent.
You can ask questions. But that need to be good ones. Testing needs to be better, the people who are repeatedly asking, "are you doping" need to go away and think and little better. If the figures don't look right, why. What exactly do you think they are taking, how, and why arent they getting caught. And then bring in a test to catch them.
The problem is that testing is crap, and this goes for both sides. Unfortunately the only fair way to judge people is on the basis of tests. (Or an incredible amount of first hand witness testimony) Its why people that that obviously commited crimes still have trials and still get away with things sometimes.
With testing bad, there is no way to proof someone is cheating, and no way to proof you are clean.
Ian Butler wrote:
[quote]issoisso wrote:
It's turned this sport worse and worse for 20 years, and you want to continue doing that? You're out of your mind.
This is basically what I'm talking about. Not conducive to discussion. And wasn't it you who linked Leinders to the development of GAS6 without any source, and when someone tried to find it came up with a study he did not author and reference to a powerpoint discussing sporting ethics?
Powerpoint? WTF are you talking about?
For someone who talks of references you sure don't have any either. Show me where I mentioned a 'powerpoint discussing sporting ethics'
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
Ian Butler wrote:
Thanks for that. And here I was hoping this wouldn't turn personal.
Anyway, firstly, I don't know about the past 20 years, because I only started really following cycling 2 years ago.
As I said, I can see that. That's why I'm trying to explain to you why that attitude has brought us to the current state of affairs.
This discussion you see now has happened hundreds of times in the past years, over different riders and teams. The result was always the same. Always.
Over the years of seeing the exact same behaviors from the unrepentant dopers over and over you learn that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Eventually you can see who's clean, they're out there, they're winning big races.
And they're not Sky.
Ian Butler wrote:
Secondly, I'm critical. I see you laughing now, and it makes sense to you, sure. But there's a difference between critical and overly critical. But maybe I must explain something to you first: I tend to support minority mostly, when someone's under attack too much. So on this site, there's just so much hatred against Froome I feel bad for the man and I try to stick up for him. When I'm arguing with a Froome-fan irl, I raise questions myself, try to balance things out.
There's a reason for it.
Ian Butler wrote:
When 99% is saying he's doping and he's an asshole, I try to raise some questions because you're sending him to die without a trial.
Without a trial? Without a trial would be 1-2 pages of everyone agreeing. This is 121 pages, exactly the opposite.
Ian Butler wrote:
Hope you understood that, since I've a hard time explaining it.
I understand. Devil's advocate
Fair enough. I'm new to the sport and wish to see it clean, but it's far from it.
I'm an optimist. I think it's getting better and I hope I'm right.
On the other hand, I don't have influence on cycling. If I was of importance (UCI or something), I'd be more critical and I'd delve deeper into it, obviously. But since I consider myself only a fan and amateur of cycling, I don't have every detail of every rider so I can only speak my own mind and try to defend the riders I believe in. When experts tell me otherwise with proof, I won't be in denial any longer.
And indeed, devil's advocate, that's the term for it
BritPCMFan wrote:
You can ask questions. But that need to be good ones.
I'm pretty sure some very good questions have been asked. Repeatedly.
No answer has been given.
Or rather, no answer other than 'because SCIENCE!'
BritPCMFan wrote:
Testing needs to be better, the people who are repeatedly asking, "are you doping" need to go away and think and little better. If the figures don't look right, why. What exactly do you think they are taking, how, and why arent they getting caught. And then bring in a test to catch them.
Already been discussed. But we can't make tests for those substances, we're not in charge
BritPCMFan wrote:
The problem is that testing is crap, and this goes for both sides. Unfortunately the only fair way to judge people is on the basis of tests. (Or an incredible amount of first hand witness testimony) Its why people that that obviously commited crimes still have trials and still get away with things sometimes.
With testing bad, there is no way to proof someone is cheating, and no way to proof you are clean.
Like I said, a positive is someone standing over the body with a smoking gun. That's not required to make a pretty strong case that OJ killed those two people.
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
Ian Butler wrote:
[quote]issoisso wrote:
It's turned this sport worse and worse for 20 years, and you want to continue doing that? You're out of your mind.
This is basically what I'm talking about. Not conducive to discussion. And wasn't it you who linked Leinders to the development of GAS6 without any source, and when someone tried to find it came up with a study he did not author and reference to a powerpoint discussing sporting ethics?
Powerpoint? WTF are you talking about?
For someone who talks of references you sure don't have any either. Show me where I mentioned a 'powerpoint discussing sporting ethics'
Okay, fair enough, I'll search back through the forum. But did you provide a source or not, as it is kind of a bold assertion without?
I have absolutely no idea. I see news, I post them if I think they're of interest and haven't been posted. Usually I go away, come back the next day and if I happen to catch a post saying 'source please' I'll post one if I still remember where I saw it, which is unlikely unless it was the previous day.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Most times I simply don't even see the request for a source because I come into the forum and read the most recent posts in the most recent topics, obviously I don't read anything approaching every post made
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
issoisso wrote:
I have absolutely no idea. I see news, I post them if I think they're of interest and haven't been posted. Usually I go away, come back the next day and if I happen to catch a post saying 'source please' I'll post one if I still remember where I saw it, which is unlikely unless it was the previous day.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Most times I simply don't even see the request for a source because I come into the forum and read the most recent posts in the most recent topics, obviously I don't read anything approaching every post made
Fair enough. Another problem with a huge ungainly thread I guess. And I don't want to look like an asshole, I know you're a respected member of the forum and that your posts are often more interesting, better argued and sourced than others.
And to disagree someone else above the "innocent and proven guilty", etc. is fine, but shouldn't be allowed to stifle debate. Only it would be helpful if the quality of the debate could be better sometimes (less argumentative, more informative.)
labete wrote:
I don't want to look like an asshole
Not at all
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
Leinders is attending (i think?) the Ku Leuven faculty club 2013 though, some kind of 30th anniversary i think. So looks like he is (at least was) linked to the company. EDIT: Institute or University rather. Trying to read Google translated Dutch, missed the obvious.
Edited by labete on 18-07-2013 19:34
Iso or Aquarius can you explain the following for me.
I have been injured for 8 months (back thigh muscle completely teared apart), never recovered properly.
However last 2months I have been training a lot on the cross machine (the one where you kind of skiing). The highest avg Watt I have done was 287 for 16 minutes. Sometimes I make sprint intervals for 40 seconds of 400-500 watts 10 times with 1-1.30 break.
Whenever i try to go over to the bike, I cant an avg of just 200 watts for a couple of minutes ? Are there an explanation to this ? I mean im only using the legs in both cardio-machines, so why can i not convert the same power/energy into the bike ?
