intern Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 Some people have a belief and then state it as fact, others look at facts and expert opinions and then form their own opinions. People who state opinions as fact cannot be reasoned with.... Facts contributing to an opinion can be debated, but opinions alone cannot be debated constructively because it's belief vs belief, many wars have started because of this rational of arguing.Chap, there is quite a lot of evidence available through the decades of bike racing which kind of lends some credibility to the contention that quite a few of the top boys have dabbled extensively in the sauce as part and parcel of their work.Now the top end is faster than ever, but they're full natty...heheh I'm not falling for that - never did in the past, even at the height of 'Lance mania' I didn't drink the Kool Aid, and therefore wasn't surprised when he eventually got done. It is just a matter of time, he's a hard task master old Kronos is ;-) <--- please note, this is not a passive aggressive smiley winkie, I am not looking to inflame religious wars or anything like that...
NickGM Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 Patch, the thing is , in my 20s I used many substances to get big and I have felt the strength gains you get from a simple jab of 200mg of testosterone enanthate per week. While I have never used the likes of EPO or endurance related drugs I can only imagine the huge impact on performance they will make. The peloton by large admission during the "lance era" was dirty as hell , yet today's clean athletes are not slightly , but substantially faster then they were back then. Yes equipment has got better but I have felt these things work. It's like trying to say a natural body builder can win Mr Olympia. It's not gonna happen. 44 kph ave speed across 3 weeks of riding , through the alps and Pyrenees , naturally? Big question for me. Also for a domestique(read crap rider) can finish and even lead out world class, cut above , champions and hold with them till the last 3 ks on final climbs is unbelievable at best. I just don't see it. Not Tryna argue hard here, just my opinion.Substantially faster? Lance was faster than Froome's 2015 average speed for 6 or his 7 tour "victories", unless I'm mistaken.
arendoog Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 What was it they said the percentage of pro cyclists claiming to need inhalers for "asthma" was? 60% or something.Hey ! i need those to
arendoog Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 Froome is honest because his wife says so ! The significant areas like blood doping ext is now watched so carefully they stick out easily .An Asthma pump won,t let you win the TOUR and is totally understandable .So we have to start looking at the electric bike situation .
Patchelicious Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 Chap, there is quite a lot of evidence available through the decades of bike racing which kind of lends some credibility to the contention that quite a few of the top boys have dabbled extensively in the sauce as part and parcel of their work.Now the top end is faster than ever, but they're full natty...heheh I'm not falling for that - never did in the past, even at the height of 'Lance mania' I didn't drink the Kool Aid, and therefore wasn't surprised when he eventually got done. It is just a matter of time, he's a hard task master old Kronos is ;-) <--- please note, this is not a passive aggressive smiley winkie, I am not looking to inflame religious wars or anything like that...Awesome, so lets table the evidence and discuss it, thats all I want. I am NOT here saying that they are clean, I am here saying lets discuss all the evidence, be it subjective or scientific..... You make a debatable claim above, namely that they are faster now. http://stats.areppim.com/ressources/tourspeed_604x461.png You can see that the speeds have come down since the Lance era. This however is not evidence that they are clean, but it is definately evidence that they are cleanER Edit: Its interesting to note the substantial jumps in the 50s and 60s...
Patchelicious Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 The very people who have done those 3 week races, all the way through to Lance Armstrong, have made that case, not me. More importantly, I've never done the Argus, so perhaps you're right, I have no leg to stand on opining like that Those very same people also said that not even everybody in their teams got access to the juice, nevermind everybody in the pelaton.
Fat Boab Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 Awesome, so lets table the evidence and discuss it, thats all I want. I am NOT here saying that they are clean, I am here saying lets discuss all the evidence, be it subjective or scientific..... You make a debatable claim above, namely that they are faster now. http://stats.areppim.com/ressources/tourspeed_604x461.png You can see that the speeds have come down since the Lance era. This however is not evidence that they are clean, but it is definately evidence that they are cleanER Edit: Its interesting to note the substantial jumps in the 50s and 60s... I was in the process of plotting something similar, when you beat me to it! The data is interesting and if you want to apply the null-hypothesis (good luck!), ie is it possible that other factors have influenced, in this case, av speed than doping alone? eg topography of route, weather, bike/rider technology, nutritional/training impact etc etc. If these other factors are influential, can they be quantified and backed out of the trend to 'reveal' any impact of doping? Not even on a Friday, does it seem plausible to do this objectively...imho. If there any stats gurus out there, here's a question for you, which may apply a bit of science to the debate: is there a statistical significance between the years post-2005 and the 10 years prior to 2005?
RossW Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 If you have the time and the data, try an ANOVA test in Excel. Alternatively, if you are looking at comparing pre- and post-results against a given mean, a two tailed t test might be the better option. Anyone with other suggestions? I was in the process of plotting something similar, when you beat me to it! The data is interesting and if you want to apply the null-hypothesis (good luck!), ie is it possible that other factors have influenced, in this case, av speed than doping alone? eg topography of route, weather, bike/rider technology, nutritional/training impact etc etc. If these other factors are influential, can they be quantified and backed out of the trend to 'reveal' any impact of doping? Not even on a Friday, does it seem plausible to do this objectively...imho. If there any stats gurus out there, here's a question for you, which may apply a bit of science to the debate: is there a statistical significance between the years post-2005 and the 10 years prior to 2005?
NickGM Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 If you have the time and the data, try an ANOVA test in Excel. Alternatively, if you are looking at comparing pre- and post-results against a given mean, a two tailed t test might be the better option. Anyone with other suggestions?Do you mean Anova suggestion?
Fat Boab Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 That is so easy to answer. A guy gets done for a banned drug, no question he was positive. Not one pro has a bad word to say about him doping, Mr Clean goes on air to say never. But said guy was POSITIVE, caught red handed. SAIDS didn't cover thmeselves in glory with delays etc and the guy finds a nameless pharmacist to testify, via affidavit not subject to cross examination, that he had contaminated gel capsules by dispensing said drug to the immediately preceding customer. Oh the coincidence, Said guy gets off. Twitter is flooded with "Well done" messages from fellow pros. Why? Because he was innocent or because he beat the system? So to answer your question, no. But I love the spectacle. Wrestlemania was on last night. If you accept it's sports entertainment it can be quite fun to watch. Read this article by Ross from 2007 http://sportsscientists.com/2007/11/the-effect-of-epo-on-performance/ The points he makes are still valid today - you can't win clean if even 1 guy is doping. Interesting link and I'm left with queries, but first takeouts: 1. The study referred to showed significant endurance related performance benefits due to the injection of EPO. (Incidentally the dosage wasn't given in this link). 2. There's mention of a 1% difference across pros, champion to 10th placer, in terms of NATURAL physiological difference. No data given and to be fair, it is expressed as a belief. 3. There's also mention of a conservative benefit to a pro of taking EPO, for example, at 5%. I think this is the supporting number, in conjunction with the 1% figure in 2 above, which is meant to suggest that if those outside the top 10 have been bust for EPO and aren't winning, then it casts doubt on the clean-ness of the top 10? I'm trying to be objective but doesn't it suggests the following: 1. If we don't know the EPO dose, used in the study, then we can't comment on the dose-response? eg Would the doses used in the study be those 'typically' used by doping cyclists, which would allow us to guesstimate the resulting benefit of EPO? 2. Is the 1% figure, the natural physiological difference belief between 1st and 10th, plausible? Maybe it's comparing apples and oranges, but I'd guess rider mass between 1st and 10th varies by more than 1%, at the very least, so 1% sounds quite.....restrictive? 3. The 5% benefit to a pro of taking EPO appears to be a thumb-suck to make a point? 4. Last point, and maybe someone more studied in the topic can help me? EPO has a short half life, so detection was/is difficult if its decayed away, yet its physiological benefit is much longer lasting? Yet the physiological impact of EPO is increased haematocrit levels, which allows the physiological benefit of enhanced oxygen transport? If I've got this correct, then would the subjects in the study above, show excessively high haematocrit levels, if they were tested?
Fat Boab Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 If you have the time and the data, try an ANOVA test in Excel. Alternatively, if you are looking at comparing pre- and post-results against a given mean, a two tailed t test might be the better option. Anyone with other suggestions? Paired T-test would do it to test the significance between the mean winner's speed pre 2005 and post 2005. That would allow us to say whether there are anomalies between the two groups, in terms of winner's speeds......................C'mon stats-wizards!
jcza Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 Anoraks on the case, rest of us pseudo scientists can log off now. Just as a matter of interest, anyone think Porte will win a Grand Tour since his departure from Sky or will G be the man? I find it fascinating the way trackies are transformed into potential Grand Tour winners.
Thor Buttox Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 Since when do you only get punctuation if you specifically ask for it? Sound like something Ryan Air would do . . . :-)Never even close... They would ask you to pay for using punctuation
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.