No Tour for Astana

squidwranglr

I stopped at ten, partly because it seemed like a good number, partly because the previous decade was dominated by one athlete (Mark Allen), but nevertheless I see your point and here's the data:

1997 Thomas Hellriegel 26
1996 Luc Van Lierde 27
1995 Mark Allen 37
1994 Greg Welch 28
1993 Mark Allen 35
1992 Mark Allen 34
1991 Mark Allen 33
1990 Mark Allen 32
1989 Mark Allen 31
1988 Scott Molina 28

That averages to 31.1.

By the way, if there are any mistakes in this data, they're my own because I dug them up manually from Wikipedia.

Berend

thunder

Allen had a steroid positive I do believe.

squidwranglr

That's a fair question, but I'll make two observations. First, that data is a bit harder to dig up, obviously, but second, and more importantly, "you and I" could easily draw different conclusions from the results. Say it turns out there aren't many 20-somethings in the data, you could say, see, the results track the participant sample. And I would turn around and say, yes, but it could also be a sign of a self-policing/self-modulating acceptance that 20-somethings don't even attempt the holy grail of triathlon because historically they simply get themselves beaten up with no rewards to show for.

If I can find the data easily, I'd be happy to share it. I really don't have a bias in this (yes, I am an amateur triathlete), but I really do believe that there are sports in which athletes "peak" later, so I find the original blanket statement without any scientific basis objectionable.

Berend

squidwranglr

Sorry, thunder, but I do believe you are making that up. It's not like Mark Allen is a hero of mine, but even a bit of competent Google'ing and looking around Wikipedia would turn something up if one of the legends of Ironman was ever tested positive.

Feel free to educate me with a reference or link, though.

Thanks,

Berend

thunder

was it scott?

I read about one of those guys some board recently, it might be wrong.

doctorSpoc

c'mon, it was a carefully crafted bogus offer... did you listen to what he really said... Contador volunteered to get his blood tested if compelled to do so (just like Basso did... and we all know about how that worked out in his case) completely bogus offer... but the spanish protect there own so they are not going to compel a test for sure. it's a different story with the italians... you know there are two investigations... one in spain the one you keep harping on about and a complete other one in italy opened by Torri of CONI in italy...

also the previous judge in spain said that riders COULDN'T actually have their blood tested against the blood bags of OP, so even if he really did want to he couldn't... BUT.. the judges ruling over the appeal have OK'd this... so Contador is fully able to do this now if he wants... so if he's really earnest, it's full steam ahead.. but he never will.. 'cause he's guilty as sin... i bet Torri wants to take a swab to his mouth though.

Crankyfeet

So the one guy with six data points above 30 was done for steroids. Hardly an effective control benchmark.

__________________

squidwranglr

And who was that?

Berend

Crankyfeet

I thought thunder told us that Mark Allen tested positive for steroids. Since that post went uncontested, I thought it must have been fact.

Post edit - Sorry - my bad - I didn't see your post

__________________

squidwranglr

Apology accepted, of course, but this is a good example of the "group think" that happens on these forums. Other than the fact that I'm pretty darn tired tonight after a long Ironman training session today and have nothing better to do but browse these forums while I do some work, there was no guarantee that I would have been around to have corrected thunder. And you commented after his remark "went uncontested" for exactly ten minutes...

Berend

Crankyfeet

Except that the error you refer to is a false statement - an error of fact that is falsely accepted. The problem/reality with those errors is that they are pretty easily shot down or corrected. However the groupthink of opinion based on fact is slightly different. I've been in enough committees and business meetings to see the effect of wavering groupthink based on the latest persuasive monologue. I know it exists. But the elements that go into my personal opinions are based on the uncontested facts presented here and my independently researched facts.


For myself, the Slipstream performance of second and third in the ToC TT has challenged my assumptions. Only because I think that those guys are clean. And on the basis that a clean rider ordinarily can't beat a doped rider, it would imply that everyone below them is clean... which seems unlikely based on my previous conclusions. But I have to digest it somehow. Either Slipstream (Millar and Vande Velde at least) are doping, or they and the the rest below them are clean, or my assumption that cleans can't beat dopers is incorrect.

__________________

thunder

you need to put your function Crank onto Liege/Flanders or the Tour. The most selective races, with the best talent, with everyone on incentive. Your schema works then.

classic1

The internet is not a repository for every bit of information that ever existed. thunder is correct. Mark Allen had a positive for steroids. I have it in an old 'Winning' magazine out in the shed somewhere but to be honest I can't be arsed digging it out. He wasn't banned because (ROFLMAO) .......triathlon didn't have an anti-doping policy or rules to ban doped athletes at the time.

thunder

classic, you should update wikipedia