oh oh , did Horner just call out USPS/Disco for doping?

[Dan Connelly]

Bill C wrote:

> So we're back to everyone who has a good performance is suspect

That's correct, and always will be.

> and
> should be banned until they can conclusively prove a negative?

Of course not.

 

[RicodJour]

On Aug 20, 9:11 am, Victor Kan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 6:41 pm, wimpyVO2 <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Chris has a valid point -- the performances do make you wonder.
> > Consider the 2004 TdF, Stage 4, the team time trial. The Blue Train
> > demolished the competition that day. A remarkable performance by all
> > five riders. They came in over a minute ahead of... Phonak.
>
> You mean the very rainy time trial where Phonak had multiple crashes
> and punctures, with the team waiting around for guys to get back on,
> while Postal had no crashes or punctures, if I recall correctly?

Yes, that's the one. From Cycling News:
"Hamilton was happy with his team's runner-up spot, but a bit bemused
by all the time lost from four flats and a broken handlebar for Santi
Gonzalez that needed a bike change. "I'm happy with the way the team
rode today - they were very strong and we wanted to win. So I'm
disappointed for them we had so many problems," explained the Man from
Marblehead after Stage 4."

Selective memory is a wonderful thing. It allows someone to determine
a "valid point" from invalid data. It's an art form - really.

R

 

[Donald Munro]

RicodJour wrote:
> Selective memory is a wonderful thing. It allows someone to determine
> a "valid point" from invalid data. It's an art form - really.

Outlying, not invalid please, we're talking damned statistics.

 

[Donald Munro]

Bill C wrote:
>> and should be banned until they can conclusively prove a negative?

Dan Connelly wrote:
> Of course not.

Wasn't there some Iraqi rider who got banned for life for not
being able to prove a negative.

 

[RicodJour]

On Aug 20, 11:49 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > Selective memory is a wonderful thing. It allows someone to determine
> > a "valid point" from invalid data. It's an art form - really.
>
> Outlying, not invalid please, we're talking damned statistics.

Outlying or out-right-lying data?

R

 

[wimpyVO2]

On Aug 20, 6:11 am, Victor Kan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 6:41 pm, wimpyVO2 <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Chris has a valid point -- the performances do make you wonder.
> > Consider the 2004 TdF, Stage 4, the team time trial. The Blue Train
> > demolished the competition that day. A remarkable performance by all
> > five riders. They came in over a minute ahead of... Phonak.
>
> You mean the very rainy time trial where Phonak had multiple crashes
> and punctures, with the team waiting around for guys to get back on,
> while Postal had no crashes or punctures, if I recall correctly?

OK, maybe I gave a bad example. Let's use what perhaps Chris Horner
was referring to: something like Stage 13 of the same race, where the
domestiques of Postal rides in front for 4 out of 5 climbs and they
wear down people like Heras, Mancebo and Ullrich. When domestiques
drop name riders that have been accused or implicated in possible
doping, people are going to wonder ... gee, how could it be that
Lance's domestiques outperformed "enhanced" riders from other teams?

I'm not accusing Postal of anything. I agree with what another poster
implied: the sad thing about doping is that it tarnishes any top
performance put in by a clean team or clean rider.

" If X dopes and Y beats X, then Y must be doping too ... how else can
you explain it?" It's false logic buts that's how people think.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Aug 20, 11:49 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> > RicodJour wrote:
> > > Selective memory is a wonderful thing. It allows someone to determine
> > > a "valid point" from invalid data. It's an art form - really.
> >
> > Outlying, not invalid please, we're talking damned statistics.
>
> Outlying or out-right-lying data?

Isn't that the sum of all stats (depending on how cynical you are, of course)?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Donald Munro]

Donald Munro wrote:
>> Outlying, not invalid please, we're talking damned statistics.

RicodJour wrote:
> Outlying or out-right-lying data?

I didn't know Rove was involved.

 

[Donald Munro]

wimpyVO2 wrote:
> " If X dopes and Y beats X, then Y must be doping too ... how else can
> you explain it?" It's false logic buts that's how people think.

Cyclists must be transitive, after all they wear lycra.

 

[wimpyVO2]

On Aug 21, 12:43 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> wimpyVO2 wrote:
> > " If X dopes and Y beats X, then Y must be doping too ... how else can
> > you explain it?" It's false logic buts that's how people think.
>
> Cyclists must be transitive, after all they wear lycra.

LOL... especially ones who wear lycra in colors other than black