Watts Per Kilogram
B. Lafferty
The values are in the range of clean riders described by Vayer. If this
is a clean Contador we are looking at, that would explain his
non-performance in the 2 long time trials he rode this year and his lack
of explosive ability in the climbs. If the Tour brings back the first
week long time trial, that could balance things out between the climbers
and rouleurs. Where that will leave Schleck should be interesting to see
next year.
--D-y
I liked the "orange juice" jab at the end.
Ferrari's meaning was quite clear, at least to someone who understands
that "doping" is institutionalized in Sport (meaning, it comes from
the top; "everyone was doping and everyone knew that everyone was
doping" from (in cycling specifically) the owners, advertisers, down
through management, DS's, soigneurs, riders, mechanics, gofers, etc.
etc.).
Instead of this comment somehow "discrediting" Ferrari, we could ask
if any of Ferrari's "patients" died, and decide what we think after
evidence pertaining to the ongoing well being of those he worked with
is presented.
Since this would be a massive amount of dirt to lay at Ferrari's
doorstep, Brian (All the Dirt, All the Time) Lafferty, I expect the
conclusions of your investigations forthwith <g>.
TIA!
--D-y
Anton Berlin
The crowds were less, the headlines were smaller, the drama was ( i
can't describe it because I fell asleep )
B. Lafferty
Ferrari's published comments. We could ask if any of Ferrari's patients
died, but that isn't the issue as much as you'd like it to be by raising
it as a strawman.
The Vayer analysis published by Walsh appears now to be fully on the
mark. Pretty good for a gym teacher, eh?
BTW, the dirt on Ferrari's doorstep is his and his alone.
CowPunk
That has to be one of the worst pieces of junk science I've ever seen.
Ningi
> It's no wonder you're so confused about who is/isn't doping.
> That has to be one of the worst pieces of junk science I've ever seen.
>
Want to explain why?
Pete
--D-y
The "orange juice" stab was meant to totally discredit Ferrari. My
point is, and obviously so, the jab was gratuitous.
IOW, maybe Ferrari's "science" (after reading through the fudge
factors in the article) is better, no matter if it was applied
"legally" or not.
If indeed Ferrari's "patients" enjoyed good health, the "orange juice"
comment pertains.
Do I need to post the link to the Bryant Gumbel show where the
official steroid hysteria gets poked plumb full of great big holes?
Don't pretend you don't understand this time, Brian (ref. the recent
"what math" comment).
> The Vayer analysis published by Walsh appears now to be fully on the
> mark. Pretty good for a gym teacher, eh?
Vayer could even have been a lawyer, for all that matters.
> BTW, the dirt on Ferrari's doorstep is his and his alone.
Why does the prayer say "lead us not into temptation", Brian?
I mean, long ago a contractor explained to me his moral obligation to
write a tight contract when he offered a bid on a job (this man's
business covered work from residential service work to multi-story
state college dormitories, btw). This, taken as a responsibility to
not tempt someone to cheat him, in regard for the other person (Am I
my brother's keeper?).
IOW, the rule makers in "sport" have a real, moral obligation to write
working rules that can be fairly enforced, not pie-in-the sky
proclamations that seek to protect them from blame when someone who
knows the guy next to him is cheating and not getting caught chooses
to compete on as even a playing field as he can manage.
Or, would you prefer to keep "doping" in the dark, and have a bunch
more athletes drop like flies (or have late-onset health issues)
before the problem is identified and dealt with in at least some
constructive manner?
If you're going to claim some kind of moral high road, you're going to
have to do a lot more, sir.
--D-y
Jimmy July
Welcome to the dark side!
CowPunk
> On 26/07/2010 17:08, CowPunk wrote:
>
> > It's no wonder you're so confused about who is/isn't doping.
> > That has to be one of the worst pieces of junk science I've ever seen.
>
> Want to explain why?
>
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=753215493005715353&postID=3780660978394266392
B. Lafferty
Ningi
> On Jul 26, 10:22 am, Ningi<ningiEGGSANDS...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 26/07/2010 17:08, CowPunk wrote:
>>
>>> It's no wonder you're so confused about who is/isn't doping.
>>> That has to be one of the worst pieces of junk science I've ever seen.
>>
>> Want to explain why?
>>
> I already did.
>
> https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=753215493005715353&postID=3780660978394266392
>
No, a reply isn't an explanation. Feel free to explain what's wrong
with their science and analysis. Try to do better than "they weren't
trying very hard"
What GL says isn't their problem.
Pete
Keith
wrote:
Good point, that means Menchov would have won the TdF !
When was the last time we had two long ITTs...2003 it seems when Ulle
trashed LA, that was something, a glimmer of hope for all those
interested in talent more than "preparation" and good fun for those
entertained by ridiculous excuses (My brake was rubbing, I lost 10
pounds, etc...)
K. Fred Gauss
> When was the last time we had two long ITTs...2003 it seems when Ulle
> trashed LA, that was something, a glimmer of hope for all those
> interested in talent more than "preparation"
I love the "Ulle was CLEAN!" crowd!
I'm starting an "Jan Ullrich Fairness Fund" to defend his good name
against those who claimed he doped. For a mere $75.00 donation I will
send you an appropriate T-shirt and membership certificate. I better get
started on a web page for this ... or should I visit my Lexus dealer first?
CowPunk
> with their science and analysis. Try to do better than "they weren't
> trying very hard"
>
> What GL says isn't their problem.
>
> Pete
Pete,
The authors make the basic assumption that every rider is riding as
hard as they can at all times, even during attacks. This simply is
not true. And to use such anecdotal figures as evidence of riders
racing above or below a theoretical limit for human power is like
comparing apples to oranges.
Look, they're fun numbers to look at, but to use them as evidence to
accuse riders of doping is irresponsible and not how the scientific
method works. Even the author agrees. "One of the big talking points
in all these analyses is the issue of whether a performance is proof
of doping. Of course, the answer is no. There are too many
assumptions in the calculation of physiological implications of a
given performance for it to be "proof". "
Lemond should know better. But he doesn't care because he's on a
witch hunt.
Ningi
>> No, a reply isn't an explanation. Feel free to explain what's wrong
>> with their science and analysis. Try to do better than "they weren't
>> trying very hard"
>>
>> What GL says isn't their problem.
>>
>> Pete
>
> Pete,
>
> The authors make the basic assumption that every rider is riding as
> hard as they can at all times, even during attacks. This simply is
> not true. And to use such anecdotal figures as evidence of riders
> racing above or below a theoretical limit for human power is like
> comparing apples to oranges.
>
That's true but I think the comparison between previous years and this
year is valid. If you look at the riders who win a mountaintop finish,
particularly when there's a race riding on it, It's a decent assumption
that they are right at their limit.
Also, the maths of the sportsscientists guys seems better worked out
than Ferrari's.
> Look, they're fun numbers to look at, but to use them as evidence to
> accuse riders of doping is irresponsible and not how the scientific
> method works. Even the author agrees. "One of the big talking points
> in all these analyses is the issue of whether a performance is proof
> of doping. Of course, the answer is no. There are too many
> assumptions in the calculation of physiological implications of a
> given performance for it to be "proof". "
When you average over lots of performances it becomes more meaningful.
If over a few years, peak performances drop relative to previous known
doping years, it's a good pointer to a reduction in doping. The women's
800m (which I think sportsscientists has covered) is a decent example.
>
> Lemond should know better. But he doesn't care because he's on a
> witch hunt.
Agreed. Although it's also possible he's right.
Pete
CowPunk
> On 27/07/2010 03:52, CowPunk wrote:
> trying very hard"
>
> >> What GL says isn't their problem.
the Tour of Cali? How do you think a sponsor reacts to that? or a
potential sponsor? What about the timing of the FL confession?
> That's true but I think the comparison between previous years and this
> year is valid. If you look at the riders who win a mountaintop finish,
> particularly when there's a race riding on it, It's a decent assumption
> that they are right at their limit.
>
I respectfully disagree. I think dopers are smarter than that.
They've now learned you only ride hard enough to win, not set records.
Maybe it's just me, but I didn't get the impression that Contador or
Schleck were really riding at their limit. They looked more like
future teammates out for a hard ride, unwilling to take risks. But
how can you be certain? That's the point I'm trying to make. We just
have to take their word that they were.
> Also, the maths of the sportsscientists guys seems better worked out
> than Ferrari's.
For a TT or sprint, or controlled experiment, i would agree. I believe
there are too many outside variables to consider in a stage race or
endurance event.
> When you average over lots of performances it becomes more meaningful.
> If over a few years, peak performances drop relative to previous known
> doping years, it's a good pointer to a reduction in doping. The women's
> 800m (which I think sportsscientists has covered) is a decent example.
>
The 800m is a sprint. I would tend to agree with the results from
such an event. The Tour is an endurance event with too many variables
to account for. It's like trying to forecast the weather 2 months in
advance..
> Agreed. Although it's also possible he's right.
Yes, and an equal possibility that he's wrong.
> Pete
Kurgan Gringioni
"Ningi" <ningiEGG...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NMx3o.302016$Yb4.258667@hurricane...
: >
: > Lemond should know better. But he doesn't care because he's on a
: > witch hunt.
:
: Agreed. Although it's also possible he's right.
Dumbass -
It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong. He's going after people whom he
didn't race against, people whom have had no effect on his career.
It's because they're Americans. He's got this entitlement syndrome where he
believes that he and no one else should be the Only American Ever to Win the
Tour de France.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
B. Lafferty
Frederick the Great
Ningi <ningiEGG...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/07/2010 03:52, CowPunk wrote:
> >> No, a reply isn't an explanation. Feel free to explain what's wrong
> >> with their science and analysis. Try to do better than "they weren't
> >> trying very hard"
> >>
> >> What GL says isn't their problem.
> >>
> >> Pete
> >
> > Pete,
> >
> > The authors make the basic assumption that every rider is riding as
> > hard as they can at all times, even during attacks. This simply is
> > not true. And to use such anecdotal figures as evidence of riders
> > racing above or below a theoretical limit for human power is like
> > comparing apples to oranges.
> >
>
> That's true but I think the comparison between previous years and this
> year is valid. If you look at the riders who win a mountaintop finish,
> particularly when there's a race riding on it, It's a decent assumption
> that they are right at their limit.
Not necessarily. They have to race tomorrow.
--
Old Fritz
Michael Press
Ningi <ningiEGG...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Lemond cannot be right, because what he is doing there is wrong.
--
Michael Press
Mark J.
> "Ningi" <ningiEGG...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:NMx3o.302016$Yb4.258667@hurricane...
> : >
> : > Lemond should know better. But he doesn't care because he's on a
> : > witch hunt.
> :
> : Agreed. Although it's also possible he's right.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong. He's going after people whom he
> didn't race against, people whom have had no effect on his career.
Heh. In Greg's mind, Lance had a very negative effect on Greg's
post-racing, /bike-selling/ career. 'course the real sales killer was
Greg's mouth, but he'll never realize that.
Mark J.
Ningi
Often that's the case but I would be surprised if that was true for
Schleck on the Tourmalet.
Pete
Kurgan Gringioni
"Mark J." <MarkU...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i2njmc$etq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Dumbass -
Exactly.
Kurgan Gringioni
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:76mdnT3ye_CjudLR...@giganews.com...
Dumbass -
I used to revere LemonD. It's was very disappointing to discover what his
character really is.
Anton Berlin
wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:76mdnT3ye_CjudLR...@giganews.com...
> : On 7/27/2010 1:36 PM, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> : >
> : >news:NMx3o.302016$Yb4.258667@hurricane...
> : > :>
> : > :> Lemond should know better. But he doesn't care because he's on a
> : > :> witch hunt.
> : > :
> : > : Agreed. Although it's also possible he's right.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Dumbass -
> : >
> : > It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong. He's going after people whom
> he
> : > didn't race against, people whom have had no effect on his career.
> : >
> : > It's because they're Americans. He's got this entitlement syndrome where
> he
> : > believes that he and no one else should be the Only American Ever to Win
> the
> : > Tour de France.
> : >
> : > thanks,
> : >
> : > Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> : >
> : What's your syndrome, Henry?
>
> Dumbass -
>
> I used to revere LemonD. It's was very disappointing to discover what his
> character really is.
>
> thanks,
>
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
I always thought Lemond was clean and thus justified in his attacks or
Armstrong until I tried to explain it to my girlfriend and couldn't
explain Lemond to be pure witha straight face.
Funny how we learn most by teaching.
B. Lafferty
--D-y
> On 7/28/2010 4:30 PM, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >news:76mdnT3ye_CjudLR...@giganews.com...
> > : On 7/27/2010 1:36 PM, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > :>
> > :> news:NMx3o.302016$Yb4.258667@hurricane...
> > :> :>
> > :> :> Lemond should know better. But he doesn't care because he's on a
> > :> :> witch hunt.
> > :> :
> > :> : Agreed. Although it's also possible he's right.
> > :>
> > :>
> > :>
> > :> Dumbass -
> > :>
> > :> It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong. He's going after people whom
> > he
> > :> didn't race against, people whom have had no effect on his career.
> > :>
> > :> It's because they're Americans. He's got this entitlement syndrome where
> > he
> > :> believes that he and no one else should be the Only American Ever to Win
> > the
> > :> Tour de France.
> > :>
> > :> thanks,
> > :>
> > :> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> > :>
> > : What's your syndrome, Henry?
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > I used to revere LemonD. It's was very disappointing to discover what his
> > character really is.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> A slippery slope you know quite well, Henry.
Funny coming from one whose hatred of Lance Armstrong is (by
admission) rooted in a distant observance of Armstrong's alleged
boorish behavior ("arrogance").
Which BTW FWIW IMLE with Mr. Armstrong is definitely not "on" 24/7. As
I've repeated here previously.
Also pertinent, in a local discussion, another recovering Lemond
admirer noted that his imaginings IRT the wonderfulness of G. Lemond
were brought rudely to earth in one brief encounter during some sort
of group ride. Noting, LA rode Tuesday Nighters and Bakery rides here
in Austin for years with zero negative feedback from what I heard from
people who rode at the front with him (having given up my potential
skin-of-teeth spot there for "real life" endeavor). Only slight
"negative" thing was, after cancer, it was "I'm going this way" at
forks in the road. He was starting to get real busy with the Tour
thing, I guess-- you remember, seven in a row? And there are lots of
stories incl. one of my own of LA's being cool ("playing nice with
others" in a competitve environment) while using the TN'er for
mileage, if not actual "training".
--D-y
B. Lafferty
I dislike him and simply wish him the results of his karma.
--D-y
How about Novitsky's karma? Think that'll figure in?
--D-y
B. Lafferty
Anton Berlin
> Everyone's karma always factors in. Even yours. :-)
But not always factored (balanced) in the same lifetime.
(wink)
RicodJour
>
> Everyone's karma always factors in. Even yours. :-)
If that is the case you should be very concerned.
Schadenfreude - taking pleasure in the pain of another - is the
definition of bad karma.
You have it in spades.
R
B. Lafferty
After your little rant about Greg's childhood abuse I expect you'll
return as a mold spore and be stuck that way for quite a while waiting
for the right conditions to spawn.
The worst that's going to happen is I spend my next life as a flea or a
fly--something with a very short lifespan. Such organisms really can't
create much if any bad karma, so I expect I'll be back as a human in a
week or so.
BTW, the pleasure from seeing justice done negates any negative karma
from enjoying arrogant criminals (not naming anyone in particular now)
meet their just rewards.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> Hatred is your word. I don't recall saying I hate Armstrong. I don't.
> I dislike him and simply wish him the results of his karma.
That word "karma." It keeps coming up. I know
ED hates the concept, but even apart from that,
I don't think it means what you think it means.
There is a very big difference between karma and
justice.
If Armstrong is brought low by a Federal prosecution
that proves that his success was built on a criminal
enterprise, and that the crimes were a necessary
part of his success, that's justice.
On the other hand, if Armstrong is brought low on some
charge that's incidental to his success (Suppose he gets
caught on some perjury charge about what he did or did
not say to a doctor), but the agent of destruction is one
of his victims ... Say his path to the top involved screwing
lots of little people (this is a hypothetical, and it has to be
something egregious, not just "he isn't always nice"), and
one of these people whom he did out of house and home
is the undoing of him, then that would be karma - but it
really has nothing to do with the justice system. For
example, one could argue that Tiger Woods's downfall
is an example of karma, but it has nothing to do with
Woods being charged with anything.
Anyway, bad karma is supposed to be serious business, it
expresses the idea that actions have consequences and
you should be careful with the choices you make, it
means more than "The guy comes off like an arrogant jerk
in public and I don't like him."
Fredmoralphilosopher Ben
Frederick the Great
<2048e405-8983-44ec...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Teach me to revile Armstrong.
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
<7826c6b9-1919-40b8...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Typically it manifests externally after some time elapses.
Internally it manifests immediately.
--
Old Fritz
Kurgan Gringioni
: On 7/29/2010 1:02 PM, RicodJour wrote:
: > On Jul 29, 10:41 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
: >>
: >> Everyone's karma always factors in. Even yours. :-)
: >
: > If that is the case you should be very concerned.
: > Schadenfreude - taking pleasure in the pain of another - is the
: > definition of bad karma.
: > You have it in spades.
: >
: > R
:
: After your little rant about Greg's childhood abuse I expect you'll
: return as a mold spore and be stuck that way for quite a while waiting
: for the right conditions to spawn.
:
: The worst that's going to happen is I spend my next life as a flea or a
: fly--something with a very short lifespan. Such organisms really can't
: create much if any bad karma, so I expect I'll be back as a human in a
: week or so.
Dumbass -
Spreading around negative energy affects your current life in ways that you
may not have thought about.
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that you could have been much more
successful in whatever it is you do if you were a pleasure to be around. The
people who go to the top are the ones who are competent *and* with whom
others enjoy doing business.
Kurgan Gringioni
"RicodJour" <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:57f44272-d140-4c2b...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Bingo.
RicodJour
wrote:
> "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
> On Jul 29, 10:41 am, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Everyone's karma always factors in. Even yours. :-)
>
> :: If that is the case you should be very concerned.
> :: Schadenfreude - taking pleasure in the pain of another - is the
> :: definition of bad karma.
> :: You have it in spades.
>
> Bingo.
Oh boy! Let me put on a new pair of Depends and grab my walker!
R
B. Lafferty
--D-y
> On 7/29/2010 1:02 PM, RicodJour wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 10:41 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> Everyone's karma always factors in. Even yours. :-)
>
> > If that is the case you should be very concerned.
> > Schadenfreude - taking pleasure in the pain of another - is the
> > definition of bad karma.
> > You have it in spades.
>
> > R
>
> After your little rant about Greg's childhood abuse I expect you'll
> return as a mold spore and be stuck that way for quite a while waiting
> for the right conditions to spawn.
>
> The worst that's going to happen is I spend my next life as a flea or a
> fly--something with a very short lifespan. Such organisms really can't
> create much if any bad karma, so I expect I'll be back as a human in a
> week or so.
Hmmm... I thought we were all trying to get off the merry-go-round of
repeated lives on this plane.
Whatever.
> BTW, the pleasure from seeing justice done negates any negative karma
> from enjoying arrogant criminals (not naming anyone in particular now)
> meet their just rewards.
You can always hope so.
You don't have to name Lance, Brian. We all know where you spend your
time.
--D-y
B. Lafferty
RicodJour
>
> BTW, the pleasure from seeing justice done negates any negative karma
> from enjoying arrogant criminals (not naming anyone in particular now)
> meet their just rewards.
Would you let a contrite criminal slide?
You are about as arrogant as it gets.
How in the world were you not cast in Dinner For Schmucks? Maybe
there'll be a sequel.
R
B. Lafferty
RicodJour
> On 7/31/2010 9:52 AM, RicodJour wrote:> On Jul 29, 1:37 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> BTW, the pleasure from seeing justice done negates any negative karma
> >> from enjoying arrogant criminals (not naming anyone in particular now)
> >> meet their just rewards.
>
> > Would you let a contrite criminal slide?
> > You are about as arrogant as it gets.
>
> > How in the world were you not cast in Dinner For Schmucks? Maybe
> > there'll be a sequel.
>
>
Hey, I'm with Anton on this one - I'm here for the laughs - at least
as far as you're concerned, that's all I can expect.
I think you did a great job in the movie, Barry. It explains a lot
why you're no longer needed in the legal profession.
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi737740313/
But you do care about people, I'll give you that. You make the effort
to reach out and try to make a connection. http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2760050201/
Unfortunately, you are a schmuck, so it's an uphill battle - but keep
on trying!
R
Fresno Bee roving correspondent