What is the "rock family tree" of dopers ??
S Perryman
I tried to construct a basic one, and it got very interesting too quickly.
I started thus ...
Person : Manolo Saiz
Which links to team : ONCE.
Which links to rider : Johann Bruyneel.
Which links to rider : Alex Zulle.
Which links to event : Festina TdF in 1998.
Which links to rider : Isidrio Nozal
Which links to rider : Alberto Contador
Which links to team : Liberty Seguros.
Which links to rider : Roberto Heras
Which links to event : found doping.
Which links to rider : Isidrio Nozal
Which links to event : found doping.
Which links to event : operation Puerto.
Now do similar for Bruyneel.
And you link in Tyler Hamilton, Landis, Heras (again) , Contador (again) .
And of course saint Armstrong of no dope.
It all gets too entwined too quickly.
I have sometimes wondered whether ONCE was the "school" from which Bruyneel
got the "education" to become a DS himself.
And to take a quite unremarkable big tour rider, one who to boot was also
just recovering from the nastiness of cancer treatment ...
Regards
Fred on a stick
> By dopers, I mean caught, implicated, under suspicion etc.
Ah, "under suspicion" is your standard? OK, then I say James Moore, winner
of Paris-Rouen in 1869.
S Perryman
> S Perryman wrote:
>>By dopers, I mean caught, implicated, under suspicion etc.
> Ah, "under suspicion" is your standard?
1. No.
2. What you term as a "standard" , is actually one of a number of
aspects for consideration on the topic.
> OK, then I say James Moore, winner of Paris-Rouen in 1869.
Feel free to sketch out a "family free" for this person (on the assumption
that you actually understand the above in order to do so) ...
Regards
Fred on a stick
> Fred on a stick wrote:
>
>> S Perryman wrote:
>
>>> By dopers, I mean caught, implicated, under suspicion etc.
>
>> Ah, "under suspicion" is your standard?
>
> 1. No.
>
> 2. What you term as a "standard" , is actually one of a number of
> aspects for consideration on the topic.
Dumbass,
OK, he was never caught but then they weren't testing back then so there
wasn't anything to be caught on. So you're saying doping only began when
testing began so someone could be caught? So les forcats de la route don't
count either.
Fred on a stick
> Feel free to sketch out a "family free" for this person (on the
> assumption that you actually understand the above in order to do so)
Dumbass,
Not-so-btw, you *do* know that Moore became a horse race veterinarian,
right? I ask this on the assumption that you actually understand what this
means.
S Perryman
> Dumbass,
> OK, he was never caught but then they weren't testing back then so there
> wasn't anything to be caught on. So you're saying doping only began
What I am saying, is that you have made yourself look an utter fool
by trying to use as an example, someone who rode nearly a century ago, when
I am illustrating a group of people in the sport over the past 10-15 yrs,
who have (had) strong professional associations with eachother, and have
either been caught doping outright, or are suspected of / implicated in
doping by virtue of said associations.
Now, do you wish to continue in the topic, or are you going to thrall us
with even more names of riders from 100 years ago ... ??
Regards
S Perryman
> Not-so-btw, you *do* know that Moore became a horse race veterinarian,
> right? I ask this on the assumption that you actually understand what this
> means.
Please feel free to tell us the relevance of somebody is/was a veterinary
practitioner, to a group of people in the sport over the past 10-15 yrs,
who have (had) strong professional associations with eachother, and have
either been caught doping outright, or are suspected of / implicated in
doping by virtue of said associations.
Regards
Amit Ghosh
> Fred on a stick wrote:
>
> > Dumbass,
> > OK, he was never caught but then they weren't testing back then so there
> > wasn't anything to be caught on. So you're saying doping only began
>
> What I am saying, is that you have made yourself look an utter fool
> by trying to use as an example, someone who rode nearly a century ago, when
> I am illustrating a group of people in the sport over the past 10-15 yrs,
> who have (had) strong professional associations with eachother, and have
> either been caught doping outright, or are suspected of / implicated in
> doping by virtue of said associations.
dumbass,
because of the large number of people who have been implicated in
doping scandals (80 alone in puerto and entire teams like festina and
telekom) every single pro cyclist will have a place on your idiotic
family tree.
Amit Ghosh
dumbass,
you are clueless if you don't get the reference.
S Perryman
> because of the large number of people who have been implicated in
> doping scandals (80 alone in puerto and entire teams like festina and
> telekom) every single pro cyclist will have a place on your idiotic
> family tree.
I suspect there will be far greater influencing connectivity (cliques in
graph theoretic terms ?? ) between a small(er) number of entities (people,
teams) on the graph, then there will be entities (every pro cyclist) on
the graph.
Manolo Saiz appears to be one such entity.
Michele Ferrari is a more obvious one.
The claims of Landis make Bruyneel another interesting entity.
At the moment I assume the whole lot are and have been using substances.
And that from that unpleasant basis point, the ones who are winning are
those that improve on technical stuff (pedal technique etc) , have natural
physical advantages, training to hit peak form for specific periods etc.
It would be nice to have that entire graph, and then unmark those who may
be implicated / under suspicion but are/were squeaky clean. Regardless of
how those riders figure in the annals of the sport.
Regards,
Steven Perryman
Fred on a stick
> I suspect there will be far greater influencing connectivity (cliques
> in graph theoretic terms ?? ) between a small(er) number of entities
> (people, teams) on the graph, then there will be entities (every pro
> cyclist) on the graph.
Dumbass,
Of course you do. What happens when all your graph link to Kevin Bacon?
S Perryman
> S Perryman wrote:
>>I suspect there will be far greater influencing connectivity (cliques
>>in graph theoretic terms ?? ) between a small(er) number of entities
>>(people, teams) on the graph, then there will be entities (every pro
>>cyclist) on the graph.
> Of course you do. What happens when all your graph link to Kevin Bacon?
He was never under suspicion.
Every race he rode in, he lost because of the same problem with his shoe/
pedal bindings during the final sprint.
Regards
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> At the moment I assume the whole lot are and have been using substances.
> And that from that unpleasant basis point, the ones who are winning are
> those that improve on technical stuff (pedal technique etc) , have natural
> physical advantages, training to hit peak form for specific periods etc.
All this doping stuff is fine and sensible, as is training for peaks,
but attributing winning bicycles races to improved pedal technique
is crackpot and belongs on rec.bicycles.tech.
Thanks,
Fredmaster Ben
Frederick the Great
wrote:
> By dopers, I mean caught, implicated, under suspicion etc.
> I tried to construct a basic one, and it got very interesting too quickly.
<http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/2961175776_b341ca0fc5.jpg>
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
One of his patients, Dire Fortune, did not fall over
until the final furlong, which does not seem to make
him much of a veterinarian until you know that the
horse dropped dead coming up to the starting line.
--
Old Fritz
Betty Munro
>> Not-so-btw, you *do* know that Moore became a horse race veterinarian,
>> right? I ask this on the assumption that you actually understand what
>> this means.
S Perryman wrote:
> Please feel free to tell us the relevance of somebody is/was a veterinary
> practitioner, to a group of people in the sport over the past 10-15 yrs,
Really good vets can treat wasps.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Dumbass,
Look, either make the entire graph, or don't, but
don't make a partial list of riders that you thought
of off the top of your head and figure it means
something. You haven't even touched Pevenage,
various German doctors, "Dr. Mabuse", several
different Belgian scandals, and VDB-for-God's-sake
may-the-Lord-have-mercy-on-his-soul. Oh, and
Marco Pantani, RIP.
It's funny how rbr has evolved. To say something
similar 10 years ago was the cynical or sophisticated
position and the default "naive" or simply hopeful position
was to leap to the defense of Saint LANCE.
Now the default or sophisticated position is to assume
that there are intertwined histories of doping all over
the sport, and the naive position is to assume that
most of it can be laid at the feet of a few dark angels:
Saiz, Bruyneel, LANCE.
Fredmaster Ben
S Perryman
> Dumbass,
> Look, either make the entire graph, or don't, but
> don't make a partial list of riders that you thought
> of off the top of your head and figure it means
> something. You haven't even touched Pevenage,
> various German doctors, "Dr. Mabuse", several
> different Belgian scandals, and VDB-for-God's-sake
> may-the-Lord-have-mercy-on-his-soul. Oh, and
> Marco Pantani, RIP.
Prat,
If doping has been institutional in teams, then given the fact that teams
do not have wholesale changes of 'support' personnel every year, there are
indeed going to be only a "few dark angels" (DS, medics etc) to look at.
If doping has been the preserve of individual riders, occurring without the
knowledge of teams, then either all such riders have been doing so in a '
peer vacuum' , or the practice has been propagated peer to peer. If peer to
peer, then again there are only going to be a "few dark angels" to look at.
And as with all things, the reality is going to be somewhere in between the
two extremes.
> It's funny how rbr has evolved. To say something
> similar 10 years ago was the cynical or sophisticated
> position and the default "naive" or simply hopeful position
> was to leap to the defense of Saint LANCE.
> Now the default or sophisticated position is to assume
> that there are intertwined histories of doping all over
> the sport, and the naive position is to assume that
> most of it can be laid at the feet of a few dark angels:
> Saiz, Bruyneel, LANCE.
Actually a better default position is to assume they're all at it, and make
no judgements/claims on/against individuals and teams. The prior "level
playing field" (LP) now becomes LP + substance usage (SA) . And assume the
things that distinguish the best from the rest in the world of LP+SA, are
exactly the same things that would distinguish them in the world of LP.
And also by default be humanitarian enough that you wish they wouldn't or
don't, for concern over the physical damage that substance abuse may
bring to them now +/- long after their sporting careers are gone.
Regards
A. Dumas Fred
> Prat,
You don't get it, I see.
S Perryman
> S Perryman wrote:
> You don't get it, I see.
I see you don't get it.
Regards
Betty Munro
>> You don't get it, I see.
S Perryman wrote:
> I see you don't get it.
I don't get it you see.
You see I don't get it.
I get it you don't see.
Don't you see I get it.
S Perryman
> I don't get it you see.
> You see I don't get it.
> I get it you don't see.
> Don't you see I get it.
Betty,
You certainly appear to "get it" . :-)
Regards,
Steven Perryman
Michael Press
Betty Munro <no...@mailinator.com> wrote:
-- Gertrude Stein.
--
Michael Press
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> If doping has been institutional in teams, then given the fact that teams
> do not have wholesale changes of 'support' personnel every year, there are
> indeed going to be only a "few dark angels" (DS, medics etc) to look at.
>
> If doping has been the preserve of individual riders, occurring without the
> knowledge of teams, then either all such riders have been doing so in a '
> peer vacuum' , or the practice has been propagated peer to peer. If peer to
> peer, then again there are only going to be a "few dark angels" to look at.
Neither of these conclusions about a few sources
(dark angels or otherwise) follows from the premises.
We are talking about something that has been around a
long time and in which there is money to be made. So
there is no reason to believe that only a few people are
in on the action. Even when the currency was not so much
money as national glory, there was doping - lots of it, in the
case of the Cold War Olympics. Do you think all the doping
and coaching knowledge amassed then retired to a few
dachas and sinecures at training camps and physiology
departments?
Supposedly Joe Average can get a hook up for
steroids at many gyms in the US if he asks around.
I have no reason to believe that Europe is different.
Even the sketchier procedures that require more than a
few pills or shots, like blood retransfusion, have been
around for a long time.
Probably the real issue with the few dark angels is that
I suspect that in doping, as many things, there are
different levels of quality, and not that many practitioners
are at the top. People presumably work with
Dr. Orange Juice because he really knows his shit.
The same might not be said for Rumsas's mom.
Fredmaster Ben
Fred on a stick
"Fredmaster of Brainerd" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ff4e15f-2023-4563...@j12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Probably the real issue with the few dark angels is that
> I suspect that in doping, as many things, there are
> different levels of quality, and not that many practitioners
> are at the top. People presumably work with
> Dr. Orange Juice because he really knows his shit.
> The same might not be said for Rumsas's mom.
Yeah, I agree. Plus, Perryman's attempt at social network analysis has two
additional flaws: first, social network analysis works best when the thing
that gets transmitted along the network is specific and well-defined, like a
small bit of technical information or (classically) a virus or bacterium. In
this case there is no One True Dope (other than you-know-who): some appear
to dope with steroids, others EPO, others by blood transfusion, and yet
others by stimulants. He's lumping together all knowledge of doping as if it
were homogeneous. Second, I suspect that nowadays the quality of a dark
angel is not determined by doping efficacy alone but in conjunction with
likelihood of being detected, which (once again) is not uniform but varies
with both the dope and the doping method. So Perryman's method of analyzing
"six degrees of LANCE" social networks based on known dopers would tend to
under-represent the highest quality dark angels.
RicodJour
I'm sure if you sketched out your family tree it would be just as
nebulous and murky...probably more so.
R