Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Colin Peyresourde wrote:Well
Well I guess I ought to apologise. It was Goldman’s survey, so just over 50% said they would take a PED if it guaranteed them undetectable victories for five years, even if it was followed by instant death….I guess something the guys at Androni Giacotolli subscribed to. To be honest with you, and I really care what you think Fukwit, it’s not the percentage that counts, but more the anthropological motivation and capability, because if you have read up on these things you know how far athletes will go. It sounds like you have.Firstly thanks for the arg. ad hominem.
As for the survey, as you have read up on this you’ll be aware of the discussion around the Mirkin / Goldman results and the more recent research by James Connor et al (some of the results of which are similarly contentious) – hence my question. As for motivation, yes – i’m aware that there is huge incentive to cheat in all forms of competition and i’ve never said anything to suggest that I believe that doping is not still rife in all elite competitive sport (and elsewhere).
Where I draw the line is to insist, as you seem to do, that that implies that all winners in these sports are necessarily cheating – even by your much quoted survey nearly half the respondents would not take the magic bullet and there is little analysis on the reason for that. What i’m not sure I understand is why you believe that all the winners have to be cheating even if there are others that are ? Physiologically it isn’t a requirement and opportunity and incentive do not always lead to action. Statistically I find it hard to believe that out of the huge number of winners in elite competitions so few have been detected cheating or having anomalous values (including retrospectively) if they are all doping – even given the difficulty in analytical detection. I don’t think that’s entirely unreasonable position but obviously YMMV.
You’d probably get away with
You’d probably get away with 20-25 in the 28s, but i’d swap them if you can (returns ?). Having detonated a similar tube in a Challenge Strada Bianca (30mm, so rather larger) whilst inflating it, i’d prefer not to think about that happening on a downhill. No point in making them more stretched and brittle if you can avoid it IMO.Edit : I’m not saying you need to change, i’ve run 18-23 tubes in 25mm tyres on wide rims (27+mm inflated) and they’ve been OK – but if you can swap it’ll give the tubes an easier life and they’ll be less prone to punctures and less likely to let go in a nasty way. Just my 2p worth anyway.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:Which
Which is why I will keep espousing that the big winners are usually the biggest cheats...of course they are. What you keep espousing, however, is that every single one of the winners are cheating – that’s somewhat different and perhaps not what Gizmo_ was saying (although I may have that wrong, apologies to him if so).
Olympians themselves have confessed as much; given the chance to cheat without being caught the greater majority said they would…..Well I suppose “the greater majority” is better than the “virtually 100%” you’ve previously quoted. I’d ask again, which poll was that ? Answers to variants of Goldman / Mirkin i’ve seen (including removing the terminal behaviour) haven’t come up with anything remotely like that so i’d be interested to know some more. Any links please ?
ianrobo wrote:fukawitribe
I grew up in the 70’s, does this mean I was touched by members of the BBC?The post hoc ergo propter hoc on here is laughable – I assume that simply by winning a race you are now a cheat?
Actually, according to a couple on here at least, yes… or indeed anyone in the top 20%. The mind boggles….
Depends what era you are talking about ?
I am sure that Cav is clean for example and he has won stages ….
However go back to 95-2010 I can not be confident of many at all, can you ?
The present day, according to the people I was alluding to. In every endurance sport in the opinion of one of them.
alansmurphy wrote:I grew up
I grew up in the 70’s, does this mean I was touched by members of the BBC?The post hoc ergo propter hoc on here is laughable – I assume that simply by winning a race you are now a cheat?
Actually, according to a couple on here at least, yes… or indeed anyone in the top 20%. The mind boggles….
daddyELVIS wrote:CXR94Di2
2) it’s not a ‘story’ – it’s true, like many other instances where Sky have failed their OWN test of being clean!
Now we all now know you’re a comedian if you believe what’s written in newspapers :D
…so Knaven isn’t a DS at Sky then?
By their own rules, Sky haven’t failed – although we might well argue that in all likelihood Knaven was doping at TVM. The Inner Ring had a nice piece on this earlier this year.
Richard1982 wrote:”Thanks for
You can pick up very cheap second hand Cateye computer with cadence, and they used to be available new for not much more than buttons (not looked for a while, but eBay and BR used to be good sources for them) - Decathlon will probably have something similar for a few quid as well. Let us know if you don't see anything you fancy, think i've still got one with speed/cadence IIRC which was on a big pile of things to shift.”Thanks for all the help/info. Whats the cheapest way into a cadence comp?”Buy the cheapest bike computer you can find (usually < £5), but put the magnet on the crank arm. The unit is designed to measure wheel speed using rpm and circumference, but by changing the wheel size you can effectively make it show rpm.
crikey wrote:The idea that
The idea that people are testing the limits of grip on a regular basis is an odd one too.You’ve not ridden wired Bontrager R1s then I take it 🙂
ibr17xvii wrote:crikey
What is abundantly clear is that the modern bicycle geek spends far to much time arsing about with tyre pressures…This seems to sum it up perfectly for me.
Run whatever you’re comfortable with seems the best advice.
I think the point of threads like this is to let people know what sorts of pressure they can actually use to get comfortable in the first place without fearing that their tyres will be ground into their rims on every bump or explode in shower of rubber.
Tradition has much to do with it…
ianrobo wrote:Have people
Have people been following the developments over night ?http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/33517897
Basically Froome’s data on Mont Ventoux has been leaked (sky claim hacked, the irony !!) that shows what he did in 2013 when he stormed away from Contador.
Sky have not denied the data is true and it shows that Froome’s HR went actually down on the major attack when he went up to 1000W. A video was produced matching this data to the actual video of the climb. Sky not only took this down from Youtube but got the original poster on twitter banned.
This data matches what Dr Ferrari was calculating for what Froome did.
Now you can look at this data and only conclude that Froome is some kind of super human and of course since lost a vast amount of weight with it seems no power loss.
If he does not claim the record on D’Huez it will be a shock on these figures !
Leaked not hacked. Data matches Dr Ferrari calculations. Heart rate dip (HR lag actually) Super-human – vast amount – no power loss… woooooo, spooky.
Why don’t we wait a few days until l’Equipe do another analysis and say it’s all normal again ? Or not. I’d go for an analysis from someone with a possible lack of impartiality, but with a clue, like Fred Grappe over Joe Youtube.
lagging behind wrote:I was
[quote=lagging behind]I was telling my work colleagues about this and someone point out Brown Willy in Cornwall http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=215500&y=79500&z=120&sv=brown+willy&st=3&tl=Map+of+Brown+Willy,+Cornwall+%5BHill/Mountain%5D&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf%5B/quote%5DBlimey – Brown Willy seems to be right next to Catshole, that can’t be right….
vonhelmet wrote:I stand
I stand corrected. That’s a bit of a change from past tech where pretty much any old mech would work!Yep, bit of a pity – apparently SRAM will pick and mix a bit, perhaps not ideally but at least functional.
vonhelmet wrote:You shouldn’t
You shouldn’t need derailleurs, I don’t think, unless there is something fundamentally different between 11 speed derailleurs and all others.Alas I think there might be differences..
Forget about using Dura-Ace 7900 derailleurs with 11-speed levers. The derailleur’s shift-activation ratio is different for Shimano 11-speed rear derailleurs than it is for Shimano 10-speed rear derailleurs. Furthermore, Shimano 10-speed mountain and road rear derailleurs have different actuation ratios from each other, and the same goes for Shimano 11-speed mountain and road rear derailleurs. Prior to road 11-speed and mountain 10-speed, things were simpler; Shimano road rear derailleurs up through 10-speed and mountain-bike rear derailleurs through 9-speed all have the same activation ratio.
And your intuition is correct that a Shimano 11-speed shifter will not work well with a 10-speed front derailleur because the 11-speed shifter is designed to actuate the longer lever arm of Shimano 11-speed front derailleurs
Sounds like that might well apply to 105 unfortunately.
kwi wrote:FFS guys stop
FFS guys stop feeding the troll.Think I was done anyway but fair point, well made.
..it’s the utterly
..it’s the utterly superfluous and irritating paragraph tags that piss me off – perhaps our protagonist would be interested in understanding Larry Walls reasoning behind the first of the three great virtues of a programmer.