Julich gets the Silver!

I completely believe that Tyler did not blood dope. He has too much to lose
and has "pride" and is far too intelligent. Unlike ego maniac spotted [censored]
et al. If I were Julich, I would not accept the Silver.
"Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If Hamilton's follow-up tests are positive and he is disqualified from the
Olympics, the three riders who finished behind him would move up. The gold
medal would go to Vyacheslav Ekimov of Russia, who won the event at the

2000

Quoted message said:

Games; the silver would go to Bobby Julich of the United States; and the
bronze would go to Michael Rogers of Australia.

"I am 100 percent innocent," Hamilton said Tuesday at a news conference

held

Quoted message said:

in Regensdorf, Switzerland, by his Phonak team.

Hamilton added, according to The Associated Press, that he would "fight

this

Quoted message said:

until I don't have a euro left in my pocket."

-----------------
I bet tugboat knew he's dirty, but he ain't around anymore to talk about

it.

Quoted message said:

Dave Stoller said:

I completely believe that Tyler did not blood dope. He has too much to lose
and has "pride" and is far too intelligent.

This is nonsense. I hope he did not dope, but these sort of "nice
guy" and "too smart" arguments have no merit.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Callistus Valerius said:

I bet tugboat knew he's dirty, but he ain't around anymore to talk about it.

Too funny.

"Dave Stoller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I completely believe that Tyler did not blood dope. He has too much to lose
and has "pride" and is far too intelligent.

the reason riders dope is because there is more to gain than lose even
if you are caught.

Amit said:

the reason riders dope is because there is more to gain than lose even
if you are caught.

I'm not sure this is true. In addition, there's some theoretical support
for the notion that cheating is more common among those who are
desperately trying to avoid failure than those who are trying to move from
the second rung to the top.

quote='Robert Chung'Amit said:

the reason riders dope is because there is more to gain than lose even
if you are caught.

I'm not sure this is true. In addition, there's some theoretical support
for the notion that cheating is more common among those who are
desperately trying to avoid failure than those who are trying to move from
the second rung to the top.[/QUOTE]

Don't believe this for a second. Where are the published studies that "theoretically support" this position? Or is just you doing the theorizing?

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Amit said:

the reason riders dope is because there is more to gain than lose even
if you are caught.

I'm not sure this is true. In addition, there's some theoretical support
for the notion that cheating is more common among those who are
desperately trying to avoid failure than those who are trying to move from
the second rung to the top.

Theoretical?

And let's define "failure" while were mooting.

Ignoring "desperately" for now.

Gratefully Yours,
Kirby (not here for long)

More to lose than he had to gain? How about boosting yourself
from domestique to Liege-Bastogne-Liege winner and almost
Tour podium man. Don't kid yourself just because he's your
favourite all-American boy; everything he's done since Postal
is down to Uncle Bjarne's magic bag of tricks.

Personally I'd rather see the gold medal around Eki's neck. Pity
that he got robbed of the opportunity to stand on the top step
in Athens through Hamilton's cheating.

At least Millar had big enough balls to admit what he'd done.

Tugboat would have been so ashamed.

F.

"Dave Stoller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I completely believe that Tyler did not blood dope. He has too much to

lose

Quoted message said:

and has "pride" and is far too intelligent. Unlike ego maniac spotted

[censored]

Quoted message said:

et al. If I were Julich, I would not accept the Silver.
"Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If Hamilton's follow-up tests are positive and he is disqualified from

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Olympics, the three riders who finished behind him would move up. The

gold

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

medal would go to Vyacheslav Ekimov of Russia, who won the event at the

2000

Quoted message said:

Games; the silver would go to Bobby Julich of the United States; and the
bronze would go to Michael Rogers of Australia.

"I am 100 percent innocent," Hamilton said Tuesday at a news conference

held

Quoted message said:

in Regensdorf, Switzerland, by his Phonak team.

Hamilton added, according to The Associated Press, that he would "fight

this

Quoted message said:

until I don't have a euro left in my pocket."

-----------------
I bet tugboat knew he's dirty, but he ain't around anymore to talk about

it.

Quoted message said:

antoineg said:

Robert Chung said:

In addition, there's some theoretical support
for the notion that cheating is more common among those who are
desperately trying to avoid failure than those who are trying to move
from the second rung to the top.

Don't believe this for a second. Where are the published studies that
"theoretically support" this position? Or is just you doing the
theorizing?

Hmmm. Well, this isn't particularly new theory. I'd say that it's been
around for several decades but there was another spurt in its development
in the early 1980's. Typical from that period would be Burt's book on
network models and social structure under competition. But the newer stuff
is the experimental game theory work on repeated games in close
competition with hierarchical ordering: there're a bunch of articles in
AER and JPE. All it requires is asymmetric loss functions with
discontinuities and there are lots of examples of that around. Basically,
all this work says is that desperate people are more willing to take
risks, even for fixed returns.

Anecdotes aren't data so I don't usually share them but, as a personal
anecdote, I've caught more C students cheating than A students. Of course,
it may be that the A students are better at hiding their cheating than C
students, which is why this is an anecdote.

One of the funny little things that I noticed from the Manzano affair is
that he said the pressure to dope increased during his second year as a
pro, not from the very beginning. That suggests to me that when he was
still an unknown quantity, the team took a wait and see attitude, perhaps
thinking that he might be one of the guys who could succeed on his own
natural ability. If the team really did think that everyone dopes all the
time and that it was impossible to win cleanly, why wouldn't they have put
him on the program in his very first year?

Here's another little thing I've been thinking about: Millar admits to
taking EPO twice. Why only twice? Why not all the time? If you go back and
read the contemporaneous stories, it sounds like the pressure to dope came
in spurts, not evenly.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

antoineg said:

Robert Chung said:

In addition, there's some theoretical support
for the notion that cheating is more common among those who are
desperately trying to avoid failure than those who are trying to move
from the second rung to the top.

Don't believe this for a second. Where are the published studies that
"theoretically support" this position? Or is just you doing the
theorizing?

Hmmm. Well, this isn't particularly new theory. I'd say that it's been
around for several decades but there was another spurt in its development
in the early 1980's. Typical from that period would be Burt's book on
network models and social structure under competition. But the newer stuff
is the experimental game theory work on repeated games in close
competition with hierarchical ordering: there're a bunch of articles in
AER and JPE. All it requires is asymmetric loss functions with
discontinuities and there are lots of examples of that around. Basically,
all this work says is that desperate people are more willing to take
risks, even for fixed returns.

Anecdotes aren't data so I don't usually share them but, as a personal
anecdote, I've caught more C students cheating than A students. Of course,
it may be that the A students are better at hiding their cheating than C
students, which is why this is an anecdote.

One of the funny little things that I noticed from the Manzano affair is
that he said the pressure to dope increased during his second year as a
pro, not from the very beginning. That suggests to me that when he was
still an unknown quantity, the team took a wait and see attitude, perhaps
thinking that he might be one of the guys who could succeed on his own
natural ability. If the team really did think that everyone dopes all the
time and that it was impossible to win cleanly, why wouldn't they have put
him on the program in his very first year?

During his first year as a pro a rider is hardly under pressure. He only has
to learn to keep up with the rest. But the second year the holiday is over.
He doesn't have to win, but must at the very least be useful for the team.

Quoted message said:

Here's another little thing I've been thinking about: Millar admits to
taking EPO twice. Why only twice? Why not all the time?

And taking the shine of his victories? Not very likely for a man who wants
to make a come back as soon as possible.

If you go back and

Quoted message said:

read the contemporaneous stories, it sounds like the pressure to dope came
in spurts, not evenly.

A pro is usually only under pressure if he fails to perform adequately. If
he is payed to win and he doesn't, he is usually ordered "to prepare himself
better".

Benjo Maso

I did not use the nice guy defense. He seems to be though.
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dave Stoller said:

I completely believe that Tyler did not blood dope. He has too much to

lose

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and has "pride" and is far too intelligent.

This is nonsense. I hope he did not dope, but these sort of "nice
guy" and "too smart" arguments have no merit.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Amit said:

the reason riders dope is because there is more to gain than lose even
if you are caught.

I'm not sure this is true. In addition, there's some theoretical support
for the notion that cheating is more common among those who are
desperately trying to avoid failure than those who are trying to move from
the second rung to the top.

i agree, avoiding failure is a much bigger motivator than achieving
success, and probably most dopers try not to think about ever getting
caught.

but, for top riders riding is their job, so i was thinking many might
rationalize. one can dope, ink a big deal and make more money so that
even if they are caught they still end up better off than if they
stayed clean (and perhaps lost their job).

matt decanio says he decided to dope so that he could become a
"rockstar euro pro", but on the other hand millar was driven to dope
partly because of the hit his salary took after a lousy season and
partly for not wanting to lose the worlds.

benjo maso said:

During his first year as a pro a rider is hardly under pressure. He
only has to learn to keep up with the rest. But the second year the
holiday is over. He doesn't have to win, but must at the very least be
useful for the team.

A pro is usually only under pressure if he fails to perform adequately.
If he is payed to win and he doesn't, he is usually ordered "to prepare
himself better".

Yes, this is the way that I view it. People seem to think there are two
groups: the never-dopers and the always-dopers. I think that's too simple.
I think a better way to think about it is to ask who is doping in a
particular race, and why.

"Stephen Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

More to lose than he had to gain? How about boosting yourself
from domestique to Liege-Bastogne-Liege winner and almost
Tour podium man. Don't kid yourself just because he's your
favourite all-American boy; everything he's done since Postal
is down to Uncle Bjarne's magic bag of tricks.

Personally I'd rather see the gold medal around Eki's neck. Pity
that he got robbed of the opportunity to stand on the top step
in Athens through Hamilton's cheating.

At least Millar had big enough balls to admit what he'd done.

Tugboat would have been so ashamed.

If Tyler cheated and Eki didn't Tugboat would have been ashamed.
Moreover, Eki has had the same sorts of performances year after year
after year implying that he's the real thing or the world's most
careful doper.

It is really a big letdown to me to see Tyler in this sort of case.
But seeing Eki in Gold and Bobby in Silver almost makes up for it.

On 09/23/2004 07:46 AM, in article
[email hidden], "Tom Kunich"

Quoted message said:

"Stephen Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

More to lose than he had to gain? How about boosting yourself
from domestique to Liege-Bastogne-Liege winner and almost
Tour podium man. Don't kid yourself just because he's your
favourite all-American boy; everything he's done since Postal
is down to Uncle Bjarne's magic bag of tricks.

Personally I'd rather see the gold medal around Eki's neck. Pity
that he got robbed of the opportunity to stand on the top step
in Athens through Hamilton's cheating.

At least Millar had big enough balls to admit what he'd done.

Tugboat would have been so ashamed.

If Tyler cheated and Eki didn't Tugboat would have been ashamed.
Moreover, Eki has had the same sorts of performances year after year
after year implying that he's the real thing or the world's most
careful doper.

It is really a big letdown to me to see Tyler in this sort of case.
But seeing Eki in Gold and Bobby in Silver almost makes up for it.

Tyler's Athens B-sample came back negative, which to my mind means that he
gets to keep the Gold medal ...

Unfortunately, his Vuelta B-sample came back positive.

So now comes the investigation into testing methodology ... Personally, I'm
still hoping for the determination of a false-positive.

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

Phonak has stated today that the IOC "B" negative and the UCI "B" test psoitive not really sue what that leads to but more doubt on this whole matter.

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

Anecdotes aren't data so I don't usually share them but, as a personal
anecdote, I've caught more C students cheating than A students.

I would tend to align with the anecdotal evidence.

Quoted message said:

Of course,
it may be that the A students are better at hiding their cheating than C
students, which is why this is an anecdote.

I swear on my dead dog's grave that I am 100% innocent!!!

Thanks,
A Student

Steven L. Sheffield said:

So now comes the investigation into testing methodology ...
Personally, I'm still hoping for the determination of a
false-positive.

Three false positives in a row? Give me a break.

The testing methodology was sound. It was the degradation of the sample due
to the long time between collecting it and testing it; that has nothing to
do with the methodology of the test. If anything, it proves that a degraded
sample won't give a false positive, which is a good thing.

"hawkes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Phonak has stated today that the IOC "B" negative and the UCI "B" test
psoitive not really sue what that leads to but more doubt on this whole
matter.

There's no doubt unless the testing system turns out to have some holes in
it. And I don't believe it does. Blood science is about 200 years old now.