Cyclist Vaughters gives an impassioned explanation of why he and other pros cheat

Twain said it best wrote:

jikugki wrote:

I'll say it again for at least the THIRD TIME:

without finding specific genes, conclusions about genetic links/heredity/physiological activity between family members is not sound. There are too many other possible causes of correlation between family members that have nothing to do with genes. The HERITAGE investigators realize this also which is why

....They said (I repeat) this in the initial study:

"We conclude that the trainability ofV˙o 2 max is highly familial and includes a significant genetic component."

and you begin to sound increasingly like the crazy man on the street corner screaming about the alien invasion as everyone else crosses the street.

What in the world are you talking about? How do I sound like a crazy man? You're the one selectively ignoring the things that prove you incorrect.

I don't know why you quoted them in response to what I said. Can you explain?

Again, my point was that without some sort of specific gene testing, drawing conclusions about genetics is not good. And that the dependence of genes on endurance is currently unknown.

So what does your response have to do with that and your side of the argument?

I am not going to keep arguing if you can't understand. There is a whole field called behavioral genetics which uses ways (like twin studies) to show the level of genetic inheritance of phenotypes without the need to identify the genetic polymorphisms (which I assume you mean when you keep on saying "they need to find the genes"). You keep on saying the ONLY way to show genetic linkage is by identifying these polymorphisms, which is completely wrong.

jikugki wrote:

Aghast wrote:

Not the best source but seeing how you seem to have basic knowledge level you should start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study

Why are you linking me that? What in there do you want me to read?

Aghast wrote:

You keep on saying the ONLY way to show genetic linkage is by identifying these polymorphisms, which is completely wrong.

That's not what I'm saying. Do none of you have any reading comprehension on here?

I said that there are other possible explanations for family members sharing qualities besides genes. Without identifying specific genes, you can NOT be sure that it's genetics causing the shared qualities or whether it's something else. Families share a lot of things together besides genes: diet, chemical exposure, belief system, confidence, toughness, fatigue level, exercise habits, sports backgrounds, etc.

That's one of the main principles of the scientific method. Isolation of variables and control.

Please tell me what is wrong about that.

That is why I told you to read about twin studies. I don't have time to give you a basic lecture. You can compare the relationship between twins and between the twins and their non-twin siblings. In this way you can start to account for nature versus nurture without knowing the genetic polymorphisms involved. Same family, reasonably same environment, different level of genetic similarity. Even better is when you find twins who have been separated and raised by different parents. It would be best if you just took an intro to genetics.

jikugki wrote:

Aghast wrote:

You keep on saying the ONLY way to show genetic linkage is by identifying these polymorphisms, which is completely wrong.

That's not what I'm saying. Do none of you have any reading comprehension on here?

I said that there are other possible explanations for family members sharing qualities besides genes. Without identifying specific genes, you can NOT be sure that it's genetics causing the shared qualities or whether it's something else. Families share a lot of things together besides genes: diet, chemical exposure, belief system, confidence, toughness, fatigue level, exercise habits, sports backgrounds, etc.

That's one of the main principles of the scientific method. Isolation of variables and control.

Please tell me what is wrong about that.

Only one person can be the best. That's a fact. And if you're not the best one, than your not the best one. You give your life for something without any promises or guarantees. There are no rationalizations for drugs. Only excuses.

Aghast wrote:

That is why I told you to read about twin studies. I don't have time to give you a basic lecture. You can compare the relationship between twins and between the twins and their non-twin siblings. In this way you can start to account for nature versus nurture without knowing the genetic polymorphisms involved. Same family, reasonably same environment, different level of genetic similarity. Even better is when you find twins who have been separated and raised by different parents. It would be best if you just took an intro to genetics.

Yes, I already know all of that. I don't need an intro class on genetics. What you're saying does not apply here.

That doesn't apply to the study that the guy linked to me. It was not a twin study. And they did not isolate other variables that are known to have very strong determinations on athletic performance.

What do you have to say about that?

I'm not addressing that study, maybe that is the confusion. I don't particularly care about that study. You keep on asking for other studies which show the specific genetic polymorphisms as if that is the only way to address this issue. I'm saying that is not necessary. If you agree then good we are in agreement, no need to argue, I win.

Aghast wrote:

I'm not addressing that study, maybe that is the confusion. I don't particularly care about that study. You keep on asking for other studies which show the specific genetic polymorphisms as if that is the only way to address this issue. I'm saying that is not necessary. If you agree then good we are in agreement, no need to argue, I win.

I'd stop wasting time on this guy. He doesn't understand the science. He's unwilling to really to look into it. (A quick lit review would destroy his basic ideas). He keeps spouting the same nonsense that would make a geneticist laugh out loud. And he thinks he can "think through" ideas based on an undergrad class on the scientific method and not have to bother with decades of basic science on genetics.

He's a fool. A persistent one, I'll admit. Let him be. Any more responses to him from us will only support his own delusional notion that his ideas have any merit.

Let's review: He thinks there is no scientific consensus on this idea: "everyone has the same ability at birth to succeed at endurance performance."

He either has too big an ego to admit he's dug himself a well where there is no oil, or he's like a proud chimp that just figured out how to get ants out a hole with a stick.

You'd be more convincing as a troll if you actually quoted things that I ACTUALLY said instead of making up things that I did NOT say.

BRING BACK THE QUALITY TROLLS

you can't fake win

you'll know

the cheats don't have joy when they win

I don't think Phelps cheats because he takes such humble joy in it

he's astonished

go ahead and cheat if you want, I'd rather be a real 21 5ker

asdfsadf wrote:

unbrainwashed wrote:

Oh boy, you need to learn something about cycling.

Morale is absolutely hugely important. You have obviously no experiennce of bike racing.

Pro's often overgear.

Proper ankling technique is something you should try, I reccomend you learn it. When you drop the ankle, you use different muscle groups, and this helps prevent fatigue.

EPO, does increase blood viscosity and it does increase glycogen uptake.

As for calling me a troll. How many thousands of opinionated posts have you made? Perhaps you should a life get?

Ha! Now I know you are trolling. Thanks for being so obvious, now I don't have to waste my time educating you about cycling.

Educate me about cycling? When you have never even heard of ankling technique?

2/10

jikugki wrote:

I didn't say that genes do NOT have anything to do with it. I specifically said that they may or they may not, but so far there has been no proof. Only suggested possibilities.

OMG so you're THAT guy, the "there's no such thing as talent" guy that comes on here ever couple of days asking why no body has found the "talent" gene.

LOOK AT THE TOP 100 PERFORMANCES IN ANY DISTANCE RACE EVER. You'll see a trend.

I just read this article for the first time. I think it's amazing. It's what I've always said about doping. People in all walks of life will cheat if you give them that option, but most people won't if you make it difficult or shameful to do so.I love this quote:

the cyclicst wrote:

If you just said no (to doping) when the antidoping regulations weren’t enforced, then you were deciding to end your dream, because you could not be competitive. It’s the hard fact of doping. The answer is not to teach young athletes that giving up lifelong dreams is better than giving in to cheating. The answer is to never give them the option. The only way to eliminate this choice is to put our greatest efforts into antidoping enforcement.

But it's not true rojo. There is more to this than you realize.

Back in the 50's and 60's, cyclists were obsessed with amphetamines. They really believed that it was impossible to win without them, which is of course ridiculous. The same applies to EPO

read this:

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol176/rushall.htm

Yes, great quote. This thread got hijacked by the "gene" guys..

As far as doping goes, I think people tend to look down upon it more because it's athletics. But it's not just an athletic achievement, it's their job, their way of life.

If someone told you that you could start taking injections and make partner in the law firm, or become a CEO or make some advancement in your career I think many people would have to seriously consider it. Especially if you KNEW all the others ahead of you in the job WERE taking injections.

"I could just do it for 2 years, make a lot of money and really help my family." or

"I'll do it because this will allow me to really show what I can do. I just need the CHANCE and the drugs will allow me that chance."

"My parents are really struggling. They've done nothing but sacrificed in order to help me peruse my career. If I take this I could pay them back, and then some."

That is not a rational argument. Your hypothetical situation is silly.

unbrainwashed wrote:

That is not a rational argument. Your hypothetical situation is silly.

I don't find it silly at all, I find it quite apt.

PED's do not create performance, they enable training, through various mechanisms. This applies in both athletic and non-athletic pursuits.

Coffee is one of the PED's of choice in law school. A friend of mine drank so much coffee in law school that he corroded his pyloric valve. He also finished in the top 10%. After getting the placement he wanted, he quickly made a name for himself as a litigation researcher, and set up his own niche research practice.

He readily admits it was enabled by the absurd coffee intake. He had to stop coffee ultimately, because of his extensive gastric distress, which is apparently all healed at this point.

Plus, he only really had to do it for 2 years, the first 2 of law school. Nobody cares about the third year, you are already placed before the end of 3rd year.

Massive PED use, side-effects suffered, improved training, improved results, PED use subsequently discontinued.

And, there are other law-school-applicable PED's other than caffeine.

unbrainwashed wrote:

Educate me about cycling? When you have never even heard of ankling technique?

2/10

Oh I have heard about "ankling". I hear about it all the time from newbie cyclists that want to believe that worrying about their ankles will make them faster. Good luck with that.

I am off to count my Strava KOMs.

I drink coffee. I don't believe it is a PED, but I used to believe that. If we rely on caffeine for our adrenalin hit, then something is wrong. Yes I'm weak, but the just say no approach is overly simplistic I think.