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

jikugki wrote:

[This study is NOT a very, very good support that there is a significant portion of adaptability to training that is genetic. There are not even any genes in the entire study! That's not "nitpicking". You don't arrive at genetic conclusions without any genes. The authors of that paper made huge leaps in logic with their conclusion. They didn't investigate any other possible reasons for the family linking of vo2max numbers. Families share lots of things for lots of reasons. Many of these similarities have nothing to do with genes.

That paper is just full of bad science. I don't care how widely regarded the paper is. Its conclusion is premature and inappropriate in a scientific context.

Perhaps I'll simply leave you with a few links since it's become clear that you have argued yourself into a hole but will not ever admit that you are wrong in spite of how obvious it is that the data is not in your favor.

The HERITAGE family study is hardly "full of bad science." You are.

Still think it is bad science?

Go ahead, keep arguing.

If you just stay strong in repeating it to yourself enough times, you might be able to keep believing in face overwhelming contrary evidence.

Twain said it best wrote:

Perhaps I'll simply leave you with a few links since it's become clear that you have argued yourself into a hole but will not ever admit that you are wrong in spite of how obvious it is that the data is not in your favor.

The HERITAGE family study is hardly "full of bad science." You are.

http://www.pbrc.edu/heritage/home.htm

Still think it is bad science?

http://www.pbrc.edu/heritage/publications.html

Go ahead, keep arguing.

If you just stay strong in repeating it to yourself enough times, you might be able to keep believing in face overwhelming contrary evidence.

You are dumb. It has not become clear that I have argued myself into a hole. I have not said anything that would even suggest that.

I've said 2 things:

1) I've seen no evidence that endurance performance is strongly dependent on genes

2) The study that you linked me is not thorough enough for the conclusion that they arrived at.

Neither of those statements are incorrect so please explain how I've "argued myself into a hole".

The study that you linked me IS bad science because they did not control for all possible factors. Are you now going to tell me that I'm incorrect for saying that? Or are you going to ignore that and pretend like I didn't say it? Do you think that genes are the only things that families share that could contribute to their physiology attributes? If so, you are WRONG. But I've said this before.

Now, these new links that you sent me are MUCH better. Particularly, the phase 3 study that studies ACTUAL GENES! Now THAT is better science.

So, I'm not sure where all of your hostile attitude is coming from. Nor where all of this "keep arguing" business is coming from. Everything I've said is 100% sound.

Rex--

My, what a small penis you have.

How do you translate "I think" into "I know"? Impressive.

And, yes, my threads are about what "I" observe, think, and believe--and yours are about what "YOU" observe, think, and believe, including this one.

Also, how do you translate "I am so far behind the WR that I would need dope to get there" to "I am so talented"? Also impressive.

Why don't you get a life. My numbers are obviously laughable to anybody but those with a micro-penis. Do you honestly think that any sprinter admitting to mid-11's is trying to impress anybody?

Possibly you're even worse off than I am, I don't know. I was simply trying to illustrate a scenario using the only real-world information that I know well--my own.

But if you find it impressive, why, thank-you!

jikugki wrote:

You are dumb.

I apologize. I foolishly believed that all the peer reviewers at the Journal of Applied Physiology, and a team of highly accomplished scientists doing a major, large-scale genetics and exercise performance study with endless publications, who had their study cited hundreds of times in other refereed science journals, might have some idea what a reasonable conclusion to draw from their research might be.

They were so dumb that they did this study and didn't look at ACTUAL GENES and such. You'd think such a large group of scientists studying genetics at major universities would know better!

Alas, I failed to realize that they hadn't spoken to you yet. That was a serious oversight on my (and, more importantly, those half-wit scientists, who should have known better)part.

I can not say strongly enough, for all of us, I am sorry. We are wrong. We should have listened more closely to that dude on the message board at Letsrun.

I suspect if you shoot them a quick e-mail they'll put the article with a full apology.

Best to you.

[quote]Aghast wrote:

I'm saying he is not weak he is making the only decision that allowed him to complete his dream. The choices are either cheat and reach your dream or give up on being a professional athlete.

[quote]

Every time you are willing to compromise your deep morale values just to achieve a self-satisfying goal you are weak.

And if after 10 years at 20,000 miles per year you don't have deep morale values about your sport then you are weak.

If you are willing to lie to your family, friends and yourself just because your boss tells you to do so, then you are weak.

Bottom line.....He was weak!

I'm not saying you're dumb for supporting their research.

If you read any of my posts, then you would see that I'm calling you dumb because of your debate skills and your reading comprehension. So, based on this latest reading miscomprehension (you thinking I'm calling you dumb for the wrong reason), you are dumb...again.

So you still contend that in order to show genetic inheritance of a phenotype, the actual genetic polymorphisms have to shown? And you call others dumb....

Aghast wrote:

So you still contend that in order to show genetic inheritance of a phenotype, the actual genetic polymorphisms have to shown? And you call others dumb....

He's on the wrong side of the evidence but he's dug himself in. It's a desperation problem.

Criminals cheat and they do things you probably don't have the guts to attempt. "Weak" is not the correct descriptive word. When your road to the mountain top comes to a plato there is another steeper, rockier road waiting for you. It says do not enter, will you obey.

2 percent is a very small difference, one that affects finishing order, but nonetheless a small difference amenable to different training approaches, different mental approaches (see Asafa Powell), and different tapering/competing/tactical approaches. So, it is not clear at all that drugs are necessary at that point. For most of us, we can easily swamp any theoretical drug improvements with more and better training. Bumping our mileage up by 20 or more would easily produce 1 minute or greater improvements in, say, the 5k, maybe 3 or more times the 2 percent he posits for drugs. At the elite level, assuming innocence here, you might be very good like Mo Farah, change coaches, and become the best through better training. And that happens frequently with coaching changes.

jikugki wrote:

what a weak person

just keep cruising those 19 minute 5ks, sub 19 can't be that far away.

Twain said it best wrote:

Aghast wrote:

So you still contend that in order to show genetic inheritance of a phenotype, the actual genetic polymorphisms have to shown? And you call others dumb....

He's on the wrong side of the evidence but he's dug himself in. It's a desperation problem.

Are you guys trolling me? If not, 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 their later phases are specifically searching for ACTUAL GENES.

If you don't agree with that, then you're absolutely trolling (or dumb)

Lance T Armstrong wrote:

jikugki wrote:

what a weak person

just keep cruising those 19 minute 5ks, sub 19 can't be that far away.

you'll have to add a few more k's to get me over 19min

Optimal Performance wrote:

Criminals cheat and they do things you probably don't have the guts to attempt. "Weak" is not the correct descriptive word. When your road to the mountain top comes to a plato there is another steeper, rockier road waiting for you. It says do not enter, will you obey.

It takes "guts" to do the right thing, NOT the other way around.

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.

Thank God our OTC runners reach their sub 13 dreams and even their medal aspirations off pure hard work.

You are simply wrong. Please take a class in genetics you are making a fool of yourself. For instance, look into cross fostering experiments and twin studies.

jikugki wrote:

Twain said it best wrote:

He's on the wrong side of the evidence but he's dug himself in. It's a desperation problem.

Are you guys trolling me? If not, 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 their later phases are specifically searching for ACTUAL GENES.

If you don't agree with that, then you're absolutely trolling (or dumb)

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

Aghast wrote:

You are simply wrong. Please take a class in genetics you are making a fool of yourself. For instance, look into cross fostering experiments and twin studies.

How am I simply wrong? About what exactly? Are you saying that there is no other possible explanation besides genetics about why families have things in common?