You are reading a single comment by @andyp and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
As someone who makes a lot of his credibility as a scientist, he suffers an awful lot from confirmation bias.
andyp-
That's exactly what I thought. The Froome tests were the biggest example I thought - when the results said he's either a top, top level athlete, or someone getting the benefits of blood doping, he came to the conclusion that he was blood doping rather than the slightly more obvious answer of the richest team hiring the best cyclist to ride fastest*
*I could be wrong, in which case I'll eat my words one day if it all comes out
bashthebox
Anyone follow Ross Tucker (@scienceofsport) on twitter? He's a very vocal sceptic of, well, everything, pretty much. He makes good arguments but does seem to have a habit of saying because x=y, then y must =z. In other words, taking big leaps into accusations without evidence.
It was very interesting hearing him debate with Jerone Swart - the chap who helped with the Froome VO2 max test - basically the two of them were taking the exact same evidence and coming to polar opposite conclusions.
Anyway - I was going to make the point that Tucker comes across pretty well most of the time, and then goes and retweets Antoine Vayer or @diggerforum or one of those mentals, and then I'm left wondering where his lack of bias has gone.