Originally Posted by Mellow Velo
Fair enough, but if that is so, why then do posters feel the need to attack the man's credibility, when we all know he is more credible than any poster, here?
I dont know why other posters attack Walsh's credibility. Thats a question for them, not for me,
And since Walsh didnt fit into my thought process on why i thought wiggins doped in July and it didnt fit in before July the mere fact that he says sky are clean now doesnt change anything for me.
What other posters said, got nothing to do with me or my arguments.
Originally Posted by martinvickers
Basis? Past experience.
Care to explain exactly what your past experience is with me and my capacity to revise my opinions. What past examples do you have that prove i am incapable of changing my opinion?
Or was it just an amature attempt to flame me?
Originally Posted by Spencer the Half Wit
Most of LS's excellent posts are, naturally, about the past. Suspicious performances, suspicious team mates, suspicious doctors etc. Any one of which in isolation you could dismiss easily. However, as I understand it, for him (and that is where I disagree with him) all these things taken together suggest Sky and/or individual riders on Sky are doping.
I'm struggling to see what evidence would make you and him change your minds as it is always harder to prove a negative. Would the release of the blood passport, which is not cast iron proof but suggestive, do?
Your post is correct. There is unlikely to come out any evidence that will suddenly change my mind - especially since doping is something kept so secret that evidence for either side is often kept from the public.
The difference between your post and the one Jimmy fingers gave before is that his contained the following
No matter what happens from here on in, you'll always view 2012 Sky as tainted
Had jimmy just said that I am unlikely to see any evidence that will change my mind, i would have been unlikely to bat an eyelid at it.
But the above sentence, is different, it states that "no matter what happens" "you'll always view 2012 Sky as tainted".
So I am so small minded that no matter what, I will always defend an opinon even if it turns out to be wrong, and purely because it is the opinion i held originally
That is imo a very offensive comment that accuses me, just for a start of being incapable of any rational thought.
Originally Posted by armchairclimber
Pompous post of the year. Well done.
You are presumptuous about others on this board often enough and play the man not the ball often enough (including in the above post). Stop crying you wuss.
You have posted as fact that Wiggins never doped so many times that i have run out of hyperbole to make light of it with.
And not once have you offered any explanation as to how you came across this fact.
I understand a lot of you get upset when hog posts - ferrari is working with Lance, as an unbacked fact.
You are surprised we on the side who post thousand word essays as to why we think wiggins is suspicious, play the man when you stroll in playing jesus and telling us without so much as a words explanation, that wiggins never doped - fact
Can you understand the frustration with that?
As for the last 2 words, if you didnt mean them (and they are the kind of words that people say on the spot and later regret they said) then no worries, ill overlook them.
Originally Posted by JimmyFingers
Man you are all class. No one here puts more words into my mouth than you, misunderstands me yet reacts with insults and condescension and ignores me when I point out the error.
I didnt put words into your mouth. You, have throughout this thread responded to posts i made with complaints about what posters who have nothing to do with me said.
For example in a most recent example you were visibly annoyed that hog or someone had said Sky was initiating systematic US postal level organized doping, - not an argument I "the hitch" ever made.
So you responded to my post not adressing anything I said, but with the sarcastic observation "oh but i thought sky was doping to UPS levels".
As i said to you the first time i locked horns with you, (and as i say above to mv) please do not treat everyone who thinks sky are suspicious as 1.
I dont care what dear wiggo or sniper posted. If you want to throw food with them then by all means do, but leave it out when you are talking to me.
As for the last paragraph, well i appreciate the outstretched hand. Takes a man to calm a situation while in the middle of heated words.
and part of the reason i responded so sharply last few times was because i thought you were being quite fair for a few weeks leading up to that point.
but you got me wrong if you think Im here for personal battles, and i dont think your angry with me. Im here to argue about sky is all, and my belief that the "cycling is clean now trust us" brigade (which isnt just sky) have got a hell of a lot of explaining to do.
Personal got nothing to do with it.