The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get - Page 61 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #601  
Old 12-24-12, 21:54
taiwan's Avatar
taiwan taiwan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,477
Default

Seems that coincidentally all the new posters are in agreement. How nice.
__________________
Scientific Expert
Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 12-24-12, 22:05
King Of The Wolds King Of The Wolds is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taiwan View Post
Seems that coincidentally all the new posters are in agreement. How nice.
Joachim's new. Who else?
Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 12-24-12, 22:10
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by King Of The Wolds View Post
Joachim's new. Who else?
All you have to do is look for members with a new account who make a bee line to The Clinic and begin posting as though they have been here a hundred times before.

Why are there two Sky thread that are essentially the same?
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 12-24-12, 22:11
red_flanders's Avatar
red_flanders red_flanders is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,405
Default

These posts would also be completely off topic. Please stop the off-topic discussion. Last warning, thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 12-24-12, 22:27
King Of The Wolds King Of The Wolds is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post

Why are there two Sky thread that are essentially the same?
You'll have to ask Hog. He started this one, whilst the other was still in existence, and then bumped this one, 3 months after any previous activity, just a few days ago, with the Leinders info that was already in the other thread.

I agree though - 2 threads are pointless. Let's get this one closed down.
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 12-24-12, 22:28
King Of The Wolds King Of The Wolds is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 903
Default

Flanders. Sorry - just seen your post. On topic for me, from now on.
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 12-24-12, 22:31
red_flanders's Avatar
red_flanders red_flanders is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,405
Default

NP, thx King. Not as concerned about the 2 thread discussion as the rest of it.

RE: 2 threads, people complain when there are too many, and complain when there are too few. I'm leaving it as is. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 12-25-12, 15:34
thehog's Avatar
thehog thehog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine Seguros View Post
There is no evidence Ivan Basso doped in the 2006 Giro. No evidence Contador doped in any of his GT wins except the 2010 Tour. No evidence Cunego doped in 2004 except what Cunego himself has said with a nudge and a wink. No evidence any of Alejandro Valverde's results were ill-gotten - he's never failed a test.

The Clinic is not a court of law, and whether somebody doped or not is only a court of law situation on rare occasions. Only a small fraction of the dopers are ever caught. But absence of the kind of evidence that would be permissible in a court of law does not mean that there are no dots to join.

If something walks, swims, flies, looks, and quacks like a duck, a court might require further evidence; independent witnesses that corroborate your story that what you saw was, in fact, a duck; DNA tests and so forth to confirm this finding. However, in the absence of these, the duck might walk away on a technicality, but that doesn't mean there is not reasonable suspicion that the suspect walked, swam, flew, looked, and quacked like a duck and therefore was, in fact, a duck.
With all these questions of "where's the evidence"? I'm concerned the the forum is attempting use the parameters afforded only by a court of law.

In the first instance a forum should allow open discussion. Shutting down discussions based on "no evidence" hamstring and sends the forum into paralysis.

Suggesting Sky may have doped by the fact they hired Lienders is a reasonable amount of circumstantial evidence to at least have discussions on the matter.

Whilst I respect that people have differing views than my own and everyone has the right to object. What I find most concerning is that these objections mirror those of the 1999-2005 Armstrong era.

Surely we've moved on? At the very least shouldn't we ask questions of cycling? The sport that has chosen to let itself down so many times.

I rest my case.

Last edited by thehog; 12-25-12 at 15:38.
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 12-25-12, 16:21
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
With all these questions of "where's the evidence"? I'm concerned the the forum is attempting use the parameters afforded only by a court of law.

In the first instance a forum should allow open discussion. Shutting down discussions based on "no evidence" hamstring and sends the forum into paralysis.

Suggesting Sky may have doped by the fact they hired Lienders is a reasonable amount of circumstantial evidence to at least have discussions on the matter.

Whilst I respect that people have differing views than my own and everyone has the right to object. What I find most concerning is that these objections mirror those of the 1999-2005 Armstrong era.

Surely we've moved on? At the very least shouldn't we ask questions of cycling? The sport that has chosen to let itself down so many times.

I rest my case.
Meaningful discussion means that claims need to be backed up with either substantiation or at least a persuasive argument, otherwise it has no value. You haven't done this. You've made a series of bold assertions, and that is all. That is why people are questioning the value of what you say. Without some form of substantiation your 'Wiggins is a client of Ferrari. 100%' is just noise. You haven't suggested that Sky have doped, you've asserted it. There is a big difference.

Yes, Sky employed Leinders, Leinders may be heavily implicated in doping some years ago. That is as far as it goes unless you have something else to put on the table.

Frankly, invoking Armstrong is the sign of the paucity of your arguments. It is The Clinic equivalent of Godwin's Law. Wiggins wore black socks in the TdF. So did Lance ergo Wiggins is a doper.
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 12-25-12, 16:34
sniper sniper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,867
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
With all these questions of "where's the evidence"? I'm concerned the the forum is attempting use the parameters afforded only by a court of law.

In the first instance a forum should allow open discussion. Shutting down discussions based on "no evidence" hamstring and sends the forum into paralysis.

Suggesting Sky may have doped by the fact they hired Lienders is a reasonable amount of circumstantial evidence to at least have discussions on the matter.

Whilst I respect that people have differing views than my own and everyone has the right to object. What I find most concerning is that these objections mirror those of the 1999-2005 Armstrong era.

Surely we've moved on? At the very least shouldn't we ask questions of cycling? The sport that has chosen to let itself down so many times.

I rest my case.
+10.
pretty much my thoughts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
Meaningful discussion means that claims need to be backed up with either substantiation or at least a persuasive argument, otherwise it has no value. You haven't done this.
Fail.
Hog and many others have pointed out such a ****load of dodginess, contradicting statements, and hard facts wrt Sky that we should start connecting dots a.s.a.p., before it's too late, i.e. before cycling has missed another opportunity to clean house and change course. If your eyes remain shut, it's because you choose to keep them shut, not because the arguments aren't persuasive enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
...
Frankly, invoking Armstrong is the sign of the paucity of your arguments. It is The Clinic equivalent of Godwin's Law. Wiggins wore black socks in the TdF. So did Lance ergo Wiggins is a doper.
This is you bending the arguments to make them look silly.
But if you wanna be Liggett's best friend, keep up Sky's defence.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.