Log in:  

Register

Froome Talk Only

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

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 09:57

53*11 wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
rick james wrote:
pastronef wrote:http://www.twitter.com/JournalVelo
I take it all the media types that gave Sky a hard time for lack of press access at the Tour have gone out of their way to commend them for fronting up to the press today?

A wee bit further down that timeline, the burn tweet is very good


Having now watched rather than just read the transcript I thought Froome and Brailsford presented themselves well today tbf



you must be kidding, i thought DBs comments tuesday and weds did nothing to serve their cause well


Nope, just my opinion on how they presented themselves.

The content of what they actually said is a different matter and will be open to different interpretations from different people. Everything is said for a reason at this stage i think.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 10:02

Blanco wrote:
pastronef wrote:I see here Ulissi just LOST the results of the stage where he tested positive. and he DNF the Giro. he keeps the Coppa Bernocchi results
https://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=140233&season=2014

and INRNG says this

What races could Froome lose? Under the vanilla application of the rules copied from the Ulissi case Froome would lose his Vuelta title but keep his silver medal from the Bergen worlds. Normally an athlete is stripped of all results but in the case of Ulissi he plead negligence, ie that he took a regular dose only to supply an irregular sample.


Lampre stood by its cyclist. When Ulissi’s case faced delays, it raced him in Italy’s Coppa Bernocchi one-day classic on September 16

Ulissi got 22nd and his result stands. not stripped

Ulissi ban was backdated from June 25th. he raced on Sept 16 and the result stands, he keeps his 22nd in Bernocchi

so I guess in Froome´s case, if backdated ban he´d lose the Vuelta, the race he tested positive in, and Bronze medal stays.


But you're forgetting one little thing, Ulissi cooperated with UCI right from the start. Lampre suspended him from riding right away, something Sky didn't do. Then after couple of months Ulissi and Lampre become nervous and decided to ride Coppa Bernocchi. UCI reacted immediately, and advised them to withdraw Ulissi from competition. Lampre obeyed, and Ulissi got a ban of 9 months out of max 24.

Now how do you think your boy Froome will go through this? Sky didn't suspend him even after UCI president himself spoke up publicly, and he'll race despite them. And all that without full-backing of his own team! UCI wiill ask for max punishment, and I think he will be more than happy with a year, with all results stripped.


Where did you get this from?

Admittedly, the scant comments from SDB earlier in the process suggested Sky were hedging their bets a little bit by not backing him fully. But this was just interpretation rather than fact. We have no idea what Sky have/havent been doing officially to support Froome.

Then yesterday we have an interview from SDB where he really couldn't be clearer in giving the impression of unequivocal support for Froome..
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 10:47

Where did you get this from?

Admittedly, the scant comments from SDB earlier in the process suggested Sky were hedging their bets a little bit by not backing him fully. But this was just interpretation rather than fact. We have no idea what Sky have/havent been doing officially to support Froome.

Then yesterday we have an interview from SDB where he really couldn't be clearer in giving the impression of unequivocal support for Froome..[/quote]

except for where DB last week fully supported CFbut then added the quite important qualification 'at the moment' and then on tuesday this week where he noted that froome has done nothing wrong but 'may' have taken too many puffs of his inhaler, its DB/sky double speak and its hardly unequivocal and DB has a long list of staff and riders hes dropped when its been expedient or necessary for him to do so
53*11
Junior Member
 
Posts: 140
Joined: 05 Feb 2018 10:19

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 11:10

53*11 wrote:Where did you get this from?

Admittedly, the scant comments from SDB earlier in the process suggested Sky were hedging their bets a little bit by not backing him fully. But this was just interpretation rather than fact. We have no idea what Sky have/havent been doing officially to support Froome.

Then yesterday we have an interview from SDB where he really couldn't be clearer in giving the impression of unequivocal support for Froome..


except for where DB last week fully supported CFbut then added the quite important qualification 'at the moment' and then on tuesday this week where he noted that froome has done nothing wrong but 'may' have taken too many puffs of his inhaler, its DB/sky double speak and its hardly unequivocal and DB has a long list of staff and riders hes dropped when its been expedient or necessary for him to do so[/quote]

Yesterday's quote, the one i specifically referred to:

Brailsford declined to specify Team Sky's precise role in Froome's legal defence but said the rider had the team's backing.

"I'm not going to go into great detail about it, but 100 percent we're behind him and 100 percent backing him. We've got full knowledge of the situation and we're working closely to resolve the situation," Brailsford said.

100%. It doesnt get more unequivocal than that.

That's not to say i don't agree with your other points, or that he wont say something different next time out. But that wasn't what i said in my post which you've chosen to quote.

Any leader, in any walk of life, with responsibility for the longevity of an organisation and the employ of hundreds of people, would be absolutely crazy to tie him/herself irreversibly to the outcome of one individuals fate. So i'm more surprised that he came out with what he did yesterday, than what he's said previously.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 11:27

brownbobby wrote:Oh come on John....

Let's say conservatively Nairò is doing 20km/h.

Froome comes through at least 4 times that speed.

Difficult to be precise from a 2 second clip, but I'm seeing cadence well above 300rpm.

So im guesstimating Froome at 80km/h (that's gonna be way over 2000 watts) spinning at 300 rpm up Ventoux.

So yeah, we could believe the clip is genuine, not sped up in anyway.

Or we could just accept reality...


Don't be so lazy!

I picked two obvious spectators as markers and timed each rider a few times. Quintana took 5 seconds and Froome took 3, with a measurement error of ~0.5 seconds. So not quite twice as fast, but a rough estimate is that Froome was going ~160% of Quintana's speed. That would be on the order of 25 km/hr for Quintana and 40 km/hr for Froome.

Uness you think the original video is a fake? I guess if there were some evidence of that I could accept it. Otherwise it's obvious that Froome is the fake.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 11:32

ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:Oh come on John....

Let's say conservatively Nairò is doing 20km/h.

Froome comes through at least 4 times that speed.

Difficult to be precise from a 2 second clip, but I'm seeing cadence well above 300rpm.

So im guesstimating Froome at 80km/h (that's gonna be way over 2000 watts) spinning at 300 rpm up Ventoux.

So yeah, we could believe the clip is genuine, not sped up in anyway.

Or we could just accept reality...


Don't be so lazy!

I picked two obvious spectators as markers and timed each rider a few times. Quintana took 5 seconds and Froome took 3, with a measurement error of ~0.5 seconds. So not quite twice as fast, but a rough estimate is that Froome was going ~160% of Quintana's speed. That would be on the order of 25 km/hr for Quintana and 40 km/hr for Froome.

Uness you think the original video is a fake? I guess if there were some evidence of that I could accept it. Otherwise it's obvious that Froome is the fake.

John Swanson


Quintana took 5 seconds, Froome 3.

The video clip i watched was 2 seconds long....how on earth did you get those timings :confused:
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 11:35

brownbobby wrote:
Blanco wrote:
pastronef wrote:I see here Ulissi just LOST the results of the stage where he tested positive. and he DNF the Giro. he keeps the Coppa Bernocchi results
https://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=140233&season=2014

and INRNG says this

What races could Froome lose? Under the vanilla application of the rules copied from the Ulissi case Froome would lose his Vuelta title but keep his silver medal from the Bergen worlds. Normally an athlete is stripped of all results but in the case of Ulissi he plead negligence, ie that he took a regular dose only to supply an irregular sample.


Lampre stood by its cyclist. When Ulissi’s case faced delays, it raced him in Italy’s Coppa Bernocchi one-day classic on September 16

Ulissi got 22nd and his result stands. not stripped

Ulissi ban was backdated from June 25th. he raced on Sept 16 and the result stands, he keeps his 22nd in Bernocchi

so I guess in Froome´s case, if backdated ban he´d lose the Vuelta, the race he tested positive in, and Bronze medal stays.


But you're forgetting one little thing, Ulissi cooperated with UCI right from the start. Lampre suspended him from riding right away, something Sky didn't do. Then after couple of months Ulissi and Lampre become nervous and decided to ride Coppa Bernocchi. UCI reacted immediately, and advised them to withdraw Ulissi from competition. Lampre obeyed, and Ulissi got a ban of 9 months out of max 24.

Now how do you think your boy Froome will go through this? Sky didn't suspend him even after UCI president himself spoke up publicly, and he'll race despite them. And all that without full-backing of his own team! UCI wiill ask for max punishment, and I think he will be more than happy with a year, with all results stripped.


Where did you get this from?

Admittedly, the scant comments from SDB earlier in the process suggested Sky were hedging their bets a little bit by not backing him fully. But this was just interpretation rather than fact. We have no idea what Sky have/havent been doing officially to support Froome.

Then yesterday we have an interview from SDB where he really couldn't be clearer in giving the impression of unequivocal support for Froome..


Where did I get that from? :surprised:
Let me remind you:
First, there was a silence from the team. Total silence! Only a tiny statement in which they confirm that Froome had an AAF finding.
Than after two months Sir Dave finally speaks, backing Froome hundred percent, at the moment!
And then after couple of weeks, great Sir Dave speaks again, convincing us that it is not about the urine sample (yet it precisely is about that, which is by the way twice as limited), but about number of puffs that Froome took :eek: I guess in the end Sir Dave will tell that Froome lied him about the puffs :lol:
To summarize: To me it looks like Sir Dave is thinking how to find the way out for himself and the team of all this. To me it looks like Sir Dave will not hesitate one second to throw Froome under the bus. Heck they don't even want to pay his lawyer! :eek:
To full-backing of a rider with ongoing doping case look to Orica in Simon Yates case and Caisse D'Epargne with Valverde.
User avatar Blanco
Member
 
Posts: 1,356
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 19:33
Location: Serbia

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 11:42

Blanco wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
Blanco wrote:
pastronef wrote:I see here Ulissi just LOST the results of the stage where he tested positive. and he DNF the Giro. he keeps the Coppa Bernocchi results
https://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=140233&season=2014

and INRNG says this

What races could Froome lose? Under the vanilla application of the rules copied from the Ulissi case Froome would lose his Vuelta title but keep his silver medal from the Bergen worlds. Normally an athlete is stripped of all results but in the case of Ulissi he plead negligence, ie that he took a regular dose only to supply an irregular sample.


Lampre stood by its cyclist. When Ulissi’s case faced delays, it raced him in Italy’s Coppa Bernocchi one-day classic on September 16

Ulissi got 22nd and his result stands. not stripped

Ulissi ban was backdated from June 25th. he raced on Sept 16 and the result stands, he keeps his 22nd in Bernocchi

so I guess in Froome´s case, if backdated ban he´d lose the Vuelta, the race he tested positive in, and Bronze medal stays.


But you're forgetting one little thing, Ulissi cooperated with UCI right from the start. Lampre suspended him from riding right away, something Sky didn't do. Then after couple of months Ulissi and Lampre become nervous and decided to ride Coppa Bernocchi. UCI reacted immediately, and advised them to withdraw Ulissi from competition. Lampre obeyed, and Ulissi got a ban of 9 months out of max 24.

Now how do you think your boy Froome will go through this? Sky didn't suspend him even after UCI president himself spoke up publicly, and he'll race despite them. And all that without full-backing of his own team! UCI wiill ask for max punishment, and I think he will be more than happy with a year, with all results stripped.


Where did you get this from?

Admittedly, the scant comments from SDB earlier in the process suggested Sky were hedging their bets a little bit by not backing him fully. But this was just interpretation rather than fact. We have no idea what Sky have/havent been doing officially to support Froome.

Then yesterday we have an interview from SDB where he really couldn't be clearer in giving the impression of unequivocal support for Froome..


Where did I get that from? :surprised:
Let me remind you:
First, there was a silence from the team. Total silence! Only a tiny statement in which they confirm that Froome had an AAF finding.
Than after two months Sir Dave finally speaks, backing Froome hundred percent, at the moment!
And then after couple of weeks, great Sir Dave speaks again, convincing us that it is not about the urine sample (yet it precisely is about that, which is by the way twice as limited), but about number of puffs that Froome took :eek: I guess in the end Sir Dave will tell that Froome lied him about the puffs :lol:
To summarize: To me it looks like Sir Dave is thinking how to find the way out for himself and the team of all this. To me it looks like Sir Dave will not hesitate one second to throw Froome under the bus. Heck they don't even want to pay his lawyer! :eek:
To full-backing of a rider with ongoing doping case look to Orica in Simon Yates case and Caisse D'Epargne with Valverde.


Ok, as i thought, your own interpretation of the limited statements given supplemented by unconfirmed rumour.

Thanks for clarifying.

I'd agree that earlier statements suggested SDB would happily throw him under the bus, but yesterdays statement seemed the complete opposite, it suggested to me that win or lose, Sky are now intending to stick with Froome.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 12:15

brownbobby wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:Oh come on John....

Let's say conservatively Nairò is doing 20km/h.

Froome comes through at least 4 times that speed.

Difficult to be precise from a 2 second clip, but I'm seeing cadence well above 300rpm.

So im guesstimating Froome at 80km/h (that's gonna be way over 2000 watts) spinning at 300 rpm up Ventoux.

So yeah, we could believe the clip is genuine, not sped up in anyway.

Or we could just accept reality...


Don't be so lazy!

I picked two obvious spectators as markers and timed each rider a few times. Quintana took 5 seconds and Froome took 3, with a measurement error of ~0.5 seconds. So not quite twice as fast, but a rough estimate is that Froome was going ~160% of Quintana's speed. That would be on the order of 25 km/hr for Quintana and 40 km/hr for Froome.

Uness you think the original video is a fake? I guess if there were some evidence of that I could accept it. Otherwise it's obvious that Froome is the fake.

John Swanson


Quintana took 5 seconds, Froome 3.

The video clip i watched was 2 seconds long....how on earth did you get those timings :confused:


The original video is much longer

John Swanson

edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFxHD0P51-I <--- See? It's only 19 seconds long so it won't take much effort.
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

15 Feb 2018 12:31

That 19s video does make one beggar belief.
It the kind of difference one see in cyclocross.
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,746
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 12:39

brownbobby wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:Oh come on John....

Let's say conservatively Nairò is doing 20km/h.

Froome comes through at least 4 times that speed.

Difficult to be precise from a 2 second clip, but I'm seeing cadence well above 300rpm.

So im guesstimating Froome at 80km/h (that's gonna be way over 2000 watts) spinning at 300 rpm up Ventoux.

So yeah, we could believe the clip is genuine, not sped up in anyway.

Or we could just accept reality...


Don't be so lazy!

I picked two obvious spectators as markers and timed each rider a few times. Quintana took 5 seconds and Froome took 3, with a measurement error of ~0.5 seconds. So not quite twice as fast, but a rough estimate is that Froome was going ~160% of Quintana's speed. That would be on the order of 25 km/hr for Quintana and 40 km/hr for Froome.

Uness you think the original video is a fake? I guess if there were some evidence of that I could accept it. Otherwise it's obvious that Froome is the fake.

John Swanson


Quintana took 5 seconds, Froome 3.

The video clip i watched was 2 seconds long....how on earth did you get those timings :confused:

The voodoo is strong
rick james
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,424
Joined: 02 Sep 2014 13:21
Location: Ecosse

15 Feb 2018 12:44

Froome was cruising at almost 30kmh up Ventoux according to the leaked file... Nairo probably at a more normal 20

https://twitter.com/oufeh/status/964084194140925952
Gregga
Junior Member
 
Posts: 290
Joined: 21 Apr 2012 10:53

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 13:11

ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:Oh come on John....

Let's say conservatively Nairò is doing 20km/h.

Froome comes through at least 4 times that speed.

Difficult to be precise from a 2 second clip, but I'm seeing cadence well above 300rpm.

So im guesstimating Froome at 80km/h (that's gonna be way over 2000 watts) spinning at 300 rpm up Ventoux.

So yeah, we could believe the clip is genuine, not sped up in anyway.

Or we could just accept reality...


Don't be so lazy!

I picked two obvious spectators as markers and timed each rider a few times. Quintana took 5 seconds and Froome took 3, with a measurement error of ~0.5 seconds. So not quite twice as fast, but a rough estimate is that Froome was going ~160% of Quintana's speed. That would be on the order of 25 km/hr for Quintana and 40 km/hr for Froome.

Uness you think the original video is a fake? I guess if there were some evidence of that I could accept it. Otherwise it's obvious that Froome is the fake.

John Swanson


Quintana took 5 seconds, Froome 3.

The video clip i watched was 2 seconds long....how on earth did you get those timings :confused:


The original video is much longer

John Swanson

edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFxHD0P51-I <--- See? It's only 19 seconds long so it won't take much effort.


I get Froome in shot for 2.5 seconds at the most and the shot of him is pretty wobbly. Based on timing him through a section of road where I can reasonably reliably place him wrt spectators (from a shadow across the road where Froome enters shot to a brighly multicoloured dressed guy on the left apprx where he leaves shot) I get him at c2sec, Quintana c2.5.

No doubt he's quicker but I think the difference is about half the 40% being implied.

Not that it means much anyway - I don't think many scientists would base any significant claims on 2.5 seconds of the 20mins or so between Quintana's attack and the summit. In short, to me this proves and disproves nothing.
simoni
Member
 
Posts: 434
Joined: 11 Mar 2010 20:45

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 13:14

ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:Oh come on John....

Let's say conservatively Nairò is doing 20km/h.

Froome comes through at least 4 times that speed.

Difficult to be precise from a 2 second clip, but I'm seeing cadence well above 300rpm.

So im guesstimating Froome at 80km/h (that's gonna be way over 2000 watts) spinning at 300 rpm up Ventoux.

So yeah, we could believe the clip is genuine, not sped up in anyway.

Or we could just accept reality...


Don't be so lazy!

I picked two obvious spectators as markers and timed each rider a few times. Quintana took 5 seconds and Froome took 3, with a measurement error of ~0.5 seconds. So not quite twice as fast, but a rough estimate is that Froome was going ~160% of Quintana's speed. That would be on the order of 25 km/hr for Quintana and 40 km/hr for Froome.

Uness you think the original video is a fake? I guess if there were some evidence of that I could accept it. Otherwise it's obvious that Froome is the fake.

John Swanson


Quintana took 5 seconds, Froome 3.

The video clip i watched was 2 seconds long....how on earth did you get those timings :confused:


The original video is much longer

John Swanson

edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFxHD0P51-I <--- See? It's only 19 seconds long so it won't take much effort.


So, let me get this straight...you're now using the original video, which clearly does show different but still plausible difference in speed between the 2 riders, to somehow give credibility to a ridiculously edited and speeded up mash of the original video which shows completely implausible difference in speed between said 2 riders.

Voodoo science indeed.

I eagerly await the next time you have the balls to accuse 'fanboys' of obfuscation and sleight of hand.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re:

15 Feb 2018 13:18

TourOfSardinia wrote:That 19s video does make one beggar belief.
It the kind of difference one see in cyclocross.


Just to clarify - I've always agreed that Froome's performance on Ventoux 2013 was out of this world, not normal. I love watching it for the sheer fantasy of it all.

But the clip referenced above is so poorly done it beggars belief that anyone would give it even the slightest hint of credibility.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

15 Feb 2018 14:40

Daw won on the same MTF as they have today in 2015. Could be interesting today.....
User avatar MartinGT
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,760
Joined: 04 Jul 2010 20:48

15 Feb 2018 14:41

He's just been on ES in an interview. Saying he didnt feel great yesterday.
User avatar MartinGT
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,760
Joined: 04 Jul 2010 20:48

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 14:52

brownbobby wrote:
Yesterday's quote, the one i specifically referred to:

Brailsford declined to specify Team Sky's precise role in Froome's legal defence but said the rider had the team's backing.

"I'm not going to go into great detail about it, but 100 percent we're behind him and 100 percent backing him. We've got full knowledge of the situation and we're working closely to resolve the situation," Brailsford said.

100%. It doesnt get more unequivocal than that.

That's not to say i don't agree with your other points, or that he wont say something different next time out. But that wasn't what i said in my post which you've chosen to quote.

Any leader, in any walk of life, with responsibility for the longevity of an organisation and the employ of hundreds of people, would be absolutely crazy to tie him/herself irreversibly to the outcome of one individuals fate. So i'm more surprised that he came out with what he did yesterday, than what he's said previously.


Not sure why this is surprising . It sounds good now, so it’s useful for him to say it. He’ll simply say whatever he needs to later, no matter if it is 180 degrees from his stance today, like he has on a hundred other topics.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,090
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 14:54

red_flanders wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
Yesterday's quote, the one i specifically referred to:

Brailsford declined to specify Team Sky's precise role in Froome's legal defence but said the rider had the team's backing.

"I'm not going to go into great detail about it, but 100 percent we're behind him and 100 percent backing him. We've got full knowledge of the situation and we're working closely to resolve the situation," Brailsford said.

100%. It doesnt get more unequivocal than that.

That's not to say i don't agree with your other points, or that he wont say something different next time out. But that wasn't what i said in my post which you've chosen to quote.

Any leader, in any walk of life, with responsibility for the longevity of an organisation and the employ of hundreds of people, would be absolutely crazy to tie him/herself irreversibly to the outcome of one individuals fate. So i'm more surprised that he came out with what he did yesterday, than what he's said previously.


Not sure why this is surprising . It sounds good now, so it’s useful for him to say it. He’ll simply say whatever he needs to later, no matter if it is 180 degrees from his stance today, like he has on a hundred other topics.


brailsfords gonna brail.....

i like that :)

Brail (v) to brail - invitation to the clinic to suggest a suitable defintion for to brail :lol:
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,486
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Froome Talk Only

15 Feb 2018 14:58

red_flanders wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
Yesterday's quote, the one i specifically referred to:

Brailsford declined to specify Team Sky's precise role in Froome's legal defence but said the rider had the team's backing.

"I'm not going to go into great detail about it, but 100 percent we're behind him and 100 percent backing him. We've got full knowledge of the situation and we're working closely to resolve the situation," Brailsford said.

100%. It doesnt get more unequivocal than that.

That's not to say i don't agree with your other points, or that he wont say something different next time out. But that wasn't what i said in my post which you've chosen to quote.

Any leader, in any walk of life, with responsibility for the longevity of an organisation and the employ of hundreds of people, would be absolutely crazy to tie him/herself irreversibly to the outcome of one individuals fate. So i'm more surprised that he came out with what he did yesterday, than what he's said previously.


Not sure why this is surprising . It sounds good now, so it’s useful for him to say it. He’ll simply say whatever he needs to later, no matter if it is 180 degrees from his stance today, like he has on a hundred other topics.


For once we're not far from being in agreement; I said i was more surprised at yesterdays statement than previous ones. Which didn't surprise me at all...
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

Back to top