Recent content by Ventoux Boar

Re: Re: Agreed. It was an exceptional contribution.

Re: Re: Bravo. An outstanding post. Other than the decay piece - I don't think we think that deeply - I agree entirely. What on earth are you doing posting this gold here ;)

Re: Re: Aw, look, we all have our spastics. It's just that few countries are thick enough to elect them PM: Love Australians on ethics - while they supply much of the fuel to fry the planet.

From these recent interactions, Doc Swart appears to be an astute judge of character. I think he's perfectly justified in mounting a vigorous defence of his reputation in the face of relentless character assassination from respected Clinic regulars. Unlike these anonymous 'personalities' he...

Re: Re: Strewth. Hope a few are on the payroll. Sterling service from a handful of sky zoomers, granted. But evidence that 99% non-believers driven by blind prejudice? Meanwhile, closer to home: Froome Talk: 20,250 posts Quintana: 340 posts Sky: 34,895 posts Movistar: ? (search party...

Re: Re: That you 'know' Froome dopes because it's the only explanation for his transformation from pack fodder to GT winner. I couldn't find an appropriate quote to this effect so I apologise in advance if I am misrepresenting your actual views.

Re: To suggest an argument is so strong only flag-wearers fail to agree strikes me as a bit desperate.

Re: Re: https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/677114014246268928 Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport Dec 16 @jazzporridge @JeroenSwart The consistent message is that all the TDF top 5 are at the upper end of what is plausible with known physiology Tucker and Swart were asked if Froome had ever...

Persisting with the line that Swart puts Froome's performance improvement down to fat loss alone is a gross distortion of his position: actually a lie. You know it. Yet you persist.

You could listen to the podcast, or even ask him on Twitter, but you won't for the reason he explained. This is an excellent example of the cherry-picking and misrepresentation mentioned by Swart. Yet you deny your sole objective is to discredit everyone involved in this exercise...

Re: Blind nationalism, eh? Since it applies to the 99% you'll have no trouble backing-up that nasty insult with some examples? You might want to reflect on your personal objectivity in the light of recent events. Ross Tucker - seemingly the sceptics house scientist - says that Froome is 'at...

Re: Re: I have no idea if you're walking back accusations of fraud or confirming them. You know where to ask the man himself, so why ask me? Also I believe we were asked to drop this discussion, so I will.

Re: Re: This is:

Re: Re: You've been trying to discredit and smear everyone involved in this exercise. Swart was generous describing one of your posts as pure vitriol.

Re: Re: Well said sir. Bravo.