Brits don't dope?

[doolols]

Re:

I don't care what GB are doing as long as they keep annoying the whiny French. Long may it continue. Waaaaah.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[fmk_RoI]

Radcliffe's blood values are beyond suspicious. That's the same method used to find out the amount of Russians positive, so should be used for Radcliffe too. Her's were really, really high, and then she called for a super injunction. That's pretty bad. 'Shifty' is an understatement. Although this has all been discussed at great length in her own thread.

So we have finally reached the day when suspicion is all that is needed to declare guilt. What a day. As for the mythical super injunction - zero evidence, none, not even gossip in the usual circles. All there is is a desire to believe it's true in order to support a weak-assed argument. And you bit on the shifty hook? OMG. Clinic logic at it's finest.

 

[thehog]

Radcliffe's blood values are beyond suspicious. That's the same method used to find out the amount of Russians positive, so should be used for Radcliffe too. Her's were really, really high, and then she called for a super injunction. That's pretty bad. 'Shifty' is an understatement. Although this has all been discussed at great length in her own thread.

So we have finally reached the day when suspicion is all that is needed to declare guilt. What a day. As for the mythical super injunction - zero evidence, none, not even gossip in the usual circles. All there is is a desire to believe it's true in order to support a weak-assed argument. And you bit on the shifty hook? OMG. Clinic logic at it's finest.

However no one was declaring guilt in a formal sense. That is your narrative, we all patipating in a dicussion. This one with regards to UK doping compared with Russian doping.

You appear to get frustrated when people provide information which pertains organised and arranged doping.

 

[kwikki]

@Bullsfan22

Agreed on all points and to the fact that UK athletes do have a choice, whereas in most soviet state system most didn't even know they were doping.

And how is that any different from any athlete from wherever?

 

[fmk_RoI]

You appear to get frustrated when people provide information which pertains organised and arranged doping.

I love information, I loathe when weak, illogical arguments assembled out of things people wish were true but have zero proof of are presented as unopposable fact.

 

[fmk_RoI]

@Bullsfan22

Agreed on all points and to the fact that UK athletes do have a choice, whereas in most soviet state system most didn't even know they were doping.

And how is that any different from any athlete from wherever?

I thought Western athletes were coerced and / or brainwashed into doping?

 

[thehog]

@Bullsfan22

Agreed on all points and to the fact that UK athletes do have a choice, whereas in most soviet state system most didn't even know they were doping.

And how is that any different from any athlete from wherever?

I thought Western athletes were coerced and / or brainwashed into doping?

I love information, I loathe when weak, illogical arguments assembled out of things people wish were true but have zero proof of are presented as unopposable fact.

Yes?

 

[vredeling]

Wow I have to say, British riders are really impressive these days. I remember back in 2011 at Tour de Flandres, I spoke with a couple of British fans who at the moment were cheering for Wiggins to win in Flandres.. back then Geraint Thomas was a relatively unknown cyclist.. when I'd mention his name as my thought of the best British chance that day: none of the guys ever heard of him!

5 years later and GB is dominating road cycling, next to alrdy dominating track racing.. .WOW.

 

[gooner]

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

 

[John Deathly]

Re:

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

I agree, people start with a prejudice and then examine "evidence" until they find a shred off anything to support the prejudice. In the absence of the shred, then just keep going anyway and make the accusation.

We aren't qualified to make the judgement, neither are the journalists who report it.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

I agree, people start with a prejudice and then examine "evidence" until they find a shred off anything to support the prejudice. In the absence of the shred, then just keep going anyway and make the accusation.

We aren't qualified to make the judgement, neither are the journalists who report it.

Yet the court systems allows for judgements to be made by its peers the jury?

Why aren't fans and peers allowed to make judgements? What does "qualification" have to do it with? who selects the qualification and who is qualified?

 

[thehog]

Re:

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

That didn't happen in Horner's case, Wiggins released his, there was dicussion for both sides of his blood data. The more that is released the better the understanding becomes. I think all riders should be released. Any team that proclaim to be clean should want to have it released. Yes?

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

I agree, people start with a prejudice and then examine "evidence" until they find a shred off anything to support the prejudice. In the absence of the shred, then just keep going anyway and make the accusation.

We aren't qualified to make the judgement, neither are the journalists who report it.

Yes.

The whistleblower who spoke to the Sunday Times disclosed the info on the condition that none of the athletes were named. The issue was that the IAAF didn't follow up on them and that the athlete deserves a chance to explain too.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

I don't care what GB are doing as long as they keep annoying the whiny French. Long may it continue. Waaaaah.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

they are annoying more Brits than Frenchies.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re:

Good point about US and UK athletes actually having a choice yet still choosing to dope.

Counting medals clearly has priority over clean sport.
The way some UK reporters on twitter are absolutely jurking off on seeing Britain be third in the medal table is nuff said.

NATIONALISM SPOTTED AT THE OLYMPIC GAMES! MORE INSIDE!
Page 2: Pope remains Catholic, bears defecate in woods.


Hog and BullsFan make excellent points upthread, by the way. I'd add the remarkably corrupt and unfair world of American college athletics to the clubs mentioned. This article perhaps illustrates the unscrupulousness of the administration: https://newrepublic.com/article/122686/dont-pay-college-athletes

 

[John Deathly]

Re: Re:

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

I agree, people start with a prejudice and then examine "evidence" until they find a shred off anything to support the prejudice. In the absence of the shred, then just keep going anyway and make the accusation.

We aren't qualified to make the judgement, neither are the journalists who report it.

Yet the court systems allows for judgements to be made by its peers the jury?

Why aren't fans and peers allowed to make judgements? What does "qualification" have to do it with? who selects the qualification and who is qualified?

That's an awful argument. A jury is appointed, is given the evidence, hears arguments presented professionally from both perspectives, and a judge guides proceedings. Whereas you just come on here and start whanging on. Qualified means being able to look at scientific evidence and analyzing on the basis of having expert knowledge, rather than just making *** up on a forum because of a generalized prejudice or an irrational dislike of an athlete.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

I agree, people start with a prejudice and then examine "evidence" until they find a shred off anything to support the prejudice. In the absence of the shred, then just keep going anyway and make the accusation.

We aren't qualified to make the judgement, neither are the journalists who report it.

Yet the court systems allows for judgements to be made by its peers the jury?

Why aren't fans and peers allowed to make judgements? What does "qualification" have to do it with? who selects the qualification and who is qualified?

That's an awful argument. A jury is appointed, is given the evidence, hears arguments presented professionally from both perspectives, and a judge guides proceedings. Whereas you just come on here and start whanging on. Qualified means being able to look at scientific evidence and analyzing on the basis of having expert knowledge, rather than just making **** up on a forum because of a generalized prejudice or an irrational dislike of an athlete.

And your qualified to make this statement because?

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

I agree, people start with a prejudice and then examine "evidence" until they find a shred off anything to support the prejudice. In the absence of the shred, then just keep going anyway and make the accusation.

We aren't qualified to make the judgement, neither are the journalists who report it.

Yet the court systems allows for judgements to be made by its peers the jury?

Why aren't fans and peers allowed to make judgements? What does "qualification" have to do it with? who selects the qualification and who is qualified?

That's an awful argument. A jury is appointed, is given the evidence, hears arguments presented professionally from both perspectives, and a judge guides proceedings. Whereas you just come on here and start whanging on. Qualified means being able to look at scientific evidence and analyzing on the basis of having expert knowledge, rather than just making **** up on a forum because of a generalized prejudice or an irrational dislike of an athlete.

Welcome to The Clinic ...

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

Simple solution is to be transparent and release all her blood profiles and let those who set up the ABP give their opinions.

What would matter would be the opinions of Ross Tucker and Ashenden.

But Sport has long since left the arena where athletes are to accorded fair hearings. Fans of sport have been cheated time and time again. Till the sports mend their ways, tough!

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

I agree, people start with a prejudice and then examine "evidence" until they find a shred off anything to support the prejudice. In the absence of the shred, then just keep going anyway and make the accusation.

We aren't qualified to make the judgement, neither are the journalists who report it.

Yet the court systems allows for judgements to be made by its peers the jury?

Why aren't fans and peers allowed to make judgements? What does "qualification" have to do it with? who selects the qualification and who is qualified?

That's an awful argument. A jury is appointed, is given the evidence, hears arguments presented professionally from both perspectives, and a judge guides proceedings. Whereas you just come on here and start whanging on. Qualified means being able to look at scientific evidence and analyzing on the basis of having expert knowledge, rather than just making **** up on a forum because of a generalized prejudice or an irrational dislike of an athlete.

Welcome to The Clinic ...

There's been some very good posts in this thread along with the Froome data thread. Rash genealisations tend to come from those unable to form an opinion/argument to join in. So they go down the "everyone here, clinic mythology" route.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

That didn't happen in Horner's case, Wiggins released his, there was dicussion for both sides of his blood data. The more that is released the better the understanding becomes. I think all riders should be released. Any team that proclaim to be clean should want to have it released. Yes?

In the Sunday Times report, Bolt's and Farah's profile come off as non-suspicious. I presume that was seen by Ashenden and Parisotto. Now tell me, has that made any difference with them?

I also seem to remember around here and on social media, people putting more emphasis on one expert's(can't remember his name) view that had an issue with Wiggins' passport.

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

I agree, people start with a prejudice and then examine "evidence" until they find a shred off anything to support the prejudice. In the absence of the shred, then just keep going anyway and make the accusation.

We aren't qualified to make the judgement, neither are the journalists who report it.

Yet the court systems allows for judgements to be made by its peers the jury?

Why aren't fans and peers allowed to make judgements? What does "qualification" have to do it with? who selects the qualification and who is qualified?

That's an awful argument. A jury is appointed, is given the evidence, hears arguments presented professionally from both perspectives, and a judge guides proceedings. Whereas you just come on here and start whanging on. Qualified means being able to look at scientific evidence and analyzing on the basis of having expert knowledge, rather than just making **** up on a forum because of a generalized prejudice or an irrational dislike of an athlete.

And your qualified to make this statement because?

Because, come on, it's common sense. That's why a suspicion gains traction when one or two sports scientists say it, not some people on a forum.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

Simple solution is to be transparent and release all her blood profiles and let those who set up the ABP give their opinions.

What would matter would be the opinions of Ross Tucker and Ashenden.

But Sport has long since left the arena where athletes are to accorded fair hearings. Fans of sport have been cheated time and time again. Till the sports mend their ways, tough!

OK, Ashenden and Parisotto on Farah and Bolt then.

What do you think?

The bold is an absurd point.

 

[thehog]

@brunllix

So you took Coyle's view of Armstrong as gospel?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I'm not seeing this alone through Radcliffe but this discussion is the exact reason why I'm generally against athletes releasing their blood profile. It's a trial by media and the general public.

Anything out of line and the guilty verdict is declared and with that in mind, an innocent athlete could easily be dragged down irrespective of the context of it all. No one ever takes that into consideration.

There is no open mind to it.

Simple solution is to be transparent and release all her blood profiles and let those who set up the ABP give their opinions.

What would matter would be the opinions of Ross Tucker and Ashenden.

But Sport has long since left the arena where athletes are to accorded fair hearings. Fans of sport have been cheated time and time again. Till the sports mend their ways, tough!

OK, Ashenden and Parisotto on Farrah and Bolt then.

What do you think?

The bold is an absurd point.

Did you read Jack Robertson response to the McLaren report.

“Those involved in running sport are former athletes, so somehow I figured that they would have honor and integrity. But the people in charge are basically raping their sports and the system for self-interest. Sport is seriously broken.”