Re:
Tom the Engine said:
sniper said:
I made my point. You haven't addressed it, but turned it into an exercise in splitting hairs.
You're good at that, acknowledged, and indeed lets move on.
Alright, I can answer to that, too.
You made your point? No need for that. Everybody knows your point anyway. It condenses to probably 3 main preconceived statements that are copy-pasted in different flavors into every thread. And in-between there unfortunately are a lot of heavily flawed arguments to support them at all costs under all circumstances.
A discussion is about exchanging and analyzing arguments. So if you think this is "splitting hairs" because the quality of arguments doesn't matter and it's only about the ultimate answer that is already carved in stone anyway, then feel free to do so. But I disagree. Just comparing opinions and conclusions is the lowest possible form of discussion. Quality and correctness of arguments does matter a lot and if the answer is already fixed then what's the point of engaging in a debate to start with? And acknowledging a mistake is a virtue not a weakness.
Again: You stubbornly insisted over 3 posts against all objection that in the source you quoted VdV claimed to never have heard rumors. Which is simply not true. And the fact that VdV is a cheat and omertà does not change the fact that your claim was bogus as you obviously misread the sentence.
Up your game.
That's all I have to say and I'm not going to further comment on a personal level.
I was posting in the JV thread at the same time, and drawing on the same section of the article by the same author.
JV was asked about the rumor.
For VDV there is no mention of the word "rumor". So indeed I mixed them up. My bad and hereby acknowledged.
The question is, is it relevant?
In your view apparently it is. In my view no it is not.
Firstly (there'll be a "secondly", later

), we can safely assume that he and JV were asked (roughly) the same questions. And notice that the author of the piece apparently didn't feel a need to distinguish between "rumour" and "suspicion". Why? Because it's not relevant. It's clear what's being asked. And it looks to me as if he uses the word "motor rumors" (when quoting JV) as a shortened substitute for "have you ever heard about motors/ suspected motor use" etc.
At least that's how I read it. And, crucially, there's no need to split hairs over it (although that's what we're doing now), because, secondly, it doesn't affect my point (which i'm happy you finally addressed) about VDV and omerta. You can disagree with my point, of course, or comment on it, as indeed you have now done, but silvousplait not on the basis of whether the particular set of questions posed to VDV contained the exact word "rumour" or not (which in the end we don't even know because we don't get to see the original set of questions). It has zero bearing on my point that VDV's statements, taken together, look alot like motor-omerta.
To your point: (1) It's very possible (or likely) that he lied about it. And that he either suspects or knows that some riders used motors or he even used one himself. We don't know yet. We'll find out someday.
Such denials always sound exactly the same irrespective of whether they're genuine or not. By their nature. Because whoever is lying in a denial is trying to mimick the way he would act if he was honest about it to appear convincing. (Some are very good at it, others less so.) And therefore these statements carry absolutely zero information.
Or can you provide us with a good quote that a rider should use if he genuinly doesn't believe that motors have been used? Not so easy, is it? And when thinking about this don't forget that the goal is never to make the few Clinic members happy but to address a broader spectrum of people.
In summary, I really think it's not worth it to lose so much sleep over these denials. They're just part of the game.
VDV is not an active rider. He's retired. Like Lemond.
I'm not losing sleep over VDV's or Vaughters' denials or alleged ignorance.
Just observing what looks to me like omerta 101. They've either lived in a cave or they are pretending.
If they are pretending, why are they pretending?
Didn't Yaco say that motorization is perceived by pros as so much worse than doping?
Well if that's the case, why is Vaughters saying he's not worried about it?
And VDV: "it's too risky", and "Cookson/UCI have it all under control".
Is he taking the absolute piss?
He could simply say nothing.
(2) From time to time it's good to maybe remind ourselves that there are no confirmed cases in the pro cycling peloton yet. Even Cancellara 2010 and Froome 2013 and other blatant cases that rank very high on all our lists are officially still rumors at this point in time. Unless it's proven there's still a possibility for each case that no motors were involved there. We all form our opinions but we cannot run around and call everybody a liar who doesn't fully agree with our own conclusions. Especially because neither of us has access to real insider information.
We've gone here so often. It's not a discussion I think is worth having again.
Bottom line: this is the Clinic, not a court of law.
(3) There are considerable differences in external circumstances for doping and motors (as discussed elsewhere). It's not automatically guaranteed that everything we know about doping can simply be extrapolated to motors. Maybe it'll turn out someday that the two systems indeed worked exactly the same way, maybe not. But for now to simply draw parallel lines everywhere is quite a large assumption that is not really warranted yet.
This is a strawman.