CNF Clinic Award: Most Suspicious Performance of 2013

[the sceptic]

after making a complete fool of yourself your comeback is that Hitch has dementia? Nicely done.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

after making a complete fool of yourself your comeback is that Hitch has dementia? Nicely done.

Improve your reading skills otherwise you look like a fool.
Let me explain that even you get it:
I asked a question. Got it?
Good luck next time. Epic fail this time.
Here is the post by "Big Doopie" for further explanation for you:

Um... Hello, hitch? My choices were not available on the poll so I went with Horner. Can't exactly vote for someone not on the poll, can I?

Um... Nor did I mention nibali in my post.

You are getting even more erratic as your dementia kicks in.

It is abundantly clear who is "confused" here.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Come on, no way is Horner clean.

lol


this will boil down to "my dopers are cleaner than yours, more talented too"

 

[The Hitch]

Excactly that´s what i mean. An expression. I tried to get it into his head with the description "hair splitting".
I think he got it a while ago, but pretends not to, so he has a reason to go on with his silly games.
TBH, I used the words "doping world records" within the context of my original post. The same way "The Hitch" uses it in his various attacks vs some Sky riders. So it´s not my "copyright", i just liked the phrase and used it myself...
.

Foxxy if your "doping world records" comment was really just a phrase you liked that shouldn't be taken seriously, then why did you spend 4 hours arguing with me about the evidence

Surely someone who had intended it as just a figure of speech, would, when I asked "which doping world records" have just replied something along the lines

it was just a phrase I liked, don't take it seriously

rather than instructing me to go go look for evidence with comments like

the ones in the vuelta

And

Some of the mountain stages. Just have a look in the Horner threads...

 

[the sceptic]

Improve your reading skills otherwise you look like a fool.
Let me explain that even you get it:
I asked a question. Got it?
Good luck next time. Epic fail this time.
Here is the post by "Big Doopie" for further explanation for you:

You asked a rhetorical question.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point.[1] The question, a rhetorical device, is posed not to elicit a specific answer, but rather to encourage the listener to consider a message or viewpoint.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Foxxy if your "doping world records" comment was really just a phrase you liked that shouldn't be taken seriously, then why did you spend 4 hours arguing with me about the evidence

Didn´t say "it shouldn´t be taken seriously". It should be read in context. For example that CH rode the 2nd fastest time ever up the Angrilu is max suspicious given his age and injury, since we know many riders on that list rode their records in the darkest era and/or at much younger ages. I think you are the only one who still don´t get it.
OTOH things are clearer for me now. The way you understand my posts is the way your posts should be understood: You don´t mean it serious when you for example talk about Froome "records" he allegedly broke at the TdF. Thanks for enlighten me.

And thanks for your concern that i wasted 4 hrs of my life discussing nonsense in cicles with you. I can assure you i did it just secondarily while doing some important things.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

You asked a rhetorical question.

That is your assumption. I go with his liar path, as expressed at least twice...

 

[Netserk]

Liar. I never said this... Or are you just confused and "Big Doopie" is on something here (about the "dementia thing")? At least it would explain a lot.

Please elaborate this quote:

(b) After the AC positive, there was a small window where riders may have thought twice before doping big time again. Now Horner showed every young rider their only chance is to cheat again. Basically he destroyed a whole promising young generation. He single-handedly closed the window.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

"After the AC positive, there was a small window where riders may have thought twice before doping big time again. Now Horner showed every young rider their only chance is to cheat again. Basically he destroyed a whole promising young generation. He single-handedly closed the window."


"may have thought twice" is not equal of "100% (of riders) did thought twice"
"doping big time" is not equal with "micro doping"
"young rider(s)" do not include "old(er) riders (from the dark era for example)"

Is that enough school class 1 practise?
For a veteran poster who spots trolls I expected more reading/understanding skills.

 

[red_flanders]

"After the AC positive, there was a small window where riders may have thought twice before doping big time again. Now Horner showed every young rider their only chance is to cheat again. Basically he destroyed a whole promising young generation. He single-handedly closed the window."

It's funny that you attribute this re-engagement of the arms to Horner, in the most recent GT. I attribute it to Wiggins, Porte and Froome in particular, who were and are so clearly juiced long before Horner's Vuelta.

That you focus on Horner is mystifying. You have 2 years of exactly the same staring you in the face before his Vuelta performance this year. To me, Horner is the reaction to Sky.

 

[Escarabajo]

Horner doping is a reaction of retiring with no money having had some talent. Now that sucks!

 

[spalco]

Horner doping is a reaction of retiring with no money having had some talent. Now that sucks!

At least if he retires now he'll (probably) get to keep his one really big trophy.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Horner doping is a reaction of retiring with no money having had some talent. Now that sucks!

Maybe, but I'm open to the possibility of Radioshack asking Horner to stay in US and prepare for a winning performance.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

It's funny that you attribute this re-engagement of the arms to Horner, in the most recent GT. I attribute it to Wiggins, Porte and Froome in particular, who were and are so clearly juiced long before Horner's Vuelta.

That you focus on Horner is mystifying. You have 2 years of exactly the same staring you in the face before his Vuelta performance this year. To me, Horner is the reaction to Sky.

But (if the riders you mentioned started a new arms race) what has that to do with Sky? Wiggins was 3rd/4th-TdF with GAR, Porte 7th-Giro with SAX. Can´t blame Sky for that.
Froome is explainable given his age and career path. Horner isn´t explainable at all.


Hint for The"Hitch": Am not saying those now-Sky riders are 100% clean, but they do not raise a red flag to me as Horner. Not even orange...

 

[Netserk]

Wiggo was more with BC (=Sky) than with Garmin in 2009.

Porte has only been mutant level at Sky.

 

[the sceptic]

But (if the riders you mentioned started a new arms race) what has that to do with Sky? Wiggins was 3rd/4th-TdF with GAR, Porte 7th-Giro with SAX. Can´t blame Sky for that.
Froome is explainable given his age and career path. Horner isn´t explainable at all.


Hint for The"Hitch": Am not saying those now-Sky riders are 100% clean, but they do not raise a red flag to me as Horner. Not even orange...

Last time I checked, 3rd and 7th wasnt the same as dominating every stage race and winning the tour easily in back to back years.

Are you really this dumb? (note that this is a question)

 

[bobbins]

Wiggo was more with BC (=Sky) than with Garmin in 2009.

No he wasn't, he was mainly looking after himself with some help from BC but not as much as you would think.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

Horner because he is old and stupid... Just kidding. He beat Nibali, thats why he gets my vote

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Porte has only been mutant level at Sky.

If you say mutant level reached at Sky (I see a gradual process), that can be said for any rider at any team who reaches his peak.

 

[The Hitch]

OTOH things are clearer for me now. The way you understand my posts is the way your posts should be understood:

Exactly.

I read posts the way they are written. If someone writes that a rider broke a record I understand that to mean a rider has broken a record. Similarly I won't write that a rider has broken a record unless I feel I can defend that comment with either arguments or evidence.

Of course sometimes people speak hyperbolically or for effect. but in these cases they will clarify that in their second or third posts. Not 25 posts later after they realize they have lost the discussion, suddenly say "oh didn't you know I wasn't being serious".

Sorry for being old fashioned like that. Writing something totally different to what you actually mean, and attacking people as demented, stupid liars etc when they ask for clarification, that seems so much more fun.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Last time I checked, 3rd and 7th wasnt the same as dominating every stage race and winning the tour easily in back to back years.

Are you really this dumb? (note that this is a question)

You don´t have to use "TheHitch" as a shield to ask a rhetorical offending question. Anyway, I like it, because now I can be offending to you too. I always thought you might be an idiot. Now I know it:
None of the riders you mentioned dominated every stage race and/or won the TdF back to back.

 

[Netserk]

If you say mutant level reached at Sky (I see a gradual process), that can be said for any rider at any team who reaches his peak.

So you are blind as ****?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Exactly.

I read posts the way they are written. If someone writes that a rider broke a record I understand that to mean a rider has broken a record. Similarly I won't write that a rider has broken a record unless I feel I can defend that comment with either arguments or evidence.

Of course sometimes people speak hyperbolically or for effect. but in these cases they will clarify that in their second or third posts. Not 25 posts later after they realize they have lost the discussion, suddenly say "oh didn't you know I wasn't being serious".

Sorry for being old fashioned like that. Writing something totally different to what you actually mean, and attacking people as demented, stupid liars etc when they ask for clarification, that seems so much more fun.

Liar... You read posts they way that they fit your assumptions
Liar... You accuse riders of doping, yet you don´t back it up as you just said you do
Liar... I didn´t say this (the bolded)
Liar... I didn´t say stupid liar. Simply told the truth (you being a liar)
Liar... I did not attack anyone calling people as demented (it was "Big Doopie" who called you, only you)
Liar... I didn´t wrote something totally different than what i meant (check Wallace´posts for clarification, may you understand his english better than mine)

 

[The Hitch]

So you are blind as ****?

In that case, I see gradual progress with Horner.

2006 TDF - 33rd
2007 TDF - 14th
2010 TDF- 9th
2013 Vuelta - 1st.

 

[the sceptic]

You don´t have to use "TheHitch" as a shield to ask a rhetorical offending question. Anyway, I like it, because now I can be offending to you too. I always thought you might be an idiot. Now I know it:
None of the riders you mentioned dominated every stage race and/or won the TdF back to back.

Yes, but sky dominated the sport for about 2 years winning everything that mattered easily, thus starting a new arms race. Horner is just a victim of skys doping. Maybe if everyone was still clean like in 2010, he could have won the vuelta clean as well.