Contador and Froome: Clean or Dirty?

[Von Mises]

Not really, when we know who he rode for, who he rides for now and how good anti doping is.

You are believer and have answers to everything. I dont. For instance I do not know how good anti doping is, for isntance I do not know what does it mean that Contadir ides for Riis.

 

[Ferminal]

There's no proof that either are dirties.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Missing the point is par for the course.

What point? What is the point of a poll that only gives comfort to the biased sample consciously determined to get the results they want?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Unless you're interested in the views of the people who post here. It's not meant to be scientific. Certainly one cannot extrapolate the findings past this group. Those responding are a selected group.

While we're at it, the sample is self-selecting even within this group.

One could easily argue this group as a whole is also vastly more informed about cycling and doping than just about any group of fans. You call it cynical, I call it informed. For the most part.

The cynical views of most of the people who post in the Clinic are as predictable as the sun rising in the east. The responders for the most part are simply people who are seeking a foregone conclusion to make them feel good about their biased, distorted and unsubstantiated speculations.

The suggestion this group of cynics is "more vastly informed" is as absurd as the poll itself.

Most commentators in the Clinic are anonymous posters who do not have the guts to publicly declare their identity and thus their biases, in order to hide behind their anonymity to post outrageous and nonsensical speculation about doping as though the number of their posts give them some degree of credibility. It is like the politician who says, "I want to be your leader but I don't want you to know who I am because that way you can't evaluate who I am and evaluate my thoughts and beliefs objectively."

 

[The Hitch]

Thank you Dr Phil.

 

[Clausfarre]

The cynical views of most of the people who post in the Clinic are as predictable as the sun rising in the east. The responders for the most part are simply people who are seeking a foregone conclusion to make them feel good about their biased, distorted and unsubstantiated speculations.

The suggestion this group of cynics is "more vastly informed" is as absurd as the poll itself.

Most commentators in the Clinic are anonymous posters who do not have the guts to publicly declare their identity and thus their biases, in order to hide behind their anonymity to post outrageous and nonsensical speculation about doping as though the number of their posts give them some degree of credibility. It is like the politician who says, "I want to be your leader but I don't want you to know who I am because that way you can't evaluate who I am and evaluate my thoughts and beliefs objectively."

This is just laughable. Biased and unsubstantiated? Where have you been the last 25 years??? Most if not all suspicions have been proven absolutely correct and the circumstantial evidence surrounding the riders of today point in the very same direction.

And what possible use could the identity of people posting have on anything relating to doping? I assume most people are fans or maybe even amateur riders. So anonymous says "I suspect Pozzovivo is doping" vs. Benny Smith, Main Road 45, Essex says "I suspect Pozzovivo is doping" - the claim is the same. Is your point that I or others would not dare say that in real life? That is utterly absurd as that is the exact conversations I have in real life with real people as I assume is the case with everyone else. There is nothing controversial - nothing - about suggesting doping is widespread in cycling. Dare I say it is a fact along the lines of sun be hot, grass be green....? Come on.. Tirade fail.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

This is just laughable. Biased and unsubstantiated? Where have you been the last 25 years??? Most if not all suspicions have been proven absolutely correct and the circumstantial evidence surrounding the riders of today point in the very same direction.

And what possible use could the identity of people posting have on anything relating to doping? I assume most people are fans or maybe even amateur riders. So anonymous says "I suspect Pozzovivo is doping" vs. Benny Smith, Main Road 45, Essex says "I suspect Pozzovivo is doping" - the claim is the same. Is your point that I or others would not dare say that in real life? That is utterly absurd as that is the exact conversations I have in real life with real people as I assume is the case with everyone else. There is nothing controversial - nothing - about suggesting doping is widespread in cycling. Dare I say it is a fact along the lines of sun be hot, grass be green....? Come on.. Tirade fail.

Give me a break. You are a legend in your own mind only.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Thank you Dr Phil.

You are welcome. Its Dr. Robbie by the way. I will do anything for an unknown self proclaimed journalist with integrity.

 

[The Hitch]

Surely there's a point in Robbies offensive interent psychoanalysis where he claims to know the inner motivations of everyone on the forum that it begins to seriously cross the rules.

 

[The Hitch]

Its Dr. Robbie to an unknown self proclaimed journalist with integrity.

"Self proclaimed journalist".

Where have I ever claimed to be a journalist?

Mods, please ban this troll. He was already warned to stop his personal jihad against me a few days ago.

 

[Afrank]

Robbie, either respond directly to a persons post or don't respond at all. And please stop with the personal attacks (I consider both the the post Hitch quoted above and what you said about posters and their identity's as this).

And I say again, posters identity's in real life should have absolutely no influence on what they say in the clinic or reduce the validity of the points they make, this isn't a court of law, it's an internet forum. It's a mystery to me why you keep bringing it up. And this is all I will say on this matter in this thread. Also, If you want to go yell and shout about what a terrible mod I am, do it in the mod thread.

Now back to the topic of Froome and Contador, clean or dirty?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Robbie, either respond directly to a persons post or don't respond at all. And please stop with the personal attacks (I consider both the the post Hitch quoted above and what you said about posters and their identity's as this).

And I say again, posters identity's in real life should have absolutely no influence on what they say in the clinic or reduce the validity of the points they make, this isn't a court of law, it's an internet forum. It's a mystery to me why you keep bringing it up. And this is all I will say on this matter in this thread. Also, If you want to go yell and shout about what a terrible mod I am, do it in the mod thread.

Now back to the topic of Froome and Contador, clean or dirty?

Come on. Get professional. People who hide behind anonymity really have no credibility and I can't help you if you don't get that truism in life. There is no difference between anonymity and omerta and if the Clinic is incapable of handing legitimate criticism for one of the root causes of the lack of quality in the Clinic so be it.

Contador and Froome both clean, but that is only what I heard from some other poster, who has more than 2,000 posts, and Brailsford and Riis said so, and I agree is sheer speculation and conjecture on my part, without any cogent reasons for saying so. But because I have said it, it must be true, therefore we can close this thread now.

There - does that meet your "standards" for posting in the Clinic?

 

[Afrank]

Come on. Get professional. People who hide behind anonymity really have no credibility and I can't help you if you don't get that truism in life. There is no difference between anonymity and omerta and if the Clinic is incapable of handing legitimate criticism for one of the root causes of the lack of quality in the Clinic so be it.

I shouldn't even respond, so I'm just going to say this one thing and let that be the end of it for my part.

That doesn't apply in any way when it comes to an internet forum IMO. Let's take one of the forums best posters, Libertine Seguros. One of the if not the most knowledgeable, calm, articulate, and fair-minded posters on the forum (I don't think there's many who would disagree with me on that). I have no idea who LS really is in real life, so by your logic LS has no credibility on anything.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Come on. Get professional. People who hide behind anonymity really have no credibility and I can't help you if you don't get that truism in life. There is no difference between anonymity and omerta and if the Clinic is incapable of handing legitimate criticism for one of the root causes of the lack of quality in the Clinic so be it.

So your name is Robbie Canuck?

Ever heard of a nom de plume?

Your position in this regard is untenable and naive.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

So your name is Robbie Canuck?

Ever heard of a nom de plume?

Your position in this regard is untenable and naive.

People who post anonymously and hide behind that anonymity to say outrageous, unsupported and speculative things are suspect. That is reality. It is omerta. It is intellectual cowardice. You simply cannot grasp this fundamental truism.

Nom de plumes were used by authors for copyright reasons and not to hide their true identity. Ever hear of Mark Twain?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

People who post anonymously and hide behind that anonymity to say outrageous, unsupported and speculative things are suspect.

About the only person saying outrageous, unsupoprted and speculative things is you. Congrats.

That is reality. It is omerta. It is intellectual cowardice. You simply cannot grasp this fundamental truism.

You are a coward, I can grasp that much. You are the quintessential keyboard warrior. Congrats.

Nom de plumes were used by authors for copyright reasons and not to hide their true identity. Ever hear of Mark Twain?

What an absolute load of codswollop. That's some virtual reality bubble you got going there, hypocrite.

 

[Andynonomous]

So, the guy who claims

- the Canadian Curling team is clean (in spite of the fact that one of the team members tested positive for PEDS),

- the NHL players are clean, despite the fact that it has one of the weakest testing regimes in pro sport,

- that convicted doping cheat Alberto Contador would win anyway, even if everyone was clean,

- that we should ignore convicted doping cheat Contador's conviction because the level of clen wasn't high enough to be performance enhancing, even though it almost certainly came from an illegal blood transfusion, and was likely at a much higher density when the blood was extracted,

- we should ignore all of the other circumstantial evidence against convicted doping cheat Contador.


accuses those of us who see the clear patterns in pro sports, of

- weak testing regimes in most sports,
- athletes being ahead of the curve against testers,
- coming to the conclusion that for each doper caught many more are not, therefore "speculating" that most of the top PERFORMERS are probably using PERFORMANCE enhancing drugs


is accusing us of reckless speculation ?

The question is "why are you here ?".

 

[RobbieCanuck]

About the only person saying outrageous, unsupoprted and speculative things is you. Congrats.



You are a coward, I can grasp that much. You are the quintessential keyboard warrior. Congrats.



What an absolute load of codswollop. That's some virtual reality bubble you got going there, hypocrite.

You have now descended to the standard common denominator of a bottom dwelling Clinic poster. Instead of arguing my point about anonymity, you resort to name calling. That's really brave of you. You really don't understand transparency. The real cowards are the anonymous posters who are afraid to identify themselves to avoid critical scrutiny.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You have now descended to the standard common denominator of a bottom dwelling Clinic poster. Instead of arguing my point about anonymity, you resort to name calling. That's really brave of you. You really don't understand transparency. The real cowards are the anonymous posters who are afraid to identify themselves to avoid critical scrutiny.

You are posting anonymously. Apparently this is a hypocritical truism you cannot grasp.
Calling you a coward is not name calling.

 

[stutue]

It is an anonymous internet forum where people are allowed to libel anybody they like.

There is no getting away from that.

Not saying its wrong, but it is what it is.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Contador never got convicted for doping, just saying, Andynonomous.

 

[ebandit]

busted

alberto...............busted! da dawg.................getting away with it ...for now

no-one is innocent there are only different levels of guilt

i prefer to use my true name others others may not...neither is right or wrong

all are equally entitled tp express their opinion

Mark L

 

[Andynonomous]

Contador never got convicted for doping, just saying, Andynonomous.

He got caught and sanctioned (after a long appeals process) with an illegal performance enhancing drug in his system. So ya, Contador is a convicted doping cheat.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Contador never got convicted for doping, just saying, Andynonomous.

Really??????

 

[hrotha]

Contador is a convicted doping cheat, but in this particular case "convicted" and "doping cheat" are separate. He's a doping cheat who, on top of that, happens to have been convicted for something else on paper. Emphasis on "on paper" - we all know what was behind his clen positive.