- Sep 29, 2012
This makes no sense.wrinklyvet said:Actually I do understand why you should think that.
Just a friendly hint: you have no authority over me. Telling me what to do won't work here. If you can't explain why you think the UCI is perfectly above board and unimpeachable, despite their inconsistencies, beyond, "THe UCI said it so it must be true", then yes, I will ask for clarification.wrinklyvet said:I have answered your various turns in the argument since this original post. it is never going to satisfy you. Now give it a rest.
And I do sincerely apologise for coming across as bewildered that you are so easily accepting of what you are told by people who are anything but transparent in their dealings.
You're projecting, which is fine.wrinklyvet said:Finished now, no more to say. If you have more to say on this don't expect a response. Call it a stunning triumph if you like to think that's the situation.
If you truly believe that the UCI would never lie, that people like Zorzolli remaining there, with Saugy still in charge of the primary testing facility at Lausanne is all fine and dandy, that Makarov and his machinations behind the scenes during the election are all perfectly legitimate because "The UCI say it is", the head of the ethics committee being removed against the UCI's own rules, the single member TUE committee ok'ing Froome's TUE despite assurances they would reimplement an actual committee, then I truly, sincerely would like to see the critical thinking process that leads you to that conclusion. The steps. The logic.
Perhaps Parker or PMCG76 (no offense your username eludes me momentarily) can break it down for me.
But if you can't be bothered, and prefer to deflect onto "what DW thinks the UCI should do", etc. Fine.