Dumoulin.

[Netserk]

Huh? The context is this quote from you:

I'm curious, as there are white knights jumping to Tom D's defense, but does anyone posting actually think he's clean? Now would be the time to show your *** for posterity.

I believe he is clean. In fact I believe all are clean meanwhile they arent caught in positive tests. I think its the way you should watch cycling. If you prefer to watch it thinking that all are cheating, then you have a problem.

What I'm saying is that just because one does not think of the riders as cheaters, and one refuses to assume anyone is doping, you do not have to assume (or believe) that they are clean; it's perfectly possible to label riders with neither the dirty nor the clean label.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Sorry, Im a bit lazy, you know, spaniards... Could you find me in that page a proof that, for example, Dumoulin is doping in the Giro? Or Quintana? But a true proof, not just suppositions.

Show me where the testing works, that the anti-doping agencies or UCI care about stopping doping. There's the truth.

Show where the culture to dope ended. There's the truth.

Show me where those in the sport who profited from cheating/doping have been cast out and ostracised. There's the truth.

We can go on......

LOL, LOL and LOL
All suppositions, never proofs. This is what this clinic forums are made of.
Where the testing works? Ask the 2 italians guys driven out of the race.
Where the culture to dope ended? I dont know, but the sport now is WAY cleaner than before.
Where those in the sport who profited from doping have been cast out? Ask Armstrong, Contador or Valverde, for example.

Bardiani are such a big team successful winning team.

Prove the sport is cleaner or we will shout SUPPOSITION back at you :lol:

Armstrong never tested positive. Marion Jones never tested positive.

Armstrong still a very rich man. Contador, Valverde all rich men who have profited.

David Millar drives a maserati, not bad for a doper who did not win much.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

You seem to believe we can't enjoy the sport while believing most of them dope. If that's the case, you're mistaken.

What I dont get is why do you believe in something without proofs? Why do you believe they dope without proofs?

The clinic is full of proofs.

Doping DS

Doping doctors

Doping soigneurs

Doping teams

Doping history

Lack of interesting in catching doping by UCI.

Police forces are the biggest threat to doping.

No one talks about doping.

Riders ride as fast as the unbridled EPO era.

Rider transformations.

Can only test for a small amount of EPO variations. Over 100 variations out there. ABP to easy to beat. See Chris Horner. Armstrong's return.

And we can go on and on and on and on.

 

[Fernandez]

Re:

Huh? The context is this quote from you:

I'm curious, as there are white knights jumping to Tom D's defense, but does anyone posting actually think he's clean? Now would be the time to show your *** for posterity.

I believe he is clean. In fact I believe all are clean meanwhile they arent caught in positive tests. I think its the way you should watch cycling. If you prefer to watch it thinking that all are cheating, then you have a problem.

What I'm saying is that just because one does not think of the riders as cheaters, and one refuses to assume anyone is doping, you do not have to assume (or believe) that they are clean; it's perfectly possible to label riders with neither the dirty nor the clean label.

You can think whatever you want. And there are very suspects performances. But meanwhile they dont fail a test they are clean. Of course theres doping in cycling, and there allways will be, but the same in others sports; and in life. Human being is so.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Huh? The context is this quote from you:

I'm curious, as there are white knights jumping to Tom D's defense, but does anyone posting actually think he's clean? Now would be the time to show your *** for posterity.

I believe he is clean. In fact I believe all are clean meanwhile they arent caught in positive tests. I think its the way you should watch cycling. If you prefer to watch it thinking that all are cheating, then you have a problem.

What I'm saying is that just because one does not think of the riders as cheaters, and one refuses to assume anyone is doping, you do not have to assume (or believe) that they are clean; it's perfectly possible to label riders with neither the dirty nor the clean label.

You can think whatever you want. And there are very suspects performances. But meanwhile they dont fail a test they are clean. Of course theres doping in cycling, and there allways will be, but the same in others sports; and in life. Human being is so.

Not true.

 

[Fernandez]

Re: Re:

Sorry, Im a bit lazy, you know, spaniards... Could you find me in that page a proof that, for example, Dumoulin is doping in the Giro? Or Quintana? But a true proof, not just suppositions.

Show me where the testing works, that the anti-doping agencies or UCI care about stopping doping. There's the truth.

Show where the culture to dope ended. There's the truth.

Show me where those in the sport who profited from cheating/doping have been cast out and ostracised. There's the truth.

We can go on......

LOL, LOL and LOL
All suppositions, never proofs. This is what this clinic forums are made of.
Where the testing works? Ask the 2 italians guys driven out of the race.
Where the culture to dope ended? I dont know, but the sport now is WAY cleaner than before.
Where those in the sport who profited from doping have been cast out? Ask Armstrong, Contador or Valverde, for example.

Bardiani are such a big team successful winning team.

Prove the sport is cleaner or we will shout SUPPOSITION back at you :lol:

Armstrong never tested positive. Marion Jones never tested positive.

Armstrong still a very rich man. Contador, Valverde all rich men who have profited.

David Millar drives a maserati, not bad for a doper who did not win much.

Dont think your problem is doping but envy

 

[Fernandez]

Re: Re:

You seem to believe we can't enjoy the sport while believing most of them dope. If that's the case, you're mistaken.

What I dont get is why do you believe in something without proofs? Why do you believe they dope without proofs?

The clinic is full of proofs.

Doping DS

Doping doctors

Doping soigneurs

Doping teams

Doping history

Lack of interesting in catching doping by UCI.

Police forces are the biggest threat to doping.

No one talks about doping.

Riders ride as fast as the unbridled EPO era.

Rider transformations.

Can only test for a small amount of EPO variations. Over 100 variations out there. ABP to easy to beat. See Chris Horner. Armstrong's return.

And we can go on and on and on and on.

Show me a proof Dumoulin is doping

 

[Fernandez]

Re: Re:

Huh? The context is this quote from you:

I'm curious, as there are white knights jumping to Tom D's defense, but does anyone posting actually think he's clean? Now would be the time to show your *** for posterity.

I believe he is clean. In fact I believe all are clean meanwhile they arent caught in positive tests. I think its the way you should watch cycling. If you prefer to watch it thinking that all are cheating, then you have a problem.

What I'm saying is that just because one does not think of the riders as cheaters, and one refuses to assume anyone is doping, you do not have to assume (or believe) that they are clean; it's perfectly possible to label riders with neither the dirty nor the clean label.

You can think whatever you want. And there are very suspects performances. But meanwhile they dont fail a test they are clean. Of course theres doping in cycling, and there allways will be, but the same in others sports; and in life. Human being is so.

Not true.

It is (in legal terms)

 

[spalco]

Re: Re:

It is (in legal terms)

Of course.

But that's not what you're arguing here. The Clinic is not a court of law.

 

[Fernandez]

Re: Re:

It is (in legal terms)

Of course.

But that's not what you're arguing here. The Clinic is not a court of law.

Of course not, but people speaks like they are charged with proofs when all they have are suspicions. Check out the comments, they dont have even an 1% of doubt.

 

[spalco]

That's a strawman. Nobody here wants athletes banned without proof, not even the most dubious ones (and there are some really *** dubious ones still in the peloton).

I don't know how long you've been participating in this forum, but there have been very technical discussions, both on the legal and scientific side.
But this doesn't have anything to do with due process.

I don't mean to speak for this forum, but imo its purpose is deliberately for talking about suspicions and also for venting.

edit: but yeah, there's certainly <1% chance for some riders to be clean.

 

[SeriousSam]

Fernandez,

the presumption of innocence, what is and isn't admissible evidence, the required standards of proof and so on all stem from the fact that courts have the power to convict and, therefore seriously jeopardise lives. Because convicting the innocent is deemed much worse than failing to convict the guilty, the cards are stacked against convictions.

Lacking the power to convict, or in this case, suspend, we are free to believe whatever is most likely, and we don't have to eliminate legally inadmissible evidence from our consideration (eg, that other athletes doping makes it more likely some given athlete competitive with them is doping as well).

There are good reasons to presume guilt, not innocence, when it comes to doping in professional sports. This is because the incentives to dope are strong and the ability to detect dopers is weak.

 

[topt]

Re: Re:

Sorry, Im a bit lazy, you know, spaniards... Could you find me in that page a proof that, for example, Dumoulin is doping in the Giro? Or Quintana? But a true proof, not just suppositions.

Show me where the testing works, that the anti-doping agencies or UCI care about stopping doping. There's the truth.

Show where the culture to dope ended. There's the truth.

Show me where those in the sport who profited from cheating/doping have been cast out and ostracised. There's the truth.

We can go on......

LOL, LOL and LOL
All suppositions, never proofs. This is what this clinic forums are made of.
Where the testing works? Ask the 2 italians guys driven out of the race.
Where the culture to dope ended? I dont know, but the sport now is WAY cleaner than before.
Where those in the sport who profited from doping have been cast out? Ask Armstrong, Contador or Valverde, for example.

based on Dumoulins time yesterday, not really

 

[Fernandez]

Whatever people, lets continue beating everyone who performs. Its up to you.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Whatever people, lets continue beating everyone who performs. Its up to you.

Discussion on a forum is not beating people up.

But then your posts dont seem to want engage in discussion.

 

[topt]

if you dont see a problem with his Oropa time we cant help you

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

What I'm saying is that just because one does not think of the riders as cheaters, and one refuses to assume anyone is doping, you do not have to assume (or believe) that they are clean; it's perfectly possible to label riders with neither the dirty nor the clean label.

You can think whatever you want. And there are very suspects performances. But meanwhile they dont fail a test they are clean. Of course theres doping in cycling, and there allways will be, but the same in others sports; and in life. Human being is so.

Not true.[/quote]
It is (in legal terms)[/quote]

Plenty of athletes have not failed tests and got banned. Armstrong, Valverde, Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi, Hincapie, etc.....

Why would a team hire a rider who would not be prepared to do whatever is required to help the team win?

When so much is at stake for teams, why hire the guy who goes against the culture and might upset the apple cart?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

It is (in legal terms)

Plenty of athletes have not failed tests and got banned. Armstrong, Valverde, Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi, Hincapie, etc.....

Why would a team hire a rider who would not be prepared to do whatever is required to help the team win?

When so much is at stake for teams, why hire the guy who goes against the culture and might upset the apple cart?

 

[Fernandez]

Re: Re:

Whatever people, lets continue beating everyone who performs. Its up to you.

Discussion on a forum is not beating people up.

But then your posts dont seem to want engage in discussion.

You beat always anyone who performs in any race.
And I think my point is clear. Of course there are dopers but you cant be all the time suspecting performances, and less without any proof.

 

[Fernandez]

Re: Re:

It is (in legal terms)

Plenty of athletes have not failed tests and got banned. Armstrong, Valverde, Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi, Hincapie, etc.....

Why would a team hire a rider who would not be prepared to do whatever is required to help the team win?

When so much is at stake for teams, why hire the guy who goes against the culture and might upset the apple cart?

Those are just your thoughts

 

[Rollthedice]

Dumoulin last year:
"Until now I've been losing a little bit of weight and it's not been affecting my power. At some time it is going to affect me but we can only try. Maybe next will be disappointing because we try too hard but you only know your limits when you reach them. It's all about trying to go further in the next couple of years.

"Bradley Wiggins has proved that it's possible to be a time triallist, and that with losing weight you can become a Grand Tour winner. I'm definitely looking at examples like him."

What reason would Dumo have to tell the press he's 70-71 kilos now? He was 70 in Vuelta 2015, he looks thinner now, no?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

It is (in legal terms)

Plenty of athletes have not failed tests and got banned. Armstrong, Valverde, Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi, Hincapie, etc.....

Why would a team hire a rider who would not be prepared to do whatever is required to help the team win?

When so much is at stake for teams, why hire the guy who goes against the culture and might upset the apple cart?

Those are just your thoughts

No, it is true plenty of athletes have not failed tests and got banned. Armstrong, Valverde, Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi, Hincapie, etc..

 

[Fernandez]

Re: Re:

It is (in legal terms)

Plenty of athletes have not failed tests and got banned. Armstrong, Valverde, Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi, Hincapie, etc.....

Why would a team hire a rider who would not be prepared to do whatever is required to help the team win?

When so much is at stake for teams, why hire the guy who goes against the culture and might upset the apple cart?

Those are just your thoughts

No, it is true plenty of athletes have not failed tests and got banned. Armstrong, Valverde, Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi, Hincapie, etc..

Those cyclists were banned with proofs, thats how it works.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

It is (in legal terms)

Plenty of athletes have not failed tests and got banned. Armstrong, Valverde, Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi, Hincapie, etc.....

Why would a team hire a rider who would not be prepared to do whatever is required to help the team win?

When so much is at stake for teams, why hire the guy who goes against the culture and might upset the apple cart?

Those are just your thoughts

No, it is true plenty of athletes have not failed tests and got banned. Armstrong, Valverde, Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi, Hincapie, etc..

Those cyclists were banned with proofs, thats how it works.

Armstrong was banned because others said he was a doper. Same as in here.

There are plenty who post in here who have experience and know what is possible to do naturally on a bike.

Again as has been pointed out. The clinic is not an anti-doping agency. But posters make reasoned decisions based on what is known, seen, understood plus taking into considerations of those whose police the sport, those who run the teams in the sport, the doctors hired by the teams, the statements made by those in the sport. It is not too difficult for those that want to see the truth what has changed in the sport and what has not.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

It is (in legal terms)

Plenty of athletes have not failed tests and got banned. Armstrong, Valverde, Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi, Hincapie, etc.....

Why would a team hire a rider who would not be prepared to do whatever is required to help the team win?

When so much is at stake for teams, why hire the guy who goes against the culture and might upset the apple cart?

Those are just your thoughts

No, it is true plenty of athletes have not failed tests and got banned. Armstrong, Valverde, Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi, Hincapie, etc..

Those cyclists were banned with proofs, thats how it works.

Armstrong was banned because others said he was a doper. Same as in here.

There are plenty who post in here who have experience and know what is possible to do naturally on a bike.

Again as has been pointed out. The clinic is not an anti-doping agency. But posters make reasoned decisions based on what is known, seen, understood plus taking into considerations of those whose police the sport, those who run the teams in the sport, the doctors hired by the teams, the statements made by those in the sport. It is not too difficult for those that want to see the truth what has changed in the sport and what has not.

Good post Benotti, I'll agree with everything you said here.